1960-04-29

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether he has any comment to make on the report which has just been received from Washington that the house appropriations committee of the United States congress has now recommended the termination of the Bomarc missile program and also its replacement in part at least by the purchase of more interceptor fighters.


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I understand that the appropriations committee of the United States senate reported today that they were recommending that the Bomarc B production be eliminated, that a small development program be continued, and that the funds be used for the purchase of more F-106 interceptor aircraft. This is a recommendation, of course, by the appropriations committee which has yet to receive the approval of the senate and the administration. If this recommendation is approved and made final then it will not be in keeping with the arrangements which were made over a year ago between our two countries for the air defence of this continent.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary or at least a related question. Would the minister comment on the statement he is reported to have made in Victoria last week that-and I quote from the press statement-
-we will have to have interceptors to engage bombers at greater distances. There will have to be longer range interceptors than we have at present-and longer than the range of the Bomarc.


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was alluding then to the weapon which is known as the Skybolt, namely an air to ground weapon which can be guided from an aircraft for some considerable distance, perhaps a distance of 1,000 miles or more. I said that if such a weapon were produced-the Skybolt cannot be produced until 1965, but if Russia or any other country produced such a weapon
-in order to engage it our defences would have to have a ground to air missile or interceptor with a longer range than any we have at the present time. If I am quoted as saying "we" that, of course, means that I was referring to the west, not necessarily to Canada.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. I wonder if the minister would comment on a statement made by a member of the subcommittee on defence appropriations in the United States, who said that the only reason for not terminating the entire Bomarc program earlier was political implications in Canada.


George Randolph Pearkes: I should think that is quite an inaccurate statement. As the hon. member knows, Canada entered into an arrangement with the United States to take certain measures for the defence of the North American continent. We have co-operated with the United States in fulfilment of that agreement, carrying out step by step the various points which were agreed upon at that time. Bomarc sites were part of that agreement. We were to establish two Bomarc sites, one at North Bay and one at La Macaza. We have been proceeding with the selection and surveying of those sites and the necessary planning and engineering which is required. Major construction has not yet started, but we are in a position to start such construction if the plan is to continue. However, I know of no political implications which would justify a congressman or a senator in the United States in making a statement such as that which has been attributed to him.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister a supplementary question. Has he any comment to make on the statement of the same congressman, "I would rather be a congressman from Cuba this week than secretary of defence in Canada"?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think we are getting rather far afield here in asking the Minister of National Defence to comment on the views of a congressman. After all, that is not part of his ministerial responsibility. Unless there is a question of fact involved I would suggest that the matter be dropped.

Inquiries of the Ministry IMMIGRATION



INQUIRY AS TO REVISION OF POLICY AND PROCEDURES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I do not ask the question with any intention of embarrassing her. In view of the statement in this house on February 17, 1955 by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker), as follows:
What a travesty of justice it is that the immigration department should refuse a person admission to Canada and refuse to let the individual know their reasons for making a decision-
And in view of a similar position taken by the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton), on August 8, 1956 in this house, will the minister inform the house whether she is giving consideration to a revision of immigration policy and procedures in order to conform to the views expressed by her distinguished colleagues?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I allowed the hon. member to continue with his question although it seemed to me as he went along that he was really making an argument rather than putting a question. Then he finished with a request for information on a rather broad matter of policy. I do not think that is the type of question the hon. member should be asking on the orders of the day.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I was basing my question on a newspaper comment. That is very common practice in seeking information.


Mr. Speaker:: It was not the source of the question but the substance of what the hon. member said that I was referring to.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gale):: May I ask the hon. lady a question. Has the government yet reached a decision as to whether the amendments to the Immigration	Act	that	we	were promised	twosessions session?	ago	will	be	introduced at	thisHon.	Ellen	L.	Fairclough (Minister	of
Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I have to say no to that question. I had hoped, as the hon. member knows and as other hon. members know, to have brought in those amendments before now, but no one knows better than the hon. member just how complex are the problems which must be faced. I am sorry to say we have not yet reached a definite conclusion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a supplementary question. Does the hon. lady think the problem less urgent now than in 1958?


Mrs. Fairclough:: No, Mr. Speaker; I think it is urgent.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister or Justice):: Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) asked a question based upon a New York Times report of a speech made by General Burns in the ten nation disarmament committee. The Leader of the Opposition will understand why, because of the confidential nature of the negotiations, it is not possible to give a detailed reply. However, I might say that the wording of his question suggests that he understood from the new York Times account of General Burns' statement that some new proposal had been put forward.
This was not the case. General Burns was simply reverting to a point of considerable importance which has been a continuing source of difficulty between the two sides in these negotiations since the very beginning that is, the question of whether international security machinery will be required to maintain peace in the world when the final stages of disarmament have been completed.
The western side has consistently maintained that some machinery-which has been frequently described in the press as an "international police force"-would be required; the Soviet side has argued that there would be no need for machinery of this sort. This is one of several important unresolved difficulties which have impeded progress in the opening stages of the negotiations.


URANIUM
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe
Opposiiion): In the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce perhaps I might ask the Acting Prime Minister, although I know he is preoccupied with other matters today, whether the government has any comment to make on the likelihood of increased competition to the Canadian uranium industry from Australia due to new government plans for financial assistance to the industry in that country, either through subsidies or stockpiling?
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce will be

present at the next sitting of the house. I think it appropriate that the answer to this question be given to the house on his return.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister a question. At the same time he draws the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the question of the Leader of the Opposition, will he also ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce to expand and clarify his remarks made earlier this session with respect to the refusal of United States authorities to grant any extension of options to purchase Canadian uranium by commenting on the figures released yesterday showing that United States production of uranium has increased since that date?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I did observe that these figures appeared in an announcement yesterday, and I will be glad to bring the observation of the hon. member to the attention of my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. I apologize for not giving him notice, but I succumbed to the tearful entreaties of certain secretaries just prior to coming into the house and I am very subject to the influence of ladies in distress. Would the Acting Prime Minister assure the house that the secretaries attached to the House of Commons will receive the increases granted certain groups of civil servants, and that the same will be made retroactive?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to turn an attentive ear not only to the question of the hon. member but to the tearful entreaties of his secretary. In this we are like-minded. The salaries established for members of the staff of the House of Commons are, of course, a matter that comes within the jurisdiction of the commissioners of internal economy. Mr. Speaker has called a meeting of the commissioners to be held next week. I do not think I would be erring in the conjecture that this might be one of the subjects that would be brought before that meeting by
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Speaker. In any event, I indicated in reply to a question a fortnight ago that I fully anticipated it would be the wish of the commissioners to make effective, with respect to the stenographic staff of the House of Commons, increases comparable to those that have been applied to the stenographic and clerical services in the civil service.


Mr. Winch:: Will they be retroactive?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to correct a wrong impression that I believe the minister got from my question. This was not the complaint of an individual or of my secretary, but was a collective appeal.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether I might ask the minister a supplementary question. Is the minister one of the commissioners?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the minister is still one of the commissioners.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for St. Denis and the hon. member for Ottawa West asked me certain questions regarding post office practices in the handling of United States coinage. I now have some further information. The question of whether to charge discount on United States coinage is one that has been left to the discretion of our individual district directors in the 14 postal districts of Canada. We have followed this principle so that in this matter, as in many other fields, the local post office practice could conform to general business practice in the area.
Thus, where United States coinage was generally being accepted at par by local merchants and was also being handed out as change at par by them, we have followed this practice. Naturally, if any patron happened to request Canadian coinage or objected to United States coins, he would be given Canadian coinage. This has caused no hardship to patrons, since United States coins were generally in circulation at par. I might add that where we accept United States coins at par, as we generally do across Canada in our 11,500 post offices, unless we used them as change in accordance with normal business practices we would be in danger of becoming the repository of all the United States coins in the area, and thus bearing the total exchange costs with respect to this type of money for the entire community.

Inquiries of the Ministry
Following the action of the Canadian Bankers' Association in discounting coinage when it was included in deposits, in some areas business firms generally began to discount United States coins received from their customers, and in one district of which I know, the Winnipeg district, our post offices were instructed by the district director to follow a similar practice.
However, in accordance with our standard instructions in such cases, the post offices were also instructed in the same memorandum that United States coins were not to be handed out to patrons but deposited in the banks. This practice is always followed by us whenever United States coins are discounted, so there may be no suggestion that we are accepting the money at a discount and then passing it out at face value and profiting thereby.
After about two weeks, when the general business practice in the Winnipeg area reverted to the acceptance of United States coins at par, we followed the same practice and discontinued discounting United States coins when received. Of course this whole question refers to United States coins, which are only a tiny portion of our normal handling of cash.
The best indication I can give hon. members of that fact is in the case of Winnipeg where, during a short period when United States coins were being discounted, and they of course were all deposited in the bank, we received in the Winnipeg stamp depot postal funds totalling $330,421, and of this only $150.05, one twentieth of one per cent, or $1 in $2,200 was in U.S. coins.


George James McIlraith: I shall endeavour not to follow precedent and debate this subject but merely content myself with asking a question. My question is this. In view of the minister's explanation as a result of the question asked by my colleague the hon. member for St. Denis yesterday, how does he account for the fact that the earlier paragraph in the same directive to subpostmasters instructed them not to include United States coins in their deposits or remittances, presumably remittances to the main post offices, if they were of the same value and meant no loss to the public?


William McLean Hamilton: Let
me say first that I appreciate the practice followed by the hon. member for Ottawa West in asking a question and not debating the issue. I might point this out to the hon. member for St. Denis. The answer is quite simple, Mr. Speaker. As I pointed out, we are not desirous of becoming the repository for United States coins for the

entire community. Since they are out in very tiny proportion, as I also pointed out in my answer, of our total cash, our normal practice, where we are not discounting them, is to use them as change and not include them in our deposits.


George James McIlraith: I should like to ask a further supplementary question, if I may. Why does the circular make reference to the fact that they are at a discount, and then instruct the postmasters in the local areas not to remit them to the central office but to pass them off on the public?


William McLean Hamilton: Well, this is obvious, Mr. Speaker. We are, so far as I know-


George James McIlraith: You receive them.


William McLean Hamilton: So
far as I am concerned I like our people all down the line in the Post Office Department to be not only instructed what they are to do but to be given a reasonable explanation of why they are being asked to do it. In this particular case they were told that United States coins deposited in banks would be discounted. The post office people themselves were taking them in at par. They were instructed, therefore, whenever possible, not always but whenever possible, to pass them out at par as change.


George James McIlraith: Would the Postmaster General-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I remind the hon. member that the post office estimates are second on the agenda, and there can be a full discussion of the matter when those estimates are being considered. I think there has been a fuller discussion than is necessary on the orders of the day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the Minister of Finance whether United States coins are legal tender in Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: They are not legal tender, Mr. Speaker. Of course in this free country anyone who does accept them in lieu of legal tender is entitled to do so, but he cannot be obliged to accept them as legal tender.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the Minister without Portfolio whether he is in a position to make a

report on the proposed housing development in metropolitan St. John's, about which he made a public announcement some time ago?


Hon. W. J. Browne (Minister without Portfolio):: I think this question would be more properly directed to the Minister of Public Works.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I could ask the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Works whether he could enlighten us.


Mr. Y. R. Tasse (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works):: In view of the unavoidable absence of the minister, I should like to take the question as notice.



REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS ON BUILDING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: In the absence of the Minister of Public Works I wonder if I might ask a question of the Minister of Finance in his dual capacity as Minister of Finance and Acting Prime Minister. In view of the statements made in this house, in particular on February 4, by the former minister of public works to the effect that the construction of 146,000 homes in 1958 created
400,000	jobs, will the government, with housing starts down now nearly 50 per cent, consider increasing the moneys available for direct lending already approved by parliament?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member asked a similar question yesterday which was really pressing for action rather than asking for information. I think he should not repeat every day the same demand that he wishes to make.


John Richard Garland: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, may I say that we are rapidly approaching the peak-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not disputing what the hon. member says. The point is that this is not the proper place to continue what is in effect a debate on the housing situation.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Taylor (Vancouver-Burrard):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Did the minister hear the news broadcast over a Vancouver radio station on Wednesday, April 27, or have the statements been brought to his attention relating to an alleged physical beating by the R.C.M.P. of a Vancouver citizen? If so, can the minister say whether the police officer entered
Supp ly-A griculture
the restaurant in question, removed the complainant who apparently had committed no offence, and in the ensuing scuffle broke his ribs?


Edmund Davie Fulton: did not hear that news broadcast so I cannot comment on it, beyond saying that I have received no report of any such incident and that if such an incident had taken place I would expect an immediate report. Furthermore, if the incident as alleged did take place the person who claimed he was thus maltreated would have a proper and, I imagine, immediate recourse to law.
In these circumstances, and in the absence of any report, I am in a position where I think I must say that as far as I know no such incident ever took place.

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



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
I. Departmental administration, including advisory committee on agricultural services, $777,657.
Mr. Harkness:: When the estimates of the Department of Agriculture were introduced in March, I made an introductory statement outlining some of the activities of this department and giving a general survey. I do not propose to make another such speech at the present time, but there is one matter which has caused some considerable concern, and I think I should take this opportunity- it is really the first I have had-to clear it up.
The need for this statement arises from a Canadian Press dispatch under a Washington dateline which appeared in nearly all our Canadian newspapers. The particular clipping I have is from the Montreal Star of Tuesday, April 19. This dispatch states:
Opening of the St. Lawrence seaway has raised fears among some United States authorities that North American farm lands may be threatened with heavier invasion by foreign crop-damaging beetles, viruses, bugs and other pests and disease.
One of these experts, recalling the devastating foot-and-mouth disease outbreak among Saskatchewan cattle eight years ago, told a congressional subcommittee that the Canadian government still is not alive to the full dangers of the new threat posed by heavier foreign shipping on the great lakes.
In a report of subcommittee testimony published today, Donald Fletcher, executive secretary of the rust prevention association at Minneapolis, said the U.S. needs Canada's full co-operation in stepping up port inspection work to block foreign pests and disease.
"I am sure we will get it," he said talking of Canadian co-operation, "but they just do not understand the dangerous possibility yet."
The report goes on to quote Mr. Fletcher as saying further:
"Canada has the attitude that they are more interested in what is going out rather than what

Supply-Agriculture
is coming in. They are inspecting their ships for insects and diseases and have the proper sanitation of the grain going out. I have been at meetings attended by top quarantine people of Canada and their interest is definitely in the export trade. They fail to realize that they get some of these animal diseases and insect pests which may cause trouble to their producing areas."
I also have a clipping here of an editorial written on this subject. It is headed "Negligence in import inspection". Other editorials dealing with this question have been written.
I should like to assure the house that Mr. Fletcher is speaking, apparently, without being aware of the facts, and that there is no validity in the allegations he has made. I wish to outline what the actual situation is with regard to the prevention of disease and pests harmful to plant or animal life in Canada. We have in effect an extremely thorough inspection service to look after this matter, and I regret very much that a considerable number of people in Canada should have been perturbed and alarmed over this report which, as I say, has evidently been made without the gentleman concerned being aware of the facts.
The government, through the Department of Agriculture, has for many years been cognizant of the danger of introducing foreign animal and plant diseases and plant pests through foreign imports and foreign shipping. With respect to animal diseases, veterinary port officers have been maintained for many years at ocean ports.
Prior to the opening of the new St. Lawrence seaway, all foreign vessels entering the Lachine canal and existing waterways serving a route identical to the St. Lawrence seaway were boarded and examined by port officers operating under the provisions of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.
With the development of the St. Lawrence seaway, it was recognized that the dangers of introducing foreign diseases would be increased. Fully one year ahead of the opening of the seaway negotiations were opened to establish a system of boarding and checking each vessel entering the new seaway. All vessels docking at Canadian ocean ports are boarded and all foreign garbage is either retained in enclosed containers on board the vessel or is removed and incinerated under the supervision of a departmental officer. All vessels arriving at or docking at the port of Montreal and entering the St. Lawrence seaway are required to have all garbage removed and incinerated under departmental supervision.
In addition, all vessels entering the St. Lawrence seaway are inspected for foreign meats included as ship's stores. Where such foreign meats are found they are sealed in

the ship's locker with a departmental seal. The master of the vessel must sign a statement, available in 16 languages, that no garbage is to be dumped in Canadian waters.
An Animal Contagious Diseases Act certificate of clearance listing the foreign meats aboard, the government seal numbers on the locker, and the ports of call both Canadian and United States of the vessel within the St. Lawrence seaway and the great lakes is issued to the master. Copies of this certificate are forwarded by mail to the Canadian and United States port veterinarian for each port of call of the vessel. In the case of Canadian ports of call, the vessel is checked at each port to assure that departmental requirements are being met. Also, at certain designated Canadian great lakes ports garbage is removed and incinerated under supervision.
All this is required under the provisions of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, and violators are subject to prosecution. While this entire operation at the entrance of the St. Lawrence seaway is carried on by Canadian government officers of the department's health of animals division, veterinary officers of the United States department of agriculture are kept informed, and the program was developed in consultation with them.
With respect to plant pests and plant diseases the department, through its plant protection division, has for many years maintained port inspection officers at all oceangoing ports. With the opening of the new St. Lawrence seaway, inspection under the Destructive Insect and Pest Act has been provided at all seaway ports where foreign plant cargoes are permitted to be off-loaded.
In addition to requiring import permits and closely checking each individual shipment of plant material, attention is paid to the general cargo for evidence of all insect pests. For the purposes of both the Animal Contagious Diseases Act and the Destructive Insect and Pest Act, departmental fumigation stations are maintained at Halifax, Nova Scotia; Saint John, New Brunswick; Quebec city and Montreal, Quebec. At other ports where fumigation services are needed, commercial fumigation units are used.
I thought it was desirable to make a fairly complete statement in connection with this matter in order to reassure Canadians who have been disturbed over this report. Particularly as it mentioned the foot-and-mouth outbreak in 1951, which caused a great deal of damage as far as the Canadian cattle and livestock industry generally is concerned. I should like to repeat that I regret very much that a statement of this kind was made without knowledge of the facts. I think our inspection service is as thorough and painstaking

as any which exists anywhere in the world. In fact most of the complaints we get in connection with it is that it is too thorough. There are some who are prevented from bringing things into the country because of our very strict regulations.
(Translation):


Mr. Boulanger:: When the house went into committee on March 4 last, we heard two speeches, one by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the other by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness). Those speeches were mere patchwork, such as we have been hearing since the beginning of the session, designed to disguise the farming situation and to justify the election promises of 1957-58. They are the new garment that was to be offered to the farmers and which, after three fittings, is in tatters.
All through his ten-minute speech, the Minister of Agriculture reviewed the achievements of his government. I noted, however, that his statement on price stabilization policy covered only 14 lines in the official report.
For his part, the Prime Minister spoke about the government's farm policy.
The following are the main points he made. First, the Prime Minister said, as reported on page 1765 of Hansard:
The government proposes, subject to approval by parliament at the next session-
That was in 1959.
He was referring to a statement he had made in the house on August 30, 1958.
-to continue the fund to assist in the export of surplus wheat stocks to non-commercial markets under the Colombo plan.
He then said that the house had voted $50 million a year for the three coming years, or $16 million more than the previous amount. About that policy, Quebec "Duplessists" said during federal and provincial election campaigns:
Duplessis caters to his province and Ottawa to foreigners.
It will be recalled that, at that time, the Conservative members voted in favour of the motion.
A second point made by the Prime Minister was this, which I quote:
The government is studying in consultation with the provinces legislation to provide for a comprehensive crop insurance program.
The legislation was passed, but as it offered no advantage to the provinces, the program was not put into force in any part
Supply-Agriculture
of Canada, except for a limited experiment made in the province of Manitoba.
Concerning the third point, the Prime Minister had this to say:
In recognition of the recurring hazard of drought to the stability of livestock production in the prairie provinces, the government has taken steps to provide assistance to provincial governments, which have the prime responsibility for meeting the needs of feed deficit areas, and is giving sympathetic study to the establishment, under provincial administration but with federal financial assistance, of a forage bank program.
And the Prime Minister added:
This particular portion of the enunciated policy has not been carried out as yet.
A fourth point had to do with the farm credit legislation. The P.F.R.A. was amended last year. I would say that it now affords farmers the opportunity of getting deeper into debt for a longer period of time. However, they cannot get short term loans for a more efficient production, as was requested by farm associations.
A fifth point had to do with the program to meet the needs of small farmers, and the Prime Minister said:
The government has under consideration ways and means of improving their level of living for farmers on small farms by means of better land use, encouraging the formation of economic family farm units, improving technical training-
That particular portion-
Said the Prime Minister-
-is still under consideration.
As for the sixth point, the main feature referred to by the Prime Minister, and to which he attached the greatest importance, was about deficiency payments to western producers of wheat, oats and barley. He said in his statement of March 4 last, as recorded on page 1768 of Hansard the following:
In August, 1958 I set out the reasons why in our opinion, deficiency payments were not the answer to the western farm situation. I am not going to repeat those reasons. They can be found at page 4306 of Hansard of that date.
These proposals, as we consider, after giving the matter the fullest and most comprehensive study, tend to neglect the needs of the smaller farmers. They provide no aid to the farmer who has suffered a crop failure. They give little to the mixed farmer and livestock raiser who markets a limited amount of wheat.
And reading farther down, we come now to the Prime Minister's refusal to entertain the demands of western farmers. Here is what he said:
However attractive it is to secure that amount of money to be distributed among the western farmers whose needs I know, and whose requests I view with more than usual sympathy, the proposals had weaknesses. The most grave weakness

Supply-Agriculture
is that the payment of deficiency payments would not touch the fundamental problems of the farmer on the land.
Thus was the Prime Minister refusing to yield to the demands of western farmers. However, here is the statement the Prime Minister made to the delegation of 1100 western farmers who came to Ottawa to submit their grievances on March 10, 1959:
(Text):
Now, ladies and gentlemen, I repeat that, in so far as your representations are concerned, they will receive the fullest and most complete and continuing consideration. I am glad you came.
(Translation):
Further down, he went on to say:
(Text):
I say this, it will be my undeviating purpose and that of those associated with me to do what we can to assure that degree of prosperity for agriculture without which the Canadian economy cannot be maintained.
(Translation):
Since that visit of the western farmers, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) has been urging the Prime Minister to give a reply to Canada's farmers. Six days short of a year later, that is on Friday March 4, a negative reply was given, despite the fact that the Prime Minister recognized the needs of the western farmers and viewed them with more than usual sympathy.
To use a favourite expression of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), I might say that it took the Prime Minister a year to lay an egg, and a cracked one at that.
Mr. Chairman, after having expressed all his sympathy to the western farmers, the Prime Minister, in a flight of lofty oratory, said this, as witness page 1766 of Hansard for March 4, 1960:
When we assumed office one of the first things we did was to examine the agricultural policies that had existed for a number of years under the former government. During many of those years the Progressive Conservative party insisted there was a need of basic reform measures in agriculture. We maintain that the very cornerstone of national development is a dynamic and flexible national agricultural policy.
Following that viewpoint we introduced, pursuant to the national agricultural policy of the government a long range farm policy comprehensive and co-ordinated. We did not in doing so neglect regional interests. We recognized in the most fundamental terms the national requirement that men and women on the land be given their right to a fair share of the national income.
Mr. Chairman, there are no bounds to the pompous, inaccurate, fallacious and inconsiderate statements of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of Agriculture.
I shall prove to you in a few moments what the real position of the farmer is like in this country. I shall show that he receives

less for his work than he ever did during the years of Liberal regime.
And what about the Minister of Agriculture? Since the beginning of the year, he has travelled across the country, and attended farmers' meetings and conventions. He has received delegations and briefs, and whenever he had the opportunity to speak, he tried to justify his government's farm policy.
At the federal-provincial economic conference, which took place here in Ottawa, he stated:
The farm industry has had its share of the economic recovery which started in 1958 and went on in 1959.
He told delegates at the congress of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture that revenues from the sale of farm products for the first three quarters of 1959 were $40 million more than in 1958, whereas he knew as a fact that the year's end would show a decrease.
Read the speeches he made in this house since the opening of parliament. Whenever he makes comparisons, the Minister of Agriculture quotes figures that suit his purpose. Whenever he deals with farm income, his comparisons hinge on figures for 1957. When he compares prices of certain farm commodities, he selects those he likes, of any country in the world, to compare them with our own.
(Text):


Mr. Kindt:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Samuel Boulanger: After I finish my speech I will be glad to answer any question the hon. member may have.
(Translation) :
Such subterfuge and evasions, to hoodwink the agricultural class must be looked upon with disgust and revolt by economists and right-thinking people.
The attitude of the Minister of Agriculture is understandable, Mr. Chairman. It reminds me of a trapped animal, sensing its approaching doom. It struggles and yelps until it is destroyed.
In 1960, farmers are being led into the same fix, the same trap as in the years 1930-1935, by a minister suffering from chronic obsession of camouflage and denial of promises.
Mr. Chairman, I shall picture the true situation of our farmers such as it used to be and such as it is now. And if my criticism is unpalatable to my Conservative colleagues, it means that it is accurate and to the point.
I realize that, because some of it might well be bitter, there will be hon. members who will think I am playing politics. As we

have already seen, those members are narrow-minded people who do not understand anything about democracy. If the party of which I am a member was at the head of an oppressive government, such as the one now at the head of this country, I would be the first to denounce it.
Our role in the opposition is to criticize, to show up the weaknesses of the government, and heaven knows there are plenty of them. We are doing this in the interest of all classes of society and, for my part, it is the agricultural class I wish to defend.
Mr. Chairman, the history of agriculture in the last three years may be divided in three phases.
The first one is pre-electoral, and to sum up the attitude which the Prime Minister and the Conservative members and candidates took at the time, I shall simply quote a sentence spoken by the Prime Minister, which epitomizes all his promises. The sentence was uttered in Massey hall, on April 27, 1957. Here it is:
(Text):
We will assure "the farmer of his fair share of the national income by maintaining a flexible-and I underline the word "flexible"-price support program to ensure an adequate parity for agricultural producers based on a fair price-cost relationship.
(Translation):
It was on that theme that the government and the Conservative candidates launched their election campaign.
Now, let us consider the 1958 session at the second stage; the government pased the Agricultural Stabilization Act which is summarized in the preamble reading as follows:
Whereas it is expedient to enact a measure for the purpose of stabilizing the prices of agricultural commodities in order to assist the industry of agriculture to realize fair returns for its labour and investment, and to maintain a fair relationship between prices received by farmers and the costs of the goods and services that they buy, thus to provide farmers with a fair share of the national revenue-
In short, the purport of that act was to attempt to find a formula that might give farmers fair returns for their commodities in relation to the cost of production. This act was carried unanimously.
But on February 22 last, on a motion to go into supply, an amendment was introduced by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Benidickson). We are now at the third stage in the farming history of the Conservative party. The amendment reads as follows:
This house is of the opinion that the government should give immediate consideration to the implementation of agricultural policies designed for the purpose of stabilizing the prices of agricultural commodities in order to assist the industry
Supply-Agriculture
of agriculture to realize fair returns for its labour and investment, and to maintain a fair relationship between prices received by farmers and the costs of the goods and services that they buy, thus to provide farmers with a fair share of the national income.
The amendment was debated for two days and defeated by a vote of 172 to 48. In other words, Conservative members reneged on the government's opinion, their promises, their own legislation and betrayed farmers generally.
Now what has come out of this agricultural policy? Mr. Chairman, I should like to give figures to prove, as I have said at the beginning of my remarks, that under the Liberal government farmers were getting more than they have been getting for the last three years under a Conservative regime.
I shall quote from the Current Review of March 1960-I do not have a French version. Here is a paragraph on page 3:
(Text):
Net income of farm operators from farming operations in 1959 is estimated at $1,189.4 million which is 7 per cent below the preliminary 1958 figure-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Finish reading that-12 per cent above 1957.


Samuel Boulanger: I am talking about 1958.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You do not like to talk about 1957.


Samuel Boulanger: The Minister of Agriculture said in Toronto at a meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture that farm net income in 1959 would be higher than 1958. That is why I am telling the minister that net income is 7 per cent less than 1958. I know it is 12 per cent higher than 1957.
(Translation):
I know the Minister of Agriculture does not like to be reminded of the truth in this House of Commons because he has always resorted to half-truths, but I shall prove to him that the sale of farm products brought lower returns to farmers in 1958 than in 1957. To that end I shall use information supplied by the government itself.
On March 8 last, I asked the Department of Trade and Commerce about the selling price of wheat for the years 1947 to 1956 inclusive, and also the average price for the years 1957, 1958 and 1959 inclusive. Here is the list I received in reply.
In the last 10 years of Liberal administration, farmers were getting $1.49 a bushel for their wheat; under the Conservative administration, the average was $1.23. Under the Liberal administration, farmers were getting $1.00 a bushel for their barley; while under the Conservative administration, they have been getting 75 cents.

Supply-Agriculture


Mr. Michaud:: The price keeps going down.


Samuel Boulanger: Oats, under the Liberal administration, sold at 65.6 cents, and under Conservative administration, at 53 cents. Grain, under Liberal administration, sold at $3.36 a bushel, and under Conservative administration, at $2.67. Hogs, under Liberal administration-this is an average covering the years 1947 to 1956-sold at $27.16 per hundredweight, and under Conservative administration, at $26.19.


Hervé J. Michaud: It is going down all the time.


Samuel Boulanger: Eggs, over the last 10 years, sold at an average price of 41.6 cents a dozen; under the Conservatives, eggs sold at 35 cents.


Mr. Pigeon:: Not over a 10-year period.


Samuel Boulanger: And here is the answer to another of my inquiries from the Department of Agriculture on March 8, 1960.


Some hon. Members:: Tell us about butter, yes, butter.


Samuel Boulanger: I had enquired about the average cost of eggs for the years 1949 to 1959 inclusive. Here is what is said on the cost of eggs in 1959:
And the price quoted for Canada as a whole in 1959 is 29.2 cents. A quick look in the past, in 1958 for instance, shows that the price was then 32.7 cents. In 1957, it was 31.4 cents.
On the other hand, under the Liberal government-we are now falling under the Liberal government-


Mr. Parizeau:: You could not put it more accurately; you did fall-


Samuel Boulanger: -1956, 38.1 cents; 1955,
38.1	cents; 1954, 33.7 cents; 1953, 43 cents.
Further back, we find prices of 39.4, 34.9 and
48.1	cents. That was under the Liberal administration.


An hon. Member:: There was no unemployment at the time.


Mr. Paul:: Will the hon. member allow me a question?


Samuel Boulanger: I said earlier that I will answer questions when I am through with my remarks.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member will be saying he barely has time to finish.


Some hon. Members:: What about butter?


Samuel Boulanger: Some time ago, I met a lady in my district who discussed the price of eggs with me and asked me if I could not-


An hon. Member:: Twin-yolked eggs.


Samuel Boulanger: -she was asking me
whether I could make representations to the Minister of Agriculture so he might consider establishing an allowance for fowl.
Mr. Chairman, city people have just as much cause to worry about the farming situation, because their interests are directly connected with the solution of farm problems which may affect the price of food and the level of taxation.
Somebody must benefit from the difference between prices paid to the farmer for his produce, and those paid by the consumer; the middleman is the one who benefits. The cost of marketing farm products has risen by 84 per cent between 1949 and 1958.
For the year 1957, the rate of revenue from investments, after tax deduction, is distributed as follows, and the figures I quote are from a report of the royal commission on price spreads. For the retail business as a whole, a net profit of 9.8 per cent was indicated; the over all net revenue of wholesalers was 11.1 per cent; and for the over all profit of the manufacturing industry we find 10.7 per cent. Among those industries, three were manufacturing breakfast foods and declared a net profit of 29.2 per cent.
I could go on and take the net profit figures for dairy products processors section, which declared a profit of 10.9 per cent. If the farmer was treated in the same fair way as was promised by the Prime Minister, he would, with an investment of $25,000 to $30,000, which today is by no means exaggerated, get a revenue of $3,000 to $4,000 even if we take the lowest rate accruing to private enterprise.
The government chose to appoint this royal commission on price spreads for food products, but is in no hurry to put its recommendations into practice.
An explanation from the Minister of Agriculture, or the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) as to the position of the government in this matter would be of great significance.
Let us do away with the old theme: "Parity not charity" and sing another one, the theme of justice.
The 1956 census indicates that at least one third of those who are registered as farmers received cash returns of less than $1,200 a year, or $23.20 a week.
Last year, Dr. Mel Andal, an economist of the Department of Agriculture, said when he submitted a brief to a Senate committee on land use, that one third of 575,015 farmers in Canada were living on submarginal farms.
The "Co-operative feder^e" stated that the annual income of Quebec farmers in 1957

was $1,554, which represents a wage of $30 a week, while the purchasing power of workers increased by 30 per cent.
The province of Saskatchewan, in a brief submitted to the same commission-


The Chairman:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I must tell him that his time has expired.


Samuel Boulanger: With your permission, Mr. Chairman, may I have three or four minutes more?
(Text):


Some hon. Members:: Agreed, agreed.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Yes. Agreed.
(Text):


Jacques Flynn: Has the hon. member consent to carry on?	*


Some hon. Members:: Agreed, agreed. (Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The province of Saskatchewan, in a brief submitted to the same committee, said that in 1951, one third to one half of the 103,000 farmers of the province lacked adequate revenue to support their families. In 1958, according to the same report, the situation was even worse.
I have before me a report, prepared by the authorities of Macdonald College in January 1960, showing farmer's incomes.
The report, which is based on figures-they are estimates, of course-of the dominion bureau of statistics, indicates that in 1959, the net income for the whole of Canada was $1,200 million.
Adding up the figures for the last three years of Conservative administration, I arrive at the following results: the average income over the last three years, namely 1957, 1958 and 1959, was $1,176 million.
Now, taking the figures for the last ten years under a Liberal administration, I arrive at a total of $1,460 million.
In other words, the average net income on the sale of agricultural products over the last three years under a Conservative government, has dropped by $284 million.
Mr. Chairman, in quoting these figures, I am aware that the Minister of Agriculture can check them and try to deny my point. However, the figures are taken from a report published by the dominion bureau of statistics, and I wanted to draw them to the minister's attention.
79951-0-215
Supply-A griculture
Yet in the face of such evidence, there are still members in this house who have the gall to say that the agricultural situation in Canada, and particularly in the province of Quebec, is fine, and that farmers are quite happy.
Mr. Chairman, we would have expected that, in view of present conditions, the government would have announced new legislation, or would have introduced a new program to correct the situation, but it has taken no action.
The agricultural situation in Canada is like a ship that is lost in the fog, at sea, with the Minister of Agriculture at the helm. He has so tampered with the compass of election promises that he put it out of commission. The crew stands by, watching the skipper struggling along, and dare not say a word lest the already precarious situation of their ship become worse. That is what the Conservative members are doing except for two mountebanks who try to amuse them with nonsensical acrobatics. The member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden) did try, however, to steer his skipper away from some of the reefs, but the skipper refused to put the tiller hard over.
The situation is not hopeless. It is a matter of appealing to farm organizations, universities, co-operatives, agronomists and leading farmers; of listening to them and sitting down with them to consider their suggestions. If the farmer is discouraged today, if young people no longer want to remain on the farm and if so many farms are abandoned, the fault lies nowhere but in the discriminatory policy of the Conservative government toward the farm people.
Promises were made but not kept.
The farm legislation passed by the Liberal government to ensure the farmers fair returns for their trouble and their work has been completely upset.
The present government's obvious disregard for farm policy, in favour of trade and commerce, has caused the chaotic and desperate situation that is facing us today.
Like the various farm organizations throughout the country that submitted briefs to the government, 1 express the hope that the Minister of Agriculture will give consideration to and put into practice the good advice they contain.
Unless the government makes a survey of farm conditions in co-operation with the experts I just mentioned, that is, university professors, managers of co-operatives, agronomists and leading farmers, and unless an

Supply-Agriculture
over-all plan is established to reintegrate agriculture into our economy, the farming sector will collapse.
Farmers will have no alternative but to quit the land or to keep hoping that one day, men of intelligence and courage who are conscious of their responsibility will take over the job. Indeed, that day should not be too remote by now.


Rémi Paul: Would the hon. member allow a question?


Samuel Boulanger: With pleasure.


Rémi Paul: The hon. member has given many figures with regard to the marketing of farm products. Could he tell us whether he has forgotten to mention statistics for butter?


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I shall be pleased to deal with the butter question and I shall remind my hon. friend of the statement which the Minister of Agriculture made last April 13, when he said that the farm price stabilization board was keeping the butter price at the same level, that is, at 64 cents a pound. Moreover, he said-


Mr. Rompre:: You should compare it with the previous years.


An hon. Member:: Wait a minute, and you will be able to learn something.


Samuel Boulanger: The Minister of Agriculture also said:
The price support for butter during the dairy year May 1, 1960 to April 30, 1961 will be 64 cents per pound for Canada first grade creamery butter scoring 40-93, basis delivery Montreal, with appropriate price differentials for other grades and qualities.
Mr. Chairman, that statement would indicate that this year's price would be 64 cents a pound for first grade butter, and, when the quality of the product falls down to 39-92, the price will fall accordingly. Yet the Minister of Agriculture stated in this house that the price for farm products would remain on the same basis as last year, which is inaccurate.
In the province of Quebec, about one sixth of the total butter production may be classified in category 40-93, while the remaining five sixths is of lower quality.
That is the result of the agricultural policy of the Conservative government, that selfsame policy that the Conservative members from the province of Quebec are applauding. That is just what they did when the minister made that statement, and I am sure that no one on the government side, understood that.


Rémi Paul: Would the hon. member allow a supplementary question? I do not know

whether he did it wilfully or not, but he did not see fit to give the comparative figures I had asked about the price of butter in 1957, 1958 and 1959, and in former years. That is the question I had put to him.


An hon. Member:: You are slipping on Mr. Bennett's butter.


Mr. Loiselle:: Mr. Chairman, are we making a court case out of this?


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It was then 58 cents a pound.


An hon. Member:: Listen and you will learn a lot.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, if the cost price is taken into account, the price of 64 cents a pound is not higher than that of 50 or 54 cents, as it was six, seven or eight years ago, and I will prove it to you.


An hon. Member:: Tell us something about the price of 25 cents a 100 pounds for milk.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I apologize if I have addressed myself to the other side of the house. The cost price index has increased by 16.9 per cent over that of last year. This year, from January to February, that is for a period of 30 days, it has gone up 2.9 per cent.
I would ask the Minister of Agriculture to check my figures; if they are not correct, I shall be glad to withdraw what I said.
The price of 64 cents a pound for butter is not higher today than that of 48, 50 and 54 cents, as it was six, seven or eight years ago.
(Text):


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Before proceeding with my remarks in connection with these estimates I want to say on behalf of this group that we appreciate the good work that is being done by the staff of the Department of Agriculture at the headquarters in Ottawa, at the various experimental stations and throughout the country. I might say that until quite recently there were several members of this staff who were old classmates or college mates of mine, but they have all retired and vanished from the scene. I am the only antique member of that generation gyrating around here at the present time.
I want to say that the study of the agricultural development in Canada is to me fascinating. I have read the history of this country from a number of sources, and I have always found it interesting. I think possibly that is because I come from pioneer stock. I have known what it was to take two dozen eggs to the store in a lard pail

in order to get a package of tobacco and two boxes of matches. I therefore speak from experience as a pioneer settler. I have a keen appreciation of the problems of the smaller ranchers in particular.
However, the history of agriculture in this country is a most interesting study, dealing as it does with the early settlers in Quebec, in the maritimes, then later in Ontario, then along the coast of British Columbia and Vancouver island, then later the settlements in central British Columbia and in the southern interior valleys with which I am most acquainted. These valleys were settled by people who in the early days principally supplied the local market for beef, dairy products, small fruits and vegetables. That local market has been destroyed in recent years by certain influences in this country. The hon. member for Vancouver East will deal particularly with that problem later this afternoon; my remarks are going to be somewhat general.
This settlement in the interior valleys of British Columbia included many types of people, some with experience and some without. In any event they were sturdy, happy pioneers of many races, including a good number of people from our neighbour province of Quebec, who went out there in the early days. Those valleys were settled by people who were attracted by the climate, the scenery, the fishing, the hunting and their hope, at least, of the opportunity of making a reasonable living in good circumstances.
In following the hon. member who has just spoken I want to mention this matter in order to show the close relationship this group has with Canadians of French descent, and our appreciation of their problems. I enjoyed the speech made by the hon. member who has just spoken. I want to say that the district from which I come is extremely interesting in that respect. When David Thompson discovered the Columbia river, his boats were rowed by Canadians of French descent. The first agriculturist we had in the Arrow lakes area was an old gentleman of French descent by the name of Nels Demers who stayed in that country alone, after the Hudson's Bay Company left, from 1866 until such settlers of whom I am speaking arrived in the early days of this century. I cared for that old gentleman prior to his death. He was the first agriculturist in the area. I am glad to say that we have two small communities named after him, namely East and West Demers. I knew a gentleman of French Canadian descent who was also a small rancher and was the first shipbuilder in the area; he was named Blondin. As a matter of fact a creek that flows through my ranch is 79951-0-215J
Supply-Agriculture
named after him because of our friendship and our great respect for him. Those were happy pioneer days. Conditions are entirely different today.
I cannot help living in the past on occasion. I knew another Canadian of French descent who was an early pioneer rancher and a prominent Liberal. One day just prior to the 1945 election he said to me, "I am president of the Liberal association and I work hard for my party, but I want to tell you this. We have known one another for nearly 50 years and I am praying like hell for you". I won the election. Hence I have had some valuable assistance from my constituents of French descent.
I am coming around to my general theme in a few minutes. Anyway, some of these people arrived with capital, some with small assured incomes; but as to others, the only assets they had was grit and the determination to succeed. All of them, whether they were of British stock or not-and I may say, in case anybody does not know, that I came originally from the old country-had a sense of humour; they were fond of animals, particularly horses, and some were overfond of the ladies. But this combination of settlers from Britain and people coming from French Canada built the farmer and co-operative movement; it was the foundation of the cooperatives which developed in connection with the fruit industry of British Columbia.
I mention these things to show what can be done on the basis of mutual co-operation and understanding. When I hear all this talk about Quebec and Ontario and British Columbia, from my point of view it seems to be all tommy-rot. As far as I am concerned we are all Canadians first.
There are, of course many different types of Canadians, and before I proceed I might mention, in order to illustrate the difference in these types, that a Kootenay rancher is entirely different from those to be found in other parts of Canada. For the first ten years when some people occupied the land, they kept the farm. Afterwards, with experience they became ranchers and graduated to the point where the farm kept them. On one occasion a dear old gentleman asked me to go and see his cows. He had been a secretary-valet to a well-known noble lord in Britain and had come out to this country to settle. He was a Christian gentleman with a great love of animals, anxious to learn all he could about farming. He had attended a meeting addressed by some official of the federal department of agriculture, who told him that if he wanted to get the greatest possible milk production the cows had to be kept comfortable. The more comfortable they

Supply-Agriculture
were, the more milk they would produce. One day he came to my place in the middle of the winter-we had a cold spell and the temperature was one or two degrees below zero, a somewhat unusual occurrence in our part of the country, I must say-and asked me to come and see what he had done to keep his cows comfortable. He had commanded his wife to make up blankets to cover the animals; then he had contrived something after the fashion of tea cozies which he used to cover the udders. Then he finished the whole thing off by having puttees very nicely made out of sacking. When I had admired all this he asked me, "After all that, don't you think I should get more milk?" I agreed with him.
I mention this to illustrate the various types of settlers we had at that time. Those were different days. The wants of the pioneers were simple and costs were low. They were catering, on the whole, to local markets which were growing at that time, the mining industry and the developing forest industry. Today the situation is entirely different. We have machine production, high capital investment and high costs. One cannot go on the prairies now and get 160 acres and start farming with an expectation of getting anywhere. Nor would it be of any use attempting to begin with the small amount of capital which once was sufficient. A high capital investment requires abundant credit, and we are increasingly dependent on export markets. In British Columbia this is particularly true with regard to the marketing of fruit and other commodities.
Agriculture is without doubt in a crisis, and I am of the opinion we are not going to solve the problem in Canada if we treat it on a partisan basis. This group makes its contribution in this house with respect to agriculture in an effort to find some common and satisfactory solution. I think we should not underestimate the difficulties and complexities in the changing industrial society in which we are living-


An hon. Member:: You are not speaking for your group, but for yourself.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. gentleman does not realize that I am expressing a general approach to agricultural problems on behalf of our party this morning.
There is no doubt that we face a serious crisis in agriculture in the years ahead unless there is some appropriate action and leadership by federal and provincial governments. In a democratic society they must give some leadership in the right direction. First, in our opinion, we have to decide the place and value of the family farm in our society. I am a great believer in the family

farm. I am one of those persons who deplore human beings becoming robots and I recognize, as do the other members of this group, the values which have sprung from family farms and rural communities throughout the generations in the history of this country.
In this connection I should like to quote from a book which I have been reading and which I have found most interesting. It is called "The Failure of Success-The American Crisis in Values" and the author is Esther Milner. I advise anyone to get a copy who is interested in studying the circumstances under which we live and the problems we face at this time, problems which cannot be solved by short-run methods. I want to quote from this book, because I am one of those who do not see everything as black or white, whether in regard to international or domestic affairs. I believe that in a democratic society all sections can make some contribution to the solution of any problem, whether it is unemployment or farm markets or the maintenance of the family farm, providing democratic governments give some leadership and thought to the problem. On page 17 there is a passage in this book which reads as follows:
I find it the colossal irony of our times that the hostility of the two major antagonists on the world scene originates in their mutual commitment to the same philosophic fallacy, the doctrine of "economic man." Both the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics espouse social ideals of the highest order, but in practice the leaders and the people of both countries believe that the economic aspects of man's life are not merely of primary but of ultimate importance. Our disagreement lies essentially in our insistence that our own economic system is the better pathway to the goal-but the goal is essentially the same: "On both sides it is asserted that the only, or at any rate the main objective of nations should be industrial prosperity. This is implied in the dogma of economic materialism, which forms the basis of both these systems, ostensibly opposed as they are.
I think there is a lot of truth in that statement. The subquotation continues:
"And as these theories merely reflect the state of public sentiment, industry, which was formerly regarded as one means to a higher end, has become the supreme end for individuals as well as for whole societies."
Although the writer of these words was speaking of what at his time were two economic theories only, his words have proved more prophetic than he could have realized. Emile Durkheim wrote these words in the 1890's, twenty five years before the formation of the U.S.S.R. and nearly sixty years before our current international stalemate.
I have read that paragraph, which I think is most informative, to indicate that our attention must be directed to several problems in our society, and that the economic problem is only one line of advance toward a solution. In my opinion the improvement and development of the family farm offers

an opportunity to preserve the traditional values of our society, to preserve a contribution of real value while at the same time stabilizing at a satisfactory level the economic position of our farmers in a changing, industrial society.
In saying this I am not overlooking economic security for all groups in our country. In dealing with these questions as parliamentarians, with possibly the greatest responsibility of any parliament in our history, we have to move ahead on a number of parallel lines of which economic improvement is only one. However, one of these lines is a program that will provide economic security for our farmers.
Conditions have developed rapidly since the termination of world war II, and there is no question but that the policies of federal and provincial governments have been unrelated in a number of fields. I am not criticizing the emergency measures which have come into being to meet the problems of depression, war, inflation and drought. The major problem now is surpluses. In view of this group the measures have been emergency, piecemeal and unrelated to one another. There is no evidence of a planned over-all national policy based on a long range approach to economic and sociological facts.
I am not blaming individuals or particular governments. To some extent governments, organizations and individuals are victims of circumstances that have arisen in recent years. But there is no evidence of a sound approach to the genuine happiness sought by all mankind. This is not found purely in the pursuit of monetary values. Happiness embraces a contentment in the pursuit of a useful occupation, a love of nature and satisfactory relations with human beings.
On the one hand government and research workers, to whom I give all credit, are devoting themselves to knowledge and methods which increase production and surpluses and at the same time depopulate the farms and rural communities. Other government agencies are providing credit to apply this new knowledge and these new methods to an expanding production. On the other hand the federal government, with price supports and deficiency payment policies, is limiting production. We have this agricultural team pulling in opposite directions, with the horse representing the scientists going ahead but the horse representing the marketing policy sitting back on its haunches. There is contradiction in over-all agricultural policy that is difficult to avoid without planning. The problems this creates increase daily. A number of small farmers are unable to make a living through failure to adjust to these
Supply-Agriculture
changed circumstances. They cannot meet the forces at work as the result of our lack of an over-all agricultural policy.
I have never accepted the philosophy of the worship of bigness, size or quantity. I know there is an attraction to large scale industry, huge production and size in anything. I have known a man to enter a room full of ordinary people, and when it was whispered that he was worth $10 million it seemed to establish an aura around him. People are hypnotized by wealth, numbers and size, which in my opinion represents an unsound approach to life, instead of being hypnotized by character, intelligence and industry. However, that is all part of the evolution of the capitalist society.
Of course we do not see things in black and white. There has to be some common ground between the extremes if there is to be a solution. We can learn from our past history and from the practices of the present in other countries.
We find a lack of concern for agricultural human resources. Some people are not fazed by the thought of doing away with the number of farmers. This is accepted by people without thinking of the impact on our society and the contribution made by farmers to our national development. I have met many farmers. Many are without clear objectives and a sense of direction. They are confused by the fog of the circumstances under which they live. I think it is also fair to say that many farm organizations lack over-all agreement as to the policies best suited to correct the situation, but all agree on the value of the economic family farm. That is a good starting point on which they all agree. They feel that because of its value the family farm should be preserved.
In that connection I want to quote briefly from the brief of the interprovincial farm union council presented to the federal government on February 17, 1960, the second paragraph of which states:
We believe that an agricultural industry based on the concept of the family farm can best serve the national interest of Canada. To maintain the industry on this basis requires a clearly defined agricultural policy.
On October 14, 1959, addressing the farm equipment institute's 66th annual meeting in Montreal, Quebec, the Minister of Agriculture, Hon. Douglas S. Harkness, stated as follows:
"The agricultural policy of the Canadian government is designed to ensure that the average economic producer will secure a standard of living comparable to that of people in other industries, and thus ensure a healthy agriculture, with sufficient production to meet our own needs and those of export markets."
Under the combined circumstances of rising farm costs and declining farm prices, we submit that the realization of this stated objective cannot be attained.

Supply-Agriculture
I support this question posed to the government in the brief:
Are federal agricultural policies to be enacted that will aim at the preservation of widely distributed private ownership of productive assets, enabling men to maintain themselves and their families on their farms, or does the federal government intend to let those economic forces have free play, that encourage the trend to anonymous, corporate ownership with all its inherent dangers?
There is a general realization among farming people and others in Canada that the family farm is a necessary productive unit in our society, because it has proved its value.
What are we going to do about the problem? I said that farmers lack purpose and direction, and that farm organizations have failed to agree in general on a solution to the question. Federal and provincial governments lack accord with respect to a common policy. We also have disagreement among individual farmers because of differences in their experience or training and the circumstances under which they live. This great industry is drifting in a sea of day to day expediency on the part of government, farm organizations and farmers themselves. All have been forced into this state of expediency because of the lack of planned over-all national policy for agriculture related to the facts and the circumstances of our time.
I pay tribute to what is being done; I do not underestimate it. I recognize the value of the marketing legislation that has been passed by governments as the result of prodding by agricultural organizations. I recognize the value of the credit facilities provided by the federal government and some provincial governments. I recognize the value of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, which has done a great work in that field. I recognize the value of the Praire Farm Assistance Act and the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act. However, all this work that is being done on a piecemeal basis is based largely on expediency so far as the federal and provincial governments are concerned. I wish to pay tribute to those who conceived these policies and have given effect to them, and also to those who have responsibility for administering them. However, Mr. Chairman, in our opinion a satisfactory and effective long term, sound agricultural policy can result only from research into all the facts, and we lack that. You cannot design a satisfactory policy without knowledge, without the facts.
As I said before, I pay tribute to our scientists in the agricultural service and in universities who are engaged full time in meeting day to day problems, whether in the field

of production, marketing and so on. But what is required-our farmers' organizations have touched on it to a limited extent up to now and I think the agricultural institute of Canada has been dealing with this question possibly in more detail in recent years-in the opinion of this group is an independent farm policy agency. We need the facts; we need some organization to get the facts, to get the truth-not propaganda, not opinion, but the facts-upon which to base for a number of years a satisfactory national agricultural policy. We need the facts with respect to land available and land resources, the productive capacity of this land, the markets, the transportation and all the other factors, shall I say, that relate agriculture to the rest of the community.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of this group that this government should immediately sponsor a Canadian farm policy research foundation. We suggest this because we believe the more governments secure the co-operation of the organizations representing the farmers and of other governments on as wide a scale as possible, the sounder will be the approach in a democratic society. We believe that such a foundation should include representatives of governments, both federal and provincial; it should include representatives of the agricultural institute of Canada, which is a professional organization of registered agriculturists in this country, with a lot of good men in its membership and a lot of experience gained throughout the years; it should include representatives from the staffs of the universities and representatives of the farm organizations. I suggest in that group of persons you have a


Jacques Flynn: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May I just add two
sentences?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if we can approach this problem in that spirit, using the intellectual resources we have available and the experience we have in abundance, with the good will of all parties, we can have a co-operative and planned study, a planned program of agricultural research upon which a national agricultural policy can be founded, because we will then have the knowledge and we will have the facts. With that we will have an understanding of the problem, and we will have secured that knowledge in an atmosphere of co-operation which is essential for the application of the national policy that will be the result of that study.


Mr. Speakman:: Mr. Chairman, before making my few remarks I wish to comment on some of the remarks of the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska. During the course of his remarks he spoke as though his party were very strongly in favour of deficiency payments. I ask him, what was the attitude of his party in the years 1946 to 1957, and the reply of his party to the farm representations made over those years in response to the promises which the government of which he was a supporter made during the war years when it said, "Hold the line and we will see that you get full payment, gentlemen"? I believe he will admit with me that the representations now being made have accumulated from the days of the government of which he was a supporter.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Chairman?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr, Speakman:: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose for the luncheon adjournment I had been mentioning some of the things said by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska. In his remarks he made some comparison of prices with reference to the time that the previous administration was in office but what he failed to mention was the fact that from 1950 onward prices of these products steadily declined and production compared with consumption rose very sharply. He said that government members were complacent about the agricultural situation. I should like to tell the hon. member that we are not, that members on the government side who represent rural constituencies are no more complacent than anyone else. We know there is a problem but we do know that the government, the first in a long time to do so, is making an honest attempt to find a solution under a very capable and honest minister.
During the Easter recess I drove some 1,200 miles through my constituency in central Alberta and talked to farmers, elevator agents, municipal and county authorities and small businessmen. The 1959 crop, a very small percentage of which was taken off during the harvest season last year, was coming off quite well with the exception that losses in the amount of production amounted to about 20 to 25 per cent and losses in quality were about the same. As a result farmers were harvesting less than they would have got if harvesting had been normal.
Supply-Agriculture
I would not say that they were discouraged because they feel that the government will look for some method to assist them. Farmers who took off their grain during the last harvest season had grain that was in a damp or tough condition and they have suffered losses for that reason. I think there is a very real need at the present time for some type of assistance. I have been getting letters constantly from the farmers union of Alberta and the locals in my constituency, all of which make the same plea that I have made before and repeat today. I think it is time for the government to consider very seriously repeating the acreage payment that was made in 1958, namely $1 an acre to a maximum of 200 acres. I feel this would afford real relief at a time when it is most needed. In the area I represent the farmers average 300 acres or less. This means that these people need assistance, particularly in view of the fact that they have suffered a partial and in some cases very substantial loss so far as their 1959 crop is concerned.
I should also like to bring to the attention of the minister and the government an idea which has been put to use in the United States. I read about it this morning in a publication of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and I think the government should give some consideration to it. I have here the news and information bulletin of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and on page 5 there is reference to the United States conservation reserve program under which an annual rental running from $11.53 to $11.75 per acre is paid.
We have in Canada, particularly in the west, areas that have been in crop production for a good many years and where a conservation reserve of this type would enable the replacing of valuable soil elements which constant production has taken from the land. We also have areas which at one time were in forest and are now under agricultural production but which I think could well be reforested. We have great hopes, of course, with respect to the new department of forestry which it is proposed to set up because in that area millions and millions of feet of lumber used to be produced. That production has now disappeared and our lumbering industry has also disappeared with it. I would hope that the government would have a look at this conservation reserve program and the taking out of production of land which has been farmed so long and also land which is basically not suited to agricultural production.


Hervé J. Michaud: Mr. Chairman, I have already had occasion in previous debates on the subject of agriculture earlier in the session to

Supply-Agriculture
make known some of my views on this problem. There are, however, a few more observations that I should like to make at this time pertaining to the item now before the committee. On March 4 when these estimates were introduced into the house the Prime Minister had this to say on agriculture, as found at page 1766 of Hansard:
We believe that agriculture is one of the most important sectors of the Canadian economy; that the prosperity of agriculture is an integral part of Canadian prosperity; that governments do have a responsibility in the constructive and effective manner to strengthen Canadian agriculture for in doing so the economy as a whole is strengthened. We believe that the national interest can best be served if we endeavour to do our utmost to develop efficiently and economically our resources, including agriculture; that farmers should have continuing opportunities to earn sufficient income to enjoy the benefits of our rapidly growing economy and the rising standards of living enjoyed by the population as a whole; and that a reasonably high and stable level of farm income is an essential prerequisite to a high level of employment and income in Canada generally.
I wholly subscribe to the views expressed in that quotation and, as applied to the agricultural situation in the maritime provinces particularly, I think that every effort should be made to stimulate agriculture.
This is a point about which I feel very strongly. I have already said in this house, and I repeat at this time, that if we ever find a solution to the agricultural problems which exist in the maritime provinces we will have gone a long way toward the solution of the unemployment problem in that area. It is known to everybody that unemployment is the main curse that we have to face in the maritimes, and if we have to accept the views expressed in the quotation I have just given as reported in a speech by the Prime Minister on March 4 it would be evident that special efforts would have to be made, as I just mentioned a minute ago, to stimulate agriculture in the maritime provinces. Agriculture is one of the main industries in that area, and unless we adopt ways and means of keeping our farm population on the farms we can expect that the unemployment problem will remain with us in a very acute manner.
The present government, in attempting to solve some of the agricultural problems which we are facing today, last October applied deficiency payments to the poultry industry and last January applied deficiency payments to pork. Speaking on this item in a previous debate I expressed serious doubts that the aims sought by that legislation would be attained, particularly as applied to the poultry industry. I wondered if that policy would not be self-defeating and if instead of discouraging the big producers it would discourage the small producers. Since that time a statement

has been published by the Canadian Poultry Review, which I now hold in my hand on that very subject. It would seem that the quotation which I am about to give would support the contention that it is the smaller producer who is being discouraged, who is being squeezed out of the industry, whereas the large producer remains in business.
These statistics cover 45 Ontario hatcheries and the report covers a period from October 1, 1959 to February 28, 1960, in respect of chick orders. Here are the statistics: In 195859, the number of orders for flocks under 500 was 1,068 for a total of 285,133 chicks. During the same period in 1959-60 the number of orders had declined to 613 for a total of 167,000 chicks. For flocks from 500 to 1,500 the number of orders in 1958-59 was 640, for a total number of 503,000 chicks. During the same period in 1959-60 the number of orders declined to 468 for a total of 386,000 chicks. For flocks over 1,500, in 1958-59 the total orders amounted to 190, for a total of nearly
593,000	chicks. For the same period during 1959-60 the number of orders had declined to 182 for a total of 584,000 chicks. It is clearly indicated by these figures that it is the smaller producers who are going out of the poultry industry whereas the larger producers, with their mechanized equipment and their more available capital, are able to resist the present price depression and remain in the poultry industry. This is exactly the reverse to what was expected when this law was put into force.
There is one other observation which I should like to make and which applies particularly to the maritime provinces. I refer to our experimental farms. I think we have wonderful experimental farms in the maritime provinces, and they are serving a useful purpose. The government has always spent, and is still spending, huge amounts of money to keep these experimental farms in operation. The point which I should like to make at this time is that I wonder if we are reaping the full benefits of these experimental farms.
There is at Nappan, Nova Scotia, which is only about 100 miles from the area where I live, an experimental farm which is serving a very useful purpose. This farm specializes in the growing of grasses and grain, exactly the things in which the farmers in my area are interested. I wonder how many of my farmers have ever taken the trouble to even visit that farm? I would say that at least 95 per cent of our local farmers do not even know where Nappan is. The point which I would like to make is that greater efforts should be made by the government to disseminate the knowledge gained from the experiments which are being conducted at this

station. In my opinion it is useless for the government to continue spending these huge amounts of money in research in the agricultural field unless the knowledge gained is brought to the attention of those farmers who can be served by these experiments. I wish to repeat what I have just said, that I would like to see the government making greater efforts to bring to the rank and file of farmers the knowledge which has been accumulated by the experiments carried on at these experimental farms.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, in these brief remarks I wanted to draw to the attention of the house the farm problem as I see it in its national context at this time, that is today.
Before concluding what I have to say I would if I may, read into the record an editorial dated December 16,	1959, from
Terre de Chez Nous of the same day, entitled:
"True rural policy an urgent need." Canadian farms are being deserted. Thousands of young, unprepared country boys are going to swell the great number of unqualified workers and unemployed in our cities. Our rural areas are progressively drained of their population. It is hard today to find a farmer's son who is willing to take over his father's farm. The number of farms under operation decreases by a few thousand every year. The disastrous results of integration are a cause of concern. Marginal lands raise a problem of considerable and acute portent. Our farm districts are going through a particularly serious period of depression and a number of farmers are bewildered and distracted.
Some explanations are given for this state of affairs. Certain solutions have been tested. But the feeling remains that secondary causes are being fought because their effect seems to us particularly striking. Nobody dares to find out the primary cause of this evil. The settlement of that fundamental issue is left to natural selection. In practice things are being allowed to drift, and people hope that time and tide will ultimately settle everything. People close their eyes to the terrible human problems emerging from that situation and which will not fail to multiply. Nobody dares accept, and, more particularly, to put into practice a much needed over-all policy which has been sought for many years-
First of all we should complete the inventory of all our renewable resources. We would then adopt some program for their maximum development and use for the benefit of our rural class. We have there an enormous task for a special body having all necessary powers and means at its disposal. This is the essential basis, that the state alone can provide so that we can build the framework and outline of the general conditions in which individual and collective action may really be efficient.
Once we know on what raw material we must work, and once we have decided on the most appropriate use we can make of it, then we would only have to adopt certain concrete steps to achieve the general objective. In the case of economically sound farms or of those likely to become so, for instance, we should provide the required credit facilities to assure their efficiency, and put at their 79951-0-210
Supply-Agriculture
disposal all the techniques they need. It is all very well and good to talk about efficiency, but still, such an objective must materially and economically be accessible to those who wish to achieve it.
The importance of marketing no longer needs proof. At least, in theory. In practice, there is much to be done yet, before farmers can play the role which is theirs in that field. Excellent beginnings have already been njted. But it is urgent to adopt legislation which is imperative, or to improve the existing one, in order that well understood collective action may have its full scope.
But, all that will amount to very little, if the coming generation is not better prepared to earn their living. It is the whole problem of rural education and instruction which is involved. First of all, an efficient guidance system is imperative, if we want each young rural man to find his true way. Then, these young people must have the opportunity of preparing themselves according to their vocation. Not only those who wish to take up farming, but also the increasing number of those who wish to earn their living by other means.
Each one of those points would call for a lengthy examination. However, the first step is to draw up once and for all and to apply an over-all plan for our rural communities. The first thing is to know where we are going. Then it is a matter of taking the means to the end. The present situation shows that any further delay might be disastrous and even criminal.
Unless and until a start is made on such an over-all plan, any individual measure will be nothing more than a stopgap. It will be a poultice which, instead of having a healing effect, will only worsen the condition of the diseased organ. In such a context, anyone who satisfies himself with partial solutions is acting like a quack, either through bad faith, naivety or ignorance.
Mr. Chairman, I commend to the attention of the house and particularly of the Minister of Agriculture the wise advice and recommendations found in this editorial.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I want to open my remarks by congratulating the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) for giving the welfare societies of this country thousands of pounds of pork to help the needy.
Even if social work is primarily the responsibility of individuals, the federal government has shown a wonderful example of generosity. In fact, through the Gold Cross organization, in the Montreal area, the government has given thousands of pounds of pork and, out of this gift, 50,000 pounds of pork have been distributed to charitable organizations in the Joliette diocese. I am justified in saying that this government, for the first time, has given something to Canada as well as to foreign countries, contrary to the Liberal policy of the past.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to point out to the minister that, under the former government, many federal experimental farms have been abandoned in this country. So far the following farms have been idle: Farnham,

Supply-Agriculture
1940: Cap Rouge, 1945; Abitibi farm, 1936; Rosthern, Saskatchewan, 1940; Wainwright, Alberta, 1951; Windermere, B.C., 1940.
You have there a clear indication, Mr. Chairman, of the way the former government treated the farmers of this country. In the province of Quebec, three experimental farms folded up under the former government.
Unfortunately, the hon. member for Drum-mond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) did not mention those facts to the house. Quebec was one of the hardest hit provinces under the former Liberal administration. Consequently,
I ask the Minister of Agriculture, if possible, to consider the advisability of either creating new experimental farms or increasing the funds for research, not only in the other provinces but especially in the province of Quebec, because a greater number of experimental farms have shut down.


An hon. Member:: Use the remaining ones.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, the hon. -nember-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I ask the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska not to interrupt me. I did not interrupt him when he made his speech. If he has any questions to put to me, he may do so as soon as I have finished my speech.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge the farmers of the province of Quebec to become members of the U.C.C. (Catholic farmers' union) and to join other co-operative movements if they really want to make progress. The U.C.C. has always upheld the interests of farmers. It is their duty to become members of that organization.
Mr. Chairman, I refer to an article published in Action Populaire of Joliette of July 8, 1959, which includes a report by Mr. Jean-Baptiste Lemoine, from Terre de Chez Nous. I quote:
The UCC played a prominent part in the fight tor the maintenance of a reasonable price balance for dairy products. This is a target to shoot at.
But the farmer's aim should be to take over the control and guidance of our agricultural development. The professional association will have to take a considerable part in co-ordinating this field, in the view of Mr. H. H. Hannam, chairman of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
Never have we farmers had such need of a strong organization. The part played by an organization like the UCC has now taken an unparalleled significance. The union is the only means the farmer has of acquiring the needed prestige and strength and for obtaining the basic policies that will allow the establishment of a realistic farm economy, adapted to our times.
In conclusion, I would like to quote a sentence in a pastoral bishops' letter on the rural problem:
"The U.C.C. will be the sheet-anchor of farmers". That sentence is still true today. Farmers; in your own better interest, join the U.C.C.

I would ask the U.C.C. to carry on its work of devotion with the agricultural class, in order to encourage farmers' sons to improve their knowledge in agricultural schools.
Co-operatives are the best means of achieving economic democracy. If they are encouraged by farmers, agricultural co-operatives may solve agricultural problems to a very large extent. They can give farmers the economic power wielded by large unions and business magnates.
The only thing which helps farmers prevent outside interests to get control over agriculture, is the setting up of more and stronger co-operatives.
Mr. Chairman, may I point out that agricultural surpluses are not created by the farmers, and to back up that statement, I refer to Le Devoir of February 5, 1960. At the congress of the Cooperative federee de Quebec, Mr. Reynald Ferron made a statement from which I want to quote a few sentences:
He accused some large commercial corporations of being responsible for those surpluses and for the glutting of the markets. Such conditions, he explains, have forced the federal government to modify its price support formula and to adopt another, i.e. the system of deficiency payments.
A little further on, he said:
He expressed the opinion that, by now, some large industries whose chief interest is to sell mill feed or to dispose of other commodities, look into the future with uneasiness and think of withdrawing from the market.
If farm production remained solely in the hands of bona fide farmers, he said, Canada would certainly not need to spend so much on some form or other of price support.
He stated that it was after representations had been made by farm organizations, like the federated co-operatives, the U.C.C. and, on the national level, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, that a formula was established which, it is hoped, will rectify those conditions.
Mr. Chairman, during the election campaign of 1958, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) went about the country declaring that the support price for butter was too low, and that it should be raised to 63 cents. On the other hand, during the discussion of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, he stated that this price would be too high.
Allow me, Mr. Chairman, to point out to the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) that, as from May 1, 1959, until the end of last March, deficiency payments of 25 cents for 100 pounds of milk to be processed in factories has helped our farmers to get an amount of $94 million until the end of March.
Quebec farmers have received approximately $4,250,000.

I should have liked the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska to state his figures more clearly.
Allow me, Mr. Chairman, to say a word about butter in relation to domestic consumption.
In the last four years Canadian production and domestic consumption reached
1.212.597.000	pounds, leaving a slight deficit of 3,700,000 pounds.
In 1953, domestic consumption was
308.674.000	pounds, or 20.88 pounds per capita. In 1948, before the introduction of margarine, the average consumption per capita was 27.73 pounds of butter. There is no doubt that the decrease in butter consumption is due to margarine consumption, averaging 7.46 pounds per capita in 1953.
In Quebec, where the sale of margarine is prohibited, butter production is almost exactly equal to butter consumption.
Mr. Chairman, I am not the one who says this: it is the statement of a farm expert, Mr. C. E. Couture, assistant manager of the Quebec branch of the Quebec federated co-operative.
In that same article, he refers to margarine.
Margarine, that butter substitute, manufactured with vegetable fats and oils, has now become the worse threat to the prosperity of butter industry in particular, and to dairy industry in general. Even if the manufacture and sale of that product are prohibited in our province, we suffer from the detrimental effects of its marketing in the other provinces.


Mr. Rouleau:: Margarine is sold even in the province of Quebec.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The experience of the last five years has shown that butter is losing the very ground gained by margarine, whose Canadian production has reached
110.266.000	pounds in 1953.
If the butter industry is to survive, it will have not only to work hard at improving the quality of butter, through better techniques for the production of the raw material, the manufacture, handling, stocking and marketing of that product, but it will also have to restrict, with the utmost energy, the development of that encroaching and threatening product, margarine.
Mr. Chairman, I simply wished to underline the policy of the government of the province of Quebec, which has outlawed margarine. It is stated here, Mr. Chairman, in that magazine entitled Agriculture, in an article written by Mr. Couture, that in the province of Quebec the marketing of margarine is prohibited, but that the province of Quebec produces nearly exactly the quantity of butter it requires.
Mr. Chairman, I should like also to draw the attention of the house to a brief submitted by concentrated milk producers of 79951-0-216J
Supp ly-A griculture
eastern Canada to the agriculture committee of the House of Commons. This brief is dated March 29, 1960, and here is what it says:
Mr. Chairman, concentrated milk producers have never asked your government, or in fact any government, more than they needed. Many of us can remember that when the previous government placed a 17 cent support on spray process milk powder, that support was higher than we had requested.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska has failed to draw attention to that situation, or to the brief that was submitted by concentrated milk producers, and which contains an indirect criticism of the former government. However, at that time, the Liberal party was concerned only with elections, not with the interest of farmers, and failed to realize that this shortsighted policy of the former government ran against the interests of the Canadian people and created a serious discrepancy between production and consumption. The result was that at one point, the present government was faced with a surplus of over 100,000 pounds of milk powder. Such was the result of the shortsighted policy of the former administration. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska preferred not to mention those facts, and failed to point them out to the house.
If you read La Presse for March 8, 1960, you find that the price of hogs is higher this year.
Mr. David Adams, a representative of western farmers, has indicated that the prices of Canadian hogs will rise this year.
And here is an item which appeared in Terre de Chez Nous on January 20, 1960:
Quebec egg producers favoured in 1960.
Here, to say the least, is a piece of good news. Even if over-production and low prices are expected in the first half of the year, Quebec egg producers would be ill-advised to curtail or stop their production.
Conditions prevailing in Quebec offer truly favourable possibilities, according to the poultry industry division of the provincial department of agriculture.
This is what I find in Le Devoir of September 11, 1959:
The cash income of farmers increased during the first six months.
The cash income of Canadian farmers reached $1,318,556,000 during the first half of the year. This is a record showing a 3 per cent increase compared to last year.
From January to June 1959, the cash income of New Brunswick farmers was $20,276,000, compared to $22,817,000 during the first six months of 1958; the income of Quebec farmers reached $181,115,000 compared to $180,410,000 the previous year; in Ontario the income of farmers reached $417,541,000, compared to $399,201,000 during the first half of 1958.

Supply-Agriculture
This morning, the hon. member for Drum-mond-Arthabaska criticized the federal farm credit, and blamed the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness), though, Mr. Chairman-if we look up the French text of Hansard for April 13, 1959-he is the same man who, last year, answered the minister:
Mr. Chairman, it is with great pleasure that we heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) state that he would leave the interest rate at 5 per cent. I commend him for that and thank him on behalf of our farmers.
That is what the hon. member for Drum-mond-Arthabaska said last year; yet this morning he made a political speech criticizing federal farm credit; whereas, as I said, last year, the Minister of Agriculture had been congratulated by that very man. I also would tell the Quebec farmers and the whole country: "Look what kind of men make up the opposition." The one I am speaking of is a man who lies in the face of the people. He contradicted himself this morning and we find the proof in the official record of the house.
Mr. Chairman, allow me also to refer to a joint brief of the co-operative society of tobacco growers (Societe cooperative agricole de tabac) of the Joliette district, and of the co-operative agricultural society of the Ya-maska valley. The brief was sent some time ago to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and,	I think, also to	the
Minister of Agriculture.
Allow me to quote a few paragraphs:
Cigar and pipe tobacco producers of the province of Quebec, about 1,600 in number, have been grouped for more than thirty years, in overwhelming majority, under the leadership of two co-operative associations: the co-operative society of tobacco growers of the district of Joliette and the co-operative agricultural society of the Yamaska valley. Since June 15, 1957, all planters have rallied under the banner of the cigar and pipe tobacco producers board, a body operated under the authority of the Quebec Farm Markets Act. Although their occupation is connected with a specialized branch of the farm industry, the general prosperity of a vast area depends to a large extent on the increase or decrease of tobacco production. That is why, through their associations and with the authorization of their respective administrators, producers wish to express their views on the precarious situation of their farm specialty, and are requesting from the federal government a taxation system which would be more in keeping with their interests, as well as with those of the whole Canadian cigar tobacco industry.
I would also point out to the minister that the production of cigar tobacco is centralized in the province of Quebec only and is of capital importance for the constituency of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, as well as for the economy of the province of Quebec.

I should like also to say a word about tobacco duties and taxes, in relation to the considerations mentioned in their brief, under the heading: Tax on cigar tobacco.
The duties on cigar tobacco may be classified under two headings: (a) customs duties; (b) excise duties and taxes and federal sales tax.
(a) Customs duties. Those duties affect imported tobacco which we buy mainly from the United States and Cuba. They are of 12] cents a pound, on unstemmed tobacco leaf, and of 20 cents a pound on stemmed tobacco-that is to say the tobacco leaf stripped of its central vein.
It should be pointed out here that there is a tendency towards gradual decrease in customs tariffs, as shown by the following table:
Change in custom tariff-Non-manufactured cigar tobacco
Year
Unstemmed Stemmed (pound) (pound)
1936-Budget 1948-January 1st 1951-June 6 1956-June 30
$ 0.40	$ 0.60
0.20	0.30
0.15	0.22]
0.12]	0.20
I would also point out to the house that this procedure of the former government was contrary and seriously detrimental to the interest of cigar tobacco producers of that area of the province of Quebec.
The hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska, unfortunately, did not want to emphasize those figures this morning. Besides, as an hon. colleague is telling me: "He does not know anything about it".
We might add that the tariff on other types of tobacco (n.o.p.) has remained unchanged since 1948, being limited to 20 cents a pound for unstemmed leaves.
The brief says also:
Finally, it is important to point out that a new tariff item, in force since July 16, 1959-
That is under this government-
-applies to the synthetic envelope from the United States (converted tobacco leaf for use in the manufacture of cigar binders) and provides a tariff of 75 cents a pound.
Besides, I already had the opportunity, right at the first session, to make some remarks on this matter in this house.
(b) Excise duties, federal excise and sales tax. First, we must point out that in April 1959, the federal government increased excise duty, by $1 per 1,000 cigars, and the federal sales tax by 1 per cent.
I would also ask, if it is possible, that the Minister of Agriculture, in co-operation with the Minister of Finance, undertake a wholesale revision of the duties and taxes on cigars, as a measure of encouragement for this production in the province of Quebec.
I ask also the government to increase the customs tariffs on unmanufactured, unstemmed and stemmed cigar tobacco.

Mr. Chairman, I would not want to conclude my remarks without saying a few words about the situation of producers of cigarette tobacco in the province of Quebec, whose yearly production is about five and a half million pounds.
If I may be permitted, I would like also to have three tables put on record: first, a table entitled "A few statistics on the tobacco industry"; second, "Production costs of a 50-acre flue-cured tobacco crop"; third: "Capital costs of a 50-acre flue-cured tobacco farm".
Those tables are rather brief and they are official because they have been published by Mr. Conrad Turcot, head of the tobacco division of the government of the province of Quebec.
Supply-Agriculture
Therefore, I ask the house to allow me
to put these tables in Hansard.


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: We have no
objection.
(Text):


The Deputy Chairman:: Does the committee consent to the hon. member tabling the documents in Hansard'!


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Edward Rea: May I ask the hon. member how long they are?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Very short.


Charles Edward Rea: Does the committee give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The documents above referred to, follow:]
(Translation):



TABLE 1.-A FEW STATISTICS ON THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
Production in Quebec	Products manufactured in Canada
-	Cigar tobacco (lbs)	Pipe tobacco (lbs)	Flue-cured tobacco (lbs)	Cigars (number)	Cigarettes (number)	Cut tobacc os (lbs)1935	
1936	
1937	
1938	
1939	.... 3,443,000 .... 4,824,000 .... 5,852,000 .... 6,200,000 .... 5,190,000	2.522.000 4,233,400 2.255.000 2.800.000 3,659,000	25,000 53,600 330,000 1.500.000 4.120.000	120.508.000 119.827.000 129.873.000 132.715.000 135.825.000	5.324.953.000 5.607.228.000 6.724.333.000 6.899.735.000 7.163.433.000	19.803.000 20.589.000 22.439.000 22.757.000 24.710.0001940	
1941	
1942	
1943	
1944	.... 4,693,800 .... 4,082,500 .... 4,199,000 .... 2,270,000 .... 2,976,000	4,014,200 2.508.000 1.275.000 466,800 2,050,800	4,436,300 2.950.000 4,000,000 3.764.000 3.391.000	165.455.000 196.724.000 206.486.000 200.370.000 198.512.000	7.831.312.000 9.548.461.000 11.966.459.000 13.591.320.000 15.484.605.000	26.699.000 26.020.000 26.243.000 24.809.000 24.263.0001945	
1946	
1947	
1948	
1949	.... 3,300,000 .... 5,435,000 .... 3,729,000 .... 8,402,000 .... 2,750,000	1.950.000 2.395.000 1.675.000 1,000,000 1.820.000	4.141.000 3.865.000 3.536.000 4.351.000 2.250.000	207.861.000 220.994.000 214.745.000 210.335.000 207.213.000	17.684.707.000 14.866.931.000 15.687.127.000 16.071.779.000 17.053.442.000	26,234,568 25,562,717 25,404,039 26,337,329 26,202,7331950	
1951	
1952	
1953	
1954	.... 4,500,000 .... 3,728,000 .... 2,700,000 .... 3,400,000 .... 5,000,000	1.145.000 1.056.000 1.342.000 1.149.000 1.040.000	3.900.000 3.846.000 4.260.000 4.886.000 4.900.000	198.207.000 169.408.000 201.517.000 236.248.000 240.520.000	17.311.062.000 15.816.166.000 18.037.268.000 21.156.092.000 22.425.791.000	26,794,763 28,095,415 31,635,023 26,124,760 25,124,6381955	
1956	
1957	
1958	
1959	.... 5,800,000 .... 5,081,000 .... 3,925,000 .... 3,331,885 .... 5,000,000	1.350.000 425.000 775.000 497.000 1.150.000	5.760.000 4.900.000 3.662.000 4.850.000 5,000,000	257.233.000 260.900.000 283.706.000 319.595.000 303.788.000	24.864.332.000 27.343.990.000 30.394.576.000 32.777.576.000 33.130.959.000	24,149,936 21,588,083 20,736,605 21,608,808 21,706,67925-year average.	.... 4,040,000 lbs.	1,780,000 lbs.	3,570,000 lbs.	206,000,000	-	24,625,000 lbs.
N.B.: Quebec production figures for 1959 are subject to revision.
[Stage Direction]
Supp ly-A griculture

[Stage Direction]
Expenditures
Cost
Per item	Total
[Stage Direction]
Wages:
Producer: 9 months at $200	-	[DOT]	;	[DOT]: [DOT] -
Spring preparation: production of greenhouse seedlings, plowing, harrowing, spreading
of Aldrin insecticides and fertilizers, transplanting	
Hoeing and weeding	
Topping and suckering	[DOT] [DOT]. [DOT];	
Miscellaneous (mid-season): fertilization of rye fields, plowing in of rye crop, poisoning
of hornworm, crop preparation (sleds, lattices, etc.)	
Irrigation: 22,000 gal. of water per acre, one application only	
Harvest (25 dryers):
Picking and feeding tobacco into dryers ($145.00 per kiln)	
Splitting and stacking in warehouse ($12.00 per kiln)	
American curing expert:
Wages (6 weeks at $100.00)	
Board (6 weeks at $15.00)	
Travelling expenses	
Packing of crop (including grading)	
Fall preparation: stem cutting, rye sowing, spreading and plowing in of 50 truckloads of farm manure, storing of various accessories, etc	
Maintenance of greenhouses (snow removal)	
1,800.00
600.00
500.00 GOO.00
50.00
100.00
3.625.00
250.00
600.00
90.00
35.00
1.500.00
200.00
50.00
10,000.00
Other production items:
Renewal of greenhouse panes	
Greenhouse compost	 [DOT] [DOT] [DOT] [DOT]
Chemical fertilizers (purchase and transportation): tobacco and rye
Farm fertilizers	
Insecticides: purchase of Aldrin and D.D.T	 *
Fuels:
Disinfecting green houses	
Crop curing	
Crop packing	
Insurance:
Hail (15 per cent of $6,000.00)	
Employees (labour accidents)	
Fire-house ($4,000.00)	
Fire-8 kilns ($4,000.00)	
Fire-warehouse ($4,000.00)	
Fire-tobacco in 8 kilns ($8,000.00)	
Fire-tobacco in warehouse ($20,000.00)	
Gasoline and lubricants: rolling stock	* * * *..* [DOT] ....
Gasoline and lubricants: irrigation (one water application only)...
Horses (rented)	
Electricity on farm	
Delivery of crop to Joliette	
Repairs and unforeseen expenses	
Interests and banking costs (short term loans)	_	
Car: farm administration and employee transportation	
Miscellaneous taxes	
Depreciation	
Interests on invested capital	
50.00
50.00 1,800.00
500.00
125.00
50.00 1,500.00
75.00
900.00
36.00
24.00
130.00
110.00 260.00
500.00
400.00
90.00
100.00
50.00 100.00
1,000.00
150.00
300.00
200.00 2,000.00 2,000.00
12,500.00
[Stage Direction]
22,500.00
Therefore, the production cost is established at 45c. a pound for a good normal crop of 50,000 pounds of flue-cured tobacco.
[Stage Direction]
Supp ly-A griculture

[Stage Direction]
l.-Land (acreage more than doubled, taking into account cultivated area, building sites, etc...):
150 acres (equipped with wind-breakers and irrigation pond)	 $	15,000.00
2.-Buildings:
1 house (residence)	 $ 7,000.00
3 greenhouses (100 by 25 feet) at $1,300.00	 3,900.00
8 kilns (oil or propane heated) at $1,600.00	 12,800.00
1 tobacco warehouse with steam easing rooms and packing rooms	 5,000.00
1 sheet metal storage shed (for agricultural implements)	 750.00
Other outbuildings, miscellaneous	 250.00
1 water-tank for greenhouses	 300.00
[Stage Direction]
 $	30,000.00
S.-Rolling stock, agricultural implements and tools:
1 tractor-30 H.P. (general utility)	 2,000.00
1 tractor-21H.P. (equipped with weeders)	 1,400.00
1 used truck (general utility)	 500.00
1 4-wheel wagon with large platform	 250.00
1 tractor-driven plow	 200.00
1 harrow (disc)	 200.00
1 insecticide sprayer (animal drawn)	 175.00
1 transplanter, equipped with a chemical fertilizer spreader	 325.00
3 small weeders, animal drawn	 50.00
1 stem cutter (tobacco)	 100.00
1 farm manure spreader	 300.00
1 chemical fertilizer surface spreader (rye and tobacco)	 150.00
1 metal tank, 1,000 gallons (transplanting, etc.)	 100.00
40,000 tobacco slats	 1,200.00
1 15-H.P, boiler with accessories (compost disinfecting)	 600.00
3 tobacco presses and boxes (tobacco packing)	 100.00
1 portable irrigation system with accessories	 7,000.00
Miscellaneous: saw-benches, scrapers, planters, scales, thermometers, sleds, tables, etc. 350.00
[Stage Direction]
 $	15,000.00
OVER-ALL TOTAL	 $ 60,000.00
(Translation):
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Those figures help prove that the tobacco companies have to pay a fair price to the planters, so that they may have a fair share of the national income.
And for the information of the house-* it is not an historical fact, but it happened nevertheless under the previous government, when cigarette tobacco growing was started in the province of Quebec-I will recall that it was opposed very vigorously by some officials of the Liberal government.
That is the way, Mr. Speaker, in which the people of the province of Quebec, the Quebec farmers, were treated.
(Text):


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


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) a question, if I may.
He said in his speech that the sale of margarine was prohibited in the province of Quebec-


An hon. Member:: Certainly.


Samuel Boulanger: Can he explain to us how it happens to be sold in the province of Quebec?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: First of all, can you prove it?


Guy Rouleau: Yes, we can prove it.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Second, do not forget that it is being sold in other provinces.


Guy Rouleau: Any chain groceteria or store sells it.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is somewhat like smug-gled-in cigarettes. You remember that they were coming in by the truck load under the former government.


Samuel Boulanger: We are discussing the fact that a law prohibits the sale of margarine in the province of Quebec.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Is there not also a law against the infiltration of American cigarettes? It is the same thing.
(Text):


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, like all hon. members, the minister has a general interest in all affairs which affect the Canadian economy but because of his position in the cabinet he of necessity has a particular interest in the problems of agriculture. It is because of his position as Minister of Agriculture that I should like to take this oppor-

Supply-Agriculture
tunity, on the first item in his estimates, to ask both for his consideration of and comments upon a problem which in our estimation, because certain policies have been allowed to go unchecked, is proving a serious detriment to agriculture directly, to the agricultural industry not quite so directly, and is indirectly affecting all other aspects of our economy and business itself.
I have mentioned this particular problem briefly during this session and now, when there is an opportunity to discuss it with the Minister of Agriculture, I should like to go into it in a little more detail. I have reference to a dual policy which up until now has been allowed to go completely unchecked by either this or the previous government. I refer to companies outside of Canada, in particular companies in the United States, being permitted to purchase outright fruit and vegetable canneries in this country and to close them down as far as all operations are concerned, thereby blocking out completely the purchase of Canadian agricultural produce, blocking out completely the employment of Canadian workers and, as far as their operations are concerned, the opportunity of Canadian consumers to buy produce grown and processed in Canada.
I know for a fact that this policy has been in operation for some time in British Columbia, in Ontario and in at least one important place in the province of Nova Scotia. United States companies have bought out Canadian companies and have closed up the industries, retaining only two things, namely the incorporation and the name brand. It is now the practice of those United States companies to process the production outside of Canada, to can it outside of Canada, to ship it into Canada and then place a Canadian brand name on the product. I gave some examples of that in this House of Commons some three weeks ago where fresh frozen strawberries sold under the well-known Canadian brand name of York were not Canadian. They came in one instance from the United States and in the other from Holland. I gave a further illustration of tomato juice being sold in Canada under a Canadian name brand but which was produced and canned in the United States.
I say there is a general application of the policy of United States companies buying out Canadian companies and following that procedure.
There is also another policy which has gone unchecked about which I have not made mention before. Well known, long established large wholesale distributors within a province are being bought out by large financial and chain stores who, after the purchase, operate them wholly and solely under their original

names and original brands. That is, they follow a practice along the same lines as that which I have previously mentioned. Goods produced outside this country are processed outside this country and then sold in this country under the known provincial brand, although most people do not realize that those companies no longer operate under the original ownership but are part and parcel of big financial interests and financial chains.
I say this is a problem in Canada. It has resulted in a loss which I am going to estimate as being in the neighbourhood of many, many millions of dollars to our agricultural producers and to the industry which necessarily follows success in agriculture.
I know this is the general effect across Canada, but I want to speak in particular of the province of British Columbia of which I have the honour to be one of the representatives in this house. In the past the Fraser valley has been, among other things, famous for its production of strawberries, not only for the consumer market when they are picked fresh but also for canning and frozen purposes. That situation no longer exists. To a great extent that marvellous production of the past is now dead because of the two policies I have just mentioned and because the canneries no longer exist. Instead of strawberry jam and fresh frozen strawberries from the famous Fraser valley being sold under the York brand we now get imports from the United States and Holland. To me there is something blatently nonsensical about that situation.
But let us go on to something that, important as the strawberry crop is, is of even greater value to the people of British Columbia. In that regard I wish to refer to the world famous Okanagan valley which I maintain is one of the finest areas not only in Canada but in the world for the production of fruits, small fruits and vegetables. Until a few years ago there were 15 or 16 large canneries operating in the area from Lillooet on the north down the Fraser to Lytton, Ashcroft, Kamloops and Chase and in the actual Okanagan itself at Vernon, Rutland, Kelowna, Summerland, Oliver, Keremeos, Osoyoos and Cawston.
Today there are only two vegetable canneries left of any size and I am informed by the operators that the operations of the remaining two are declining rapidly. Why? Not only was this a marvellous area and can continue to be for the production of beans, beets, pumpkins, asparagus and so on but it was also a wonderful tomato belt. These canneries operated not only because of these other vegetables but were primarily required for the processing of tomatoes. However, because of the two policies I referred to a few

minutes ago there are now only two canneries operating and their operations are diminishing. This has come about because of the purchase by United States interests of our canneries in British Columbia and the fact that they have closed them and because of the purchase of the wholesale distributing companies by national chains and big financial interests who have done this for some reason or other although they claim they love Canadian enterprise. They are importing agricultural products from outside our country with the result that the agricultural producers of British Columbia and the industries associated with agriculture have suffered very severe losses.
Surely the reduction from 16 canneries to two shows what has taken place. I admit that until some two and a half weeks ago I did not know how serious the impact was. I received by air express cans of tomato juice purchased by a citizen in the city of Vernon in the heart of the Okanagan and the tomato growing region. I do not know how well the Nabob name is known in eastern Canada but it is certainly known in western Canada. There was a can of Kelly Douglas tomato juice packed in the United States by Nabob. Then there was a can of Malkin tomato juice. The Malkin name is as well known in British Columbia as Nabob or Kelly Douglas. Again this was tomato juice packed in the United States for the Malkin company of Canada. Yet this tomato juice was being sold in the city of Vernon where one of the remaining canneries is located. The president of that company, in a letter to me which is not marked confidential, informs me that on the basis of his lifelong knowledge of the Okanagan and the industry as a producer and packer it is his conservative estimate that the policies about which I am now complaining are resulting in a direct loss to Okanagan agricultural producers and labour of not less than $5 million annually.
I know that the minister has at least some interest in this matter because the information branch of the department issued a release on the 14th of this month and I should like to quote from it.
The agricultural stabilization board has been authorized to provide assistance to the growers of tomatoes in British Columbia in the form of a payment of $8 per ton for No. 1 cannery tomatoes and $5 a ton on No. 2 cannery tomatoes marketed from the 1960 crop, agriculture minister Douglas S. Harkness announced today. Mr. Harkness said the assistance, which has been provided to British Columbia tomato growers since 1958, would not be extended after 1960.
He noted that while B.C. tomato production had been subsidized by assistance payments of $109,000 in 1958 and $38,000 in 1959, the contracted tomato acreage in the province had declined by more than 50 per cent between 1957 and 1959. Further, while
Supply-Agriculture
B.C. tomato production represented only about 6 per cent of the Canadian output of processed tomato products, the producers in other areas have been able to carry on their operations without assistance under the stabilization act.
He stated that under these circumstances continued government subsidies to B.C. tomato growers could not be justified. Assistance had been approved for 1960 only for the purpose of permitting producers to make any necessary adjustments in their future plans, and support under the stabilization act would not be available after this year.
It is quite obvious that is the end of assistance as far as the tomato growers of British Columbia are concerned. But, Mr. Chairman, the date of that announcement was the 14th of this month and my information from the producers and canners of the Okanagan is that April 14 was too late to make this known to them and that they cannot do any planning now for the increasing of acreage or with a view to reopening any additional canneries. They say that not only is it too late now for anything of major significance to be done to bring back that segment of agriculture in the Okanagan but the fact that the door will be closed after this year is a further blow.
I know that all of us are grateful that there is going to be some assistance this year, but what did it amount to last year- thirty eight thousand dollars. The important issue is, what is contemplated by the minister and the government to reclaim agricultural production and cannery operation so far as tomatoes are concerned, to name just one field? If we lose out as far as tomatoes are concerned then we will also lose so far as the production and canning of other vegetables is concerned. All that is left, therefore, is the fresh vegetable market.
When we have statements made, I would take it by very responsible officials of Boul-man's Limited that they are losing out now to the extent of over $5 million a year as a result of this policy of foreign ownership, control and incorporation but selling under Canadian brand names, then I think we who are interested in the development of agriculture in Canada and processing in Canada as well as consumers being able to support products which are grown and processed in Canada through their purchases, should ask the minister at this time what consideration he has given to the impact of the two policies about which I have been speaking for these past 15 minutes; what interest he has shown in them and what action he is taking or contemplates taking to renew and revive the agriculture and canning industries in Canada. This problem not only affects British Columbia and Ontario, but within the last three weeks I have found that the system is now going into effect in Nova Scotia.

Supp ly-A griculture
This is a creeping disease which has to be stopped and only the government can do it. I realize there are many difficulties in the way. I realize there are many problems, but they will have to be tackled, even if it means going to the extent of charging for the use of the brand name of Canadian companies which are bought up and closed out and using that money to assist agriculture in other directions. If we are going to have outfits like Kelly Douglas doing what I say they are doing, and about which I got the evidence sent me by express the other day, then they too will have to be made to contribute in some way or other toward the assistance of agriculture in other directions.
If no policy is going to be laid down to recapture what we are now losing, then I say this is indeed a serious matter and something which should never have been allowed to go unchecked as long as it has. I sincerely hope the Minister of Agriculture will have something to say about this, some good and constructive information to give us as to his policy for the protection and enlargement of agricultural development along the lines I have been mentioning.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Chairman, it may seem strange to many that I, from the far north and the far west, should rise in this committee to speak on agriculture. Apart, however, from what was said about the dominion experimental farm at Haines Junction, Mile 1019 on the Alaska highway, some years ago, there has not been a word said in the house or in committee about agriculture in the Yukon since the Yukon has had a seat in this house. I propose, first, to deal with the possibilities of mixed farming in the Yukon, and to make a few suggestions as to how this can be achieved. I also admit freely at the outset of these remarks that I am certainly no expert on agriculture, nor a farmer. The information I have gleaned -has come, however, from experts and from those who are undoubtedly acquainted with agricultural problems in the north. I will be making remarks about certain negative attitudes on the part of government administrators in the north in so far as the development of agriculture there is concerned.
Agriculture has an important part to play in the development of the Yukon. People, wherever they are, must eat. Virtually all the foodstuffs consumed in the Yukon must be shipped in from the outside. In addition to the climatic severity, Yukon residents are penalized by a certain isolation from the rest of Canada. Modern facilities for travel and communication have reduced this isolation factor to a minimum, but the high cost of importing food still remains. Much will be done

to alleviate this with the increase in the development of agriculture. A thriving local agriculture industry in the Yukon could supply much of the beef, pork, poultry, eggs and common garden crops now consumed there. With proper management it would be possible to supply local markets with fresher and higher quality produce. Eliminating the roughly 1,500 mile freight haul from outside points would result in a saving to the Yukon consumer both in quality and in price. There would be less danger of food shortages brought on, for example, by longshoremen's strikes at our only port of entry on tidewater at Skagway, although there is the port of Haines which is seldom used.
Agriculture would also lend stability to the economy of the country in this way: Farmers are generally good citizens. They attempt to build homes for their families and businesses for their sons. They must keep abreast of the -times in order to survive, and in doing this they show an interest in their community and in the country as a whole. The permanent settlement of the Yukon could be aided considerably by agricultural development. Of lesser importance, yet nevertheless significant, would be the labour required for the building up of farms. There would be a demand for such skilled labour as carpenters, heavy duty operators, mechanics and, later, a demand for unskilled labour.
Much of the native population, now more or less unemployed, could be utilized as unskilled labour on the farms as they develop. Work on or about farms would give natives a chance to obtain better food and living conditions than they now enjoy, and heaven knows the standard they are now experiencing is low enough. With some training and experience gained working on farms some Indians could very easily become good farmers. This could work in well with the government's program of training the Indian people. At present those people interested in agriculture are apt to be a bit scarce. There are, now, only two possible sources of such men. One source would be the natives who have worked on farms, both private farms and the experimental farm. You might find some natives, also, amongst those who have worked for the big game guides who would be interested in livestock production. The second source would be the native schools.
The men from the first mentioned source would be older and better able to judge whether farming could hold their interest. They may also be inclined to let things slide along the way they are and look to the government for support whether or not they work. The group from the schools would be younger and would learn more easily. They

might be given encouragement and counselling before leaving the schools. The government, in co-operation with private farmers, could select a few likely candidates and introduce them to the art of farming. It might be possible to work out some scheme whereby the government could give the farmer some assistance with wages and the farmer could supply room and board and training for these natives, in much the same fashion as the on the job training that has been provided by the Department of Labour and the Indian affairs branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
If this proved satisfactory the natives, after becoming basically familiar with life on the farm, could be given additional training in agriculture. It is unlikely that there would be sufficient interest at first to justify an agricultural school in the Yukon, but interested students might be sent to schools such as the Olds and Vermilion schools of agriculture in Alberta. If there were sufficient interest, various short courses in agriculture might be instituted for the special training of these natives. Courses in mechanics and machinery maintenance were given at the Alberta school of agriculture to Indians and Eskimos from the Northwest Territories.
I believe that local farmers would be willing to co-operate in such a program. Most of these hire some native help during the heavy work periods. While the farmer is unable to afford year-round unskilled labour he would have work enough or be willing to train a native if he had some assistance with wages. If candidates that were genuinely interested in agriculture were selected for such a training program, they could become quite successful farmers. If a few natives got a start in farming it is unlikely that others would not follow their example. Such a program could be of great assistance in solving the native problem in the Yukon. It requires co-operation, I would suggest, between the two departments.
Agriculture in the Yukon is an economically sound venture and is advantageous to the country as a whole. Before I rose to make these few remarks one or two of the hon. members in the chamber here tempted me by saying that all we could produce in Yukon was perhaps onions, potatoes and a few stunted trees. I took it as a joke because I know those who make such remarks are joking and that they have not been to Yukon in order to see for themselves.
One of the sources or in fact the main source from which I am obtaining the technical information which will be following in my remarks is from one of two brothers who operate a farm in the Yukon called the
Supply-Agriculture
Pelly ranch. The brother with whom I correspond and of whom I speak and from whom I get my information is a gentleman by the name of Hugh Bradley who is a Bachelor of Science having graduated from the University of Alberta and the other brother is a graduate of the agriculture school in Vermilion, Alberta. These two lads have farmed in the Yukon since 1954, have kept very accurate records of their production and have formed a few ideas, many of which I will be stating here, on how agricultural development should be going in the Yukon. So when I say that agriculture is economically sound, I am not just stating a possibility or a thesis; I am stating a fact because there are economic farms in the Yukon but they are having their difficulties.
Why then are there not more farmers in Yukon? One reason is the lack, among people who may be interested, of knowledge of conditions and opportunities in the Yukon. Most Canadians still think about the Yukon in the terms of the writings of Robert Service, Jack London, Rex Beach and the like. Much has been done recently to publicize our part of the country but much remains to be done. We are endeavouring to sell Yukon to the rest of the country and we must do so if Canada is to derive the advantage of her development.
Our territorial government in the Yukon, in my view, should show some positive action in this direction. In the past the attitude of both the administrative and legislative bodies has been apathetic or negative. Our chief administrator, known as the commissioner of the Yukon Territory, let it be known on several occasions that he thought and still thinks that any attempt at agriculture was and is foolishness and that assistance would have to come from the federal Department of Agriculture. With this latter part of the commissioner's statement I agree but with his negative attitude toward the development of agriculture in the Yukon I most emphatically disagree. Official encouragement could possibly have influenced private individuals in years past to start farming in the Yukon. Official endorsement and aid would certainly have helped. That official endorsement and that official aid has not been forthcoming and has yet to be forthcoming.
If no interest is shown by the local government so-called-and I call it local government so-called because there is still much to be done in the way of leadership by the commissioner and those about him-why then should we as a federal government be interested? Nevertheless, the federal government was sufficiently aware of the need to establish three experimental farms in northern Canada. The station we are concerned

Supp ly-A griculture
with is at Mile 1019 on the Alaska highway and is now an experimental farm. Results of experiments carried out on this farm are available. These reports clearly show that an agricultural enterprise in the Yukon is possible; that crops will grow; that livestock will survive and multiply; that garden crops can be produced. The continued existence of private farms and results obtained at the experimental farm show that agriculture is feasible from an economic standpoint as well.
The territorial government should be interested in the development of agriculture and indeed it has expressed that interest in the session of last year-in 1958-when they passed a resolution calling for federal financial assistance in the setting up of a committee to assess the agricultural possibilities in the Yukon and the methods of developing the area. To my knowledge no federal action has been taken on that request of the Yukon legislative council. The present council is showing great interest in the development of agriculture, but this has not been so in the past. The council could assist in many ways. The cheapest form of assistance would be an information service. There could be a main source of supply from which people who may be interested could obtain information. There should be a main source from which people could obtain estimates of amount and location of land, costs and prices, climatic conditions, production data as far as is known, populations, markets, regulations governing the sale of farm products, taxes and licences required and many other factors. To obtain such information now you must trot from one department to another all over the federal building in Whitehorse and finally end up at the office of the chief administrator who, I informed the committee a moment ago, is the commissioner and who thinks it is all foolishness. Our commissioner just does not know or just does not care to find out.
The territorial and federal governments should be interested enough in the development of the country to assist in road building to agricultural areas. Many of the best areas for farming are now rather inaccessible. It will be rather difficult to encourage settlement of these lands unless there is some promise of accessibility. Agriculture is just as much a resource as are the mineral deposits in the land. The government is making great strides in opening up and making accessible mineral land. The same approach should be made to the opening up and making accessible of farm lands.
The federal government should be able to do something about the most deplorable situation which exists with regard to obtaining agricultural land. This situation is in a

terrible mess. Picture, if you can, a farmer who wishes to commence his operation in the Yukon being faced with the requirement to pay $30 an acre for his land before he can commence farming. It should be possible to arrange some terms for deferment of taxes and purchase price until the farm can become established. Much of this might be beyond the jurisdiction of the territorial government, yet they should be heard on the subject. They are in a position to bring certain pressures to bear on the proper agencies. They should at least try.
Of direct assistance to farmers the federal government might undertake the following projects in the Yukon:
1. A caterpillar tractor of no smaller than D-6 size with equipment for land-clearing and breaking should be made available for the use of farmers. The government could in the interests of agriculture supply the "cat" and transportation for it. The farmer could cover the cost of the fuel oil and the operator. Such a program would have to be planned in advance so that the machine could be used to the greatest advantage. Work in each area would have to be arranged so that the "cat" would spend a maximum amount of time working and a minimum of time in transit. This program might be patterned somewhat after the project of the Alberta government in farm land clearing in the Wanham area of the Peace river district.
The land clearing project would have to be administered by the government. In this regard there is need for a full time extension man in the Yukon. I would suggest an employee of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources with an extension office located at the experimental farm at Mile 1019. Location at the farm would to best, since such a man would have to work in close co-operation with the Department of Agriculture. This man could administer the plan mentioned earlier in regard to natives in agriculture. He would organize and administer land clearing projects and land settlement. He could also report to the farmers the findings of the experimental farm and advise the staff there on new research projects farmers would like to see undertaken. Another part of his job could be the planning and planting of lawns and gardens in the Whitehorse area.
Another way in which the government could aid farmers is in connection with freight subsidies. For example, the cost of freight on fertilizer amounts to about $130 per ton. High freight costs such as these virtually prohibit the use of fertilizers and limits the use of livestock and poultry supplements. Freight nearly doubles the price of farm machinery in the Yukon. Such a situation

does not encourage agricultural enterprise. Most provincial governments give some aid along these lines to settlers in fringe areas. Some such program should be instituted to aid Yukon farmers.
A fourth form that government aid could take is indirect, but it would be of great benefit to the Yukon farmer. I am referring to realistic support of the experimental farm. I am not criticising what has been done. Much valuable work has been accomplished, but there are some fields that have been neglected because of insufficient technical staff. It has been ten months since the tragic death of the farm superintendent at mile 1019. This seems an over long time for even the civil service to find a replacement. The position should be re-examined and if necessary reclassified to make it sufficiently attractive to interest and hold a high calibre man, since it is a position of utmost importance to Yukon agriculture.
Perhaps it is because of the recent reduction in the isolated post allowances that it has been difficult to find a man to adapt himself to life and work on the experimental farm. If this is the case, it must be deplored that the interdepartmental committee on isolated post regulations found it necessary to recommend such a reduction in this allowance.
The field of animal science is the most important field to Yukon agriculture yet there has been no technical staff in that field there long enough to do any important research. The new superintendent might well be an animal science man. My understanding is that the person who will be going to take over the farm at the end of this month is a soil expert. If that is so, it is most important that a research officer in animal husbandry be appointed soon. The following topics might be suggested for research in this field: research in pastures; the best species or mixtures to use in planted pastures; carrying capacity of planted and native pastures; assessment of native pastures from both carrying capacity and nutritive standpoint; best management practices for tame and native pastures; livestock insect pests. Winter feed: hay planted versus native; species yields and nutritive properties; relative merits of hay; straw and bundles for winter feed; study of mineral and vitamin supplements that may be necessary when using local feeds; silage for winter feed. Is silage the way to beat the unfavourable haying season we have? Is there sufficient moisture in our crops to make good silage? What crops and mixtures can we grow for best silage? Housing: do cattle significantly do better when they receive warm housing? Can open shed housing be used satisfactorily? What about housing
Supp ly-A griculture
against black flies in summer? Research in hogs, poultry, dairy cattle and sheep-these would come as minor projects and are listed in order of importance. The reason they would be of secondary importance is their relatively larger demands for concentrates which are harder and more expensive to produce.
Climatic conditions make crop production alone a marginal venture, but in conjunction with livestock production it is important. Any research which will lead to production of more and better feeds will be most helpful. Variety trials should be continued. Field management experiments should be expanded, since there is much to be learned about rotation, fertilizers and tillage practices in relation to the north. There is room for work in drought tolerant and frost tolerant varieties. Farmers will want to know the best methods of breaking and preparing land in this area, also to what extent irrigation will be economical. Forage research is very important. We have only one legume that is dependable, and even it has serious drawbacks. Much more selection and breeding work is needed. Some attention need be given to introduction and adaptability of new species. There should be experiments with silage under our conditions.
There should also be sufficient staff on the experimental farm to permit off-station work. Crops and practices suitable for the Whitehorse area may not be suitable for Mayo and Dawson city. As more farms are established more off-station work will be required. It would be an advantage to have information available for the use of prospective settlers. It is important to have some correlation of meteorological data. To illustrate the variability over the territory, Dawson city has a frost free period of 78 days; Mayo, 64 days; Snag, 51 days; Watson Lake, 85; Whitehorse airport, 78. Undoubtedly there will be a wide variation in precipitation, and mean temperature conditions should be investigated near all centres of population and in as many good farming areas as possible.
Horticulture may not be of prime importance to farmers, yet more people will be growing kitchen gardens. There should be research along these lines. Farmers will be interested in easily grown horticultural crops such as potatoes. Early drought tolerant varieties adapted to Yukon conditions should be produced.
It is hoped that the federal government will see that the experimental farm has sufficient staff to carry out these and other important research projects. There is a large investment in land, buildings and machinery, a very large investment; now let us have personnel to turn out some badly needed information. Of prime importance, perhaps

Supply-Agriculture
before any of these things are undertaken, should be a careful assessment of the available arable land in the Yukon.
The future of agriculture will depend greatly on the development of the rest of the territory. The Yukon will never become primarily an agriculture area. However, farming will be a basic industry. Even the present population would benefit greatly by the presence of more farms. As the population increases, so will the need for farms increase. Yukon agriculture should aim at the production of high quality produce. In the future there will likely be an outlet in Alaska for our produce. To ensure maintenance of quality, to protect producers and consumers, the government should institute inspectors and inspection services as soon as possible. There should be restrictions on imports to protect the growth of the industry. Diseased potatoes have already been imported from Alaska. This could seriously injure any future potato production in the Yukon.
The relative isolation of the Yukon and of farms in the Yukon will make it possible to grow highest quality seed for export. Isolation is required for the production of cross-pollinated forage seed. In dense farming areas it is almost impossible to plant pure varieties because of this. The Yukon could make much use of this feature.
Longer hours of daylight in our northern latitudes favour flower and seed formation. For example, Russian wild rye grass will not head out and set seed in North Dakota because of shorter days. It seeds well in the Yukon, so in the future a good export business may develop. Winter hardiness of crops which will survive in the Yukon will be another selling point. There is a strong possibility of exporting seed to countries of similar latitude in Europe. To go along with this idea, seed production is favoured by mixed farming and the Yukon will most surely be a mixed farming area.
In the future there will be smelters in the Yukon. Many by-products of smelters are converted into fertilizers. Fertilizers alone form a large part of the income of mining companies. A ready market for their byproducts would be a help to smelters and a source of fertilizers near at hand would be a help to farmers.
Storage facilities, slaughter houses, inspection services, expanded markets will all go together to ensure that the Yukon consumers get fresh, top quality locally raised produce. We will be able to break an egg in the frying pan and be reasonably certain that it was laid this year. As the Yukon grows so will farming grow.

All this points to a healthy, more stable economy and to the need for a greater understanding and appreciation of the development of Yukon agriculture both at the federal level and more particularly at the administrative level in the Yukon. There must be something more at the administrative level, at the level of the commissioner, in the Yukon. There must be leadership at the administrative level in the Yukon to ensure that this development will occur. There must be the will to encourage agricultural development. There must be a strong desire at the administrative level in the Yukon to assist in that development. Negativism must be banished. There are great possibilities in the Yukon for the development of agriculture and if the Yukon is expected to support a large population in anticipation of the development of industries in the north, then planning should commence now and not ten years hence for the development of an agricultural industry which will sustain that population.


Mr. Badanai:: A few weeks ago the Prime Minister said something about the agricultural policy of the government and the statements he made interested me very much, especially when he referred to that portion of the policy which he enunciated in 1959 to the effect that the government was engaged in a comprehensive study and review of the Canadian Farm Loan Act as a means of meeting the small farm problem, etc. Then he went on to say, and I quote from Hansard of March 4, 1960 at page 1766:
We believe that agriculture is one of the most important sectors of the Canadian economy; that the prosperity of agriculture is an integral part of Canadian prosperity; that governments do have a responsibility in a constructive and effective manner to strengthen Canadian agriculture for in doing so the economy as a whole is strengthened. We believe that the national interest can best be served if we endeavour to do our utmost to develop efficiently and economically our resources, including agriculture; that farmers should have continuing opportunities to earn sufficient income to enjoy the benefits of our rapidly growing economy and the rising standards of living enjoyed by the population as a whole; and that a reasonably high and stable level of farm income is an essential prerequisite to a high level of employment and income in Canada generally.
We take the stand, and have, that government action to help Canadian agriculture to help itself is in the Canadian tradition of self-reliance and that government action primarily designed to provide and round out opportunities for farmers to do well on their own is a desirable objective.
Some of the agricultural problems are national in scope while others are regional. The policies that we have followed have been designed to deal with problems where they occur.
I do not think anyone would quarrel with a policy designed to deal with problems where they occur, be they national or regional, but what about the implementation

of this regional policy enunciated by the Prime Minister? The district of Thunder bay has yet to benefit from such policy.
I complained on several occasions at the lack of consideration for the farmers of the Fort William district. The Prime Minister said in effect that the Canadian Farm Loan Act would be amended to better facilitate assistance to small farmers. It seems to me that it is not so much the revision of the act that is important-the name was changed, I believe-but rather the implementation of the act by the officials in the field. That is what is important.
I have said previously and I say again that unless a farmer in our district has sufficient collateral to show it is next to impossible for him to secure a loan to enable him to develop efficiently and economically the agricultural potential of his holding. For some years there has been considerable discontent among the farmers in the lakehead area, the Thunder bay district. Many Thunder bay district farmers had a very difficult winter following one of the poorest growing seasons in many years. Grain crops were 62 per cent below those of 1958. The decreased harvest was estimated as a loss of $300,000. Some farmers did not have sufficient crops to make harvesting worth while. A great number were forced to buy feed for their cattle. Potatoes and other crops were also down, leaving farmers with little revenue with which to purchase feed.
Last year the hon. member for Port Arthur and myself suggested to the minister that a meeting be held between federal and provincial members of parliament and representatives of the federal and provincial departments of agriculture and interested farmers to discuss problems peculiar to the district. Unfortunately, while we did suggest a date we received nothing but a scant response from the minister.
Subsequently we asked for specific information on our region and finally we received a copy of a summary and conclusions designed to strengthen the position of agriculture in the district of Thunder bay. We were told that these conclusions were arrived at with considerable difficulty which necessitated on the ground investigation. It was readily found that one of the great and primary advantages of farming in this particular district was the expanding of the local market which is located at a considerable distance from other farming areas.
The total population of the Thunder bay district is approximately 140,000, of which less than 6 per cent are farmers compared with an estimated 12 per cent for the whole province of Ontario.
Supply-Agriculture
With a distinct federal and provincial farm policy, supported by long term loans, this region could be developed into one of the best garden areas of Canada, especially if the government were to initiate an immigration policy designed to attract suitable immigrants who would undertake to settle on the land. I have advocated such a policy ever since I was elected to parliament, and I have found no sound argument here to induce me to change my view on the situation. Indeed, I am now more than ever convinced that such a policy would be beneficial to the whole of Canada.
Another great advantage which would stimulate farming in this area is that although grain production is very limited, with the great source of livestock feed at the local terminal elevators, it could become a No. 1 livestock producing area of Canada. The distance from marketing facilities could be overcome with the adoption of an equitable freight rate structure. The present structure militates against the farmers having a fair chance to compete with primary producers of the west and east.
It is true that the area of improved farm land is comparatively small; it is approximately 70,000 acres. The reason the area is no larger is the freight rate discrimination which I have already mentioned and the apparent indifference of our senior levels of government in not giving this district a fair chance to develop.
Our present farmers are concentrating on dairy products, poultry, eggs, potatoes, and so forth. Of course, there are other products, but in the main these constitute the bulk of products from which our farmers make a living. There is a great potential for expansion in fluid milk, potatoes, vegetables, greenhouse products, small fruits such as berries of all kinds, mushrooms, poultry, eggs, turkeys, honey and feeder cattle. The establishment of feeder plants for cattle and hogs near our terminal elevators should be considered as a distinct advantage to the area.
I know that most people in Canada, including a great many hon. members in this house, have the conception that Thunder bay is a land of timber and rocks. Thank God, we have rocks, beneath which there lies the pre-Cambrian shield, which is rich in minerals of all kinds; but make no mistake, we have thousands of acres which could be under cultivation now, but because of a lack of promotion and interest is worthless bush. Seventy per cent of the total farm area is unimproved land, compared with 39 per cent for the province of Ontario, and

Supply-Agriculture
only 20 per cent of the total occupied land is under crops, roughly one half of the provincial average.
I say to this government, give us help to establish large cold storage facilities; establish a meat and crop grading station. This is one of the things that the farmers of my district have asked the federal and provincial governments to establish for a long time. The answer to our problems have invariably been the stock answer: farming is not sufficiently developed to warrant the establishment of these facilities. How can we develop our potentials if the government continues to ignore the needs for such development?
If this government is consistent in its promises and statements to the effect that farmers in ever part of Canada will receive the same consideration, it should practise what it preaches. I admit that the farmers in my constituency cannot compete in numbers or in wealth with the farmers of the west or of the east. It seems to me, therefore, that precisely because of these deficiencies the government should extend no less consideration to them in evaluating their needs. I suspect that one of the reasons why they are neglected is that they are not organized like a trade union. They are more of a rugged individualistic nature, but that is no reason why they should be forgotten.
Last year the interprovincial farm union council presented a brief pertaining to policy research. They advocated the setting up of an independent research agency to help in providing farmer organizations with the information for sound decisions in matters of crops, marketing, and so forth. This was to be an independent government research agency to help solve problems of agriculture. I wish to quote from page 3 of this document:
The objectives of this research would be: to explore the underlying principles of agricultural policy; to examine and place in perspective the peculiar features of the Canadian economy that are significant for such policy; to establish sound bases for developing and applying economic policies; to appraise particular current policies in this field with the object of suggesting alternatives or recommending changes; and to make the results of such research widely available, especially to farmers governments and the general public.
On page 6 it goes on to describe the scale of research activities and says:
While it would be desirable to start such research on a substantial scale there are good reasons for establishing a modest organization in the beginning to permit it to be developed on a sound basis as it expands. It should be emphasized that if the maximum benefits are to accrue to farmers, governments and the general public, it would need to be so organized as to be capable of logical expansion to meet policy research needs.
It is proposed therefore that the research organization be established with a nucleus staff of researchers, a small clerical and stenographic staff, a

moderate allotment for office and travel funds, and a small allotment to be used for grants to colleges or universities where such may be needed to obtain the supplementary information required by the research agency.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, in their presentation to the cabinet on February 24 of this year, made another plea for such a research council. They recognized the need for a study of farm problems and included in their presentation was this passage which I wish to quote:
There is a keenly felt need today for expanded research both into farm marketing and into the more general economic and social problems facing the farmer. Such research is needed so that we may intelligently develop and improve our marketing and support programs. It is needed also so that we may better understand what is happening in the farm economy and to rural society, and in doing so learn to develop farm policies and extension programs that will better meet the needs and problems which agriculture faces.
I fully agree with the establishment of such a council. Indeed, I urge the minister to give consideration to the implementation of this request. But in all of this there is not a word on behalf of farmers of the kind we have in northwestern Ontario. I suggest that if such a council is established it should have a member from the district of Thunder bay, one who would be familiar with the problems peculiar to the district, and that the council should not be just for the exclusive benefit of the wheat farmers of western Canada.
I come now to one of the most important features necessary for the development of the farming communities of our district, and that is an adequate system of providing funds without which farmers cannot expand nor can new farms be developed. Up to the present the experience with the farm loan board has not been the happiest so far as the farmers of the Thunder bay district are concerned. Recently I expressed the hope that the farm credit corporation, successor to the defunct farm loan board, will be more amenable in its policy toward small farmers and would-be farmers desirous of establishing themselves on the land because up to the present it has failed to establish an equitable policy of farm assistance for areas such as northwestern Ontario. However, hope springs eternal. What is needed is a policy of liberal credit and a national agriculture policy designed to encourage ownership and operation of farms in every section of Canada.
Finally, I wish to appeal to the minister to give the lakehead area some consideration. I suggest that he and some of his departmental assistants pay a visit to the Thunder bay district. The minister would be astounded and it would be an education for him. I

suggest that such a visit would stimulate interest in the development of our land and it would also serve as a valuable encouragement to those who are already established in our rural communities.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that we will be proceeding with private bills in about 20 minutes I thought I might reply to some of the comments and speeches that have been made this afternoon. I thought that the hon. member for Kootenay West made a very good speech. He stated that agriculture has been going through a difficult period due to changed conditions and the technological revolution that has taken place in agriculture particularly during the past 15 to 20 years, and that a partisan approach will solve nothing from the agricultural point of view. I thought that was well said by the hon. member for Kootenay West and I was very glad to hear him say it. I am only sorry that some of his colleagues were not here to hear him say it.
There is no question that agriculture has been going through a difficult period during the last 15 to 20 years. Everybody concerned with agriculture knows that that has been the situation. Everybody knows that during this period a very rapid mechanization of agriculture has been taking place. Great improvements have been made from the scientific point of view in feeding methods, in breeding and so on. All of these things have combined to produce in the western countries at any rate a surplus situation so far as a large number of agricultural products are concerned with the result that during the past 10 years particularly we have had increasing difficulty in disposing of the agricultural products that we have been able to produce. In other words, production has been going ahead more rapidly than the ability to find economic markets for these products has developed. This is a situation in which we are likely to be for some time, at least during the immediate future.
All of this has created quite a different set of circumstances from those which prevailed in the past and has made it necessary for us to change our thinking very materially as far as agriculture is concerned. Unfortunately the thinking on agriculture of a considerable number of people has not kept up with the changes that have taken place. They are still thinking of the past when it was possible to operate a farm of comparatively small acreage and provide the family with a living which would at least support them in a reasonable way. That day is now past.
The standard of living existing in this country is very much above what one might call the peasant level and therefore small
Supply-Agriculture
acreages which in the past were capable of supporting a family are no longer capable of doing so on the basis of anything like the standard of living that is demanded in a country such as Canada at the present time. From the point of view of economic family farm units this makes it necessary to form considerably bigger units from the acreage point of view and particularly from the capital point of view, involving livestock, machinery and so on, than was the case even as little as 15 to 20 years ago.
The hon. member for Kootenay West said that there was a great contradiction in our agricultural policies because on the one hand the scientists were constantly working to produce better breeds of livestock, better types of plants and improved methods of producing agricultural products of all kinds- in other words, we are doing a great deal of work to encourage and increase production-* while on the other hand marketing policies to quite an extent were designed to limit production. I would point out that these two lines of activity are not necessarily in contradiction of each other. If we are to have successful farmers they must be able to produce in as efficient, scientific and up to date a way as farmers in any other part of the world, and in order to put them in the position where they can do so we have to continue to develop our research activities and to ensure that these activities produce the best types of both plants and animals for particular localities and evolve the best methods of producing agricultural commodities of all kinds. In view of the sort of situation we have at the present time, where in most of the western world agricultural products are being produced in excess of the ability of the people to consume them, it is necessary to have production and marketing policies which will keep production down to the limits of what can be marketed or disposed of in an economic way.
We can, of course, give away a certain amount of our products in certain areas. Canada has done a great deal of that, but there is a very definite limit to what can be done along that line. By and large we have pursued policies which, as I say, ensure, so far as that can be done, that very large surpluses which cannot be disposed of are not piled up with consequent storage costs and so on.
The hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska made a speech, but I do not believe I will say very much about it. His speech was of the type, as the hon. member for Kootenay West said, which did not carry forward the cause of agriculture in any way. It was a purely partisan, political speech. It was designed to show that the situation

Supply-Agriculture
of the farmer was better under the previous Liberal government than it is under the present Conservative government, something which it is impossible to do. Every farmer knows that this government has done far more in the way of putting schemes into effect or passing legislation to aid farmers in the two or three years which it has been in office than the previous government did in the 10 or 15 years before that. As I say, I do not think I should take up any time in dealing with the very large number of, what shall I say, false assumptions and misinformation which the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska put forth.
The hon. member for Wetaskiwin spoke of a scheme being carried on in the United States for taking land out of production, the soil bank as it is called there. I should like to point out that we have done a fair amount along this line in Canada. We have set up the P.F.R.A. community pastures and provincial community pastures in western Canada, a means by which land has been taken out of ordinary production, out of grain growing, and made available for the use of smaller farmers to pasture livestock, thus enabling many people who otherwise would not be able to diversify their activities to get into the livestock business. The conservation measures which we are presently carrying out, and which we contemplate carrying out to a greater extent in the future, will involve more work along this line.
The hon. member for Kent, (N.B.) quoted some figures by which he attempted to show that the deficiency program in connection with eggs had led to a decline in production from the small producer rather than the large producer. Of course, our great trouble had been overproduction. The statistics used were from a paper which has been a most bitter opponent of deficiency payments on eggs. I do not know where this publication obtained these figures, but as I say the paper has been the bitterest opponent of this program in connection with eggs. Actually our records, taken from the grading stations, indicate the exact opposite. A big reduction in egg production has taken place in so far as the large producer is concerned. I think every logical examination of the matter would show that was what was most likely to take place, and I think that is what has taken place. Actually this same publication from which the hon. member quoted these statistics complained for several months that this policy was going to destroy the large egg producers, the most efficient producers. Now, evidently, this publication is trying to be on both sides of the fence in connection with this matter.

The hon. member for Kent, (N.B.) spoke of the necessity for disseminating the results of agriculture research to the farmers so that they can make practical use of it. I agree with that thoroughly. It is essential that improvements which are discovered by scientists at research stations be communicated to the farmers, the men who can actually make use of them. We, of course, do a considerable amount of work along that line by making the results of our research work available in pamphlets of all kinds which are distributed particularly to agricultural schools and tc the provinces. As the hon. member knows, education is the exclusive prerogative of the provinces and, in so far as agriculture is concerned, the division of the work between the dominion and the provinces is that the provinces are primarily responsible for the dissemination of agricultural information to the farmers and we are primarily responsible for the research work, the discovery of new methods, new types of plants, better types of livestock and so on.
The hon. member for Vancouver East made a speech dealing particularly with the fact that United States firms, in recent years, have been buying up Canadian canning plants and closing them down. He dealt particularly with the tomato situation in British Columbia. I should like to assure him that I was alarmed at both of these situations, and I had an investigation made in order to ascertain what the situation was. In so far as the allegations which have been made about United States companies buying up Canadian plants and then shutting them down, are concerned, this is what the investigation showed. In so far as Ontario is concerned, whilst there has been a considerable amount of buying up of small canning plants by large United States canning concerns, the total amount of production has not been reduced. In many cases what happened was that three, four or five small and comparatively inefficient canning plants were bought up and one big canning plant with a large production, greater than the four or five, was built or one of the bigger plants which had been bought was greatly enlarged in order to make one large, more efficient operation. In British Columbia there has been a definite reduction in the number of canning plants, but that is a different story which I shall mention later.
Production as a whole, so far as the canning of fruits and vegetables in Canada is concerned-I have not got the report here- has not been materially reduced as the hon. member for Vancouver East seems to believe.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the minister a question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Harold Edward Winch: If that is so why is it if you go to a store in Ottawa or in British Columbia and you buy-let us take the Aylmer brand which is a big one-canned produce, why do you read on the label, "Produce of the U.S.A."?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the only way to see the whole story is to look at the complete figures. If you go into a store here or in British Columbia you will find that for the most part the goods are Canadian. However, you will find some that have been canned in Italy, England and all other countries. However, the bulk have been canned in Canada.
So far as the tomato situation in British Columbia is concerned, the difficulty there has not been a matter of United States plants buying up British Columbia canning plants and then deliberately closing them down, the difficulty has been entirely one of economics. The cost of producing tomatoes in British Columbia had risen too high to enable them to compete with tomatoes canned in the United States or other areas. There are several reasons for this. The first one is that the tomato acreages in British Columbia were quite small. They were too small to be worked by machinery and, therefore, a great deal of hand labour was involved.
The second thing is that labour has become increasingly hard to get in British Columbia and increasingly expensive; I refer to farm labour. Hence the cost of producing tomatoes in British Columbia has gone up out of proportion to the cost of producing them in Ontario and particularly out of proportion to the cost of producing them in California.
The most important factor of any is that, as a result of soil deterioration in British Columbia, both the yield and the quality of the product has gone down. It is owing to lack of organic material, to a large extent, in the soil which they have not been replacing as they should have done. As a result, the yields of tomatoes in British Columbia at the present time are just about 50 per cent of what they are in California. It is quite clear that if you are producing only half as much of a product on an acre of ground in one place as is being produced in another, you cannot compete. The actual fact is that the growers in California have been getting an average of $10 a ton less for their tomatoes than have the growers in British Columbia. But nevertheless, in spite of that fact, the growers in British Columbia have been steadily driven out of the business; they have not been able to compete because they were growing only half as many tomatoes per acre.
Supply-Agriculture
These are the basic and essential reasons why the tomato canning industry in British Columbia has been getting smaller and smaller and, it appears, is not going to be able to continue as an economic industry in competition with tomato growing either in Ontario or in California. No one regrets more than I do that that is the situation.


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


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would that situation apply to other products?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Would it apply to other products? Where does the hon. member mean?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: In British Columbia.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No. Apple production in British Columbia is still being carried on in a fairly successful way and also the production of other tree fruits of various kinds. But as to tomato growing and tomato canning, the chief vegetable canning business in the Okanagan and adjacent valleys, as the hon. member indicated, this is what has happened. As I say, nobody regrets that more than I do. During the past three years we have been providing a considerable subsidy in order to try to get this industry going. However, it is not much use to be paying out subsidies for an industry which is shrinking rapidly every year. In other words, it is like throwing your money down a rat hole. You are better off spending the same amount of money on an industry which shows some sign of being capable of being improved or revived or of being made successful.
The hon. member for Yukon gave an extremely good and thoughtful speech with regard to agriculture and development in the Yukon. I am extremely glad to have his ideas in this regard and I should like to assure him that I will have the officials of the department study his suggestions; and we shall see how many of them we can put into operation or make preparations to have put into operation in the coming years.
The hon. member for Fort William was requesting cold storage and other facilities of that sort to be provided at the lakehead for the benefit of lakehead farmers and he went on to say that the government should extend the same consideration to farmers there as to farmers elsewhere. The answer to that statement is that we do so. What the hon. member seems to want is special consideration which is not extended to farmers anywhere else.

Supply-Agriculture
The government does not build cold storages for farmers at any place. We make a subsidy to a farmers' co-operative or to a commercial concern that wants to build a cold storage. The same thing applies with regard to a cheese factory. We do not build any of these things. The farmers themselves or some commercial concern in the area must go ahead and build; under these circumstances we provide subsidies but we do not build them. I think perhaps the hon. member was under a misapprehension in that regard. I should like to assure him that we give or are prepared to give to the farmers in the Thunder bay district the same consideration as that accorded to farmers anywhere else in the country.


Hervé J. Michaud: Is the department giving subsidies to potato houses?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes. We have given subsidies for the construction of a considerable number of potato storages.


Hubert Badanai: May I ask the minister
whether he intends to pay a visit to the lake-head area? We should like to have him make a visit there.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should be very happy to pay a visit to the lakehead area on some suitable occasion. One of my great difficulties, I might say, is that I am obliged to turn down at least nine tenths of the invitations get to appear at various agricultural meetings and fairs, district shows and things along that line. I find that it is quite difficult to get around to see all these places. It is a big country and time is always somewhat at a premium.
(Translation):


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Chairman, during the two minutes or so left before five o'clock, I should like to tell the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) that, if I were as considerate and courteous with him as he was with the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger), I would point out the hollowness of his remarks concerning the constructive criticism made by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska on agriculture.
The fact remains that the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska gave statistics that the minister could hardly deny. So, instead of trying to deny them, he preferred the easier path of irony and sarcasm, which obviously means that he had no solid argument. I will take it upon myself next week to answer the points he put forth this afternoon, as in my opinion the remarks of the

hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska were actual facts, contrary to the Minister of Agriculture's contention.
May I, Mr. Chairman, ask you to call it five o'clock?
(Text):


Charles Edward Rea: Order. It being five o'clock, in order to allow the house to proceed to the consideration of private and public bills it is my duty 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.



PRIVATE BILLS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: 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.



THIRD READING


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. SD-39, for the relief of Stella Jean Margaret Newman Lamartine.-Mr. McCleave.
Charles Edward Rea: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the 54 divorce bills in this order be considered together?


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, I was
wondering if I might present a suggestion to the committee which might help solve some of the problems which have beset us for some time, now.
I realize that among these 54 divorce bills before us for consideration there are some which present special problems, problems which certain hon. members will undoubtedly wish to debate. However, there are other bills among them which need concern us very little and which might, indeed, be passed with little debate, or no debate at all. It seems to me that an appropriate course, if all hon. members would agree, would be for the committee to rise and report progress now, and before next Tuesday hon. members would have the opportunity to study the 54 bills which are now before us, if they have not considered them already, and pick out those particular ones which they want discussed. This course seems a reasonable one, and if it were adopted it would tend to break the log jam which has developed in connection with this particular responsibility of members of parliament.
I have heard the criticism made that we cannot wax very eloquent about the kicking around of the poor people in the Union of

South Africa, because when it comes to arrangements here at home an unmerciful hosing has been given to the inhabitants of a certain province. I take that to be a justifiable criticism if the present situation continues, and I suggest that the proposal I have put forward might be a solution. If the hon. members belonging to the C.C.F. party would agree, we could rise and perhaps return to the debate on the agricultural estimates or take up some of the private members bills which so far we have not been able to debate under the rules of the house. I do not ask the hon. members to pass these 54 bills this afternoon.


Mr. Howard:: I can appreciate the hon. member's position, but I must say that this has come without warning. In the second place, any comments on the suggestion made by the hon. member for Halifax would, strictly speaking, be out of order. Nevertheless, I hope the committee will not mind if we spend a few moments commenting on the suggestion which has been made.
Perhaps the hon. member for Halifax should have made his proposal a little more clear. Let us assume that the course as suggested is followed and that the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again. There is then the next order to be considered, order No. 70, the house in committee on a particular divorce bill. Thus, it would have to be unanimously agreed that the committee dispense with this particular debate.


Robert Jardine McCleave: That was in my mind, that we should take no further action on divorce bills this afternoon. If that were agreeable to the hon. gentleman, they could pick out from all the bills before us now the ones they would like to discuss.


Charles Benjamin Howard: There is another matter
which will have to be taken into consideration. While for the last month or so this private members' hour from five to six o'clock has been spent entirely in dealing with divorce bills, it is, nevertheless, the hour for private and public bills, and if we dispense with the consideration of divorce bills we would, I assume, go on to deal with the further items on the order paper, public bills standing in the names of private members. We should have to think in those terms before we thought of agreeing to the suggestion put forward by the hon member for Halifax. Some of the hon. members who have public bills standing in their names-and I have some standing in mine-will want to proceed to debate certain of the items which are listed under public bills and orders. I know, for instance, that the hon. member for York-Scarborough is extremely interested in one bill which is in his name dealing with
Private Bills-Divorce capital punishment. We might conceivably reach the resumed debate on the question of capital punishment raised by the hon member. This would be a good time for it The hon. member for York-Scarborougfc could speak and close the debate and we could vote on the subject matter this afternoon. These are all things that must be considered.


Charles Edward Rea: As far as the committee is concerned, all we can do is this: if I have a motion to rise and report progress, and the motion carries, that is what must take place. As for the next procedure of business, that would be a matter to be decided by the house as it saw fit.


Mr. Peters:: Could the committee not give consideration to debating this whole matter which is before us, not necessarily picking out one or two bills, but considering general principles. I think it is generally agreed that the situation, as it is, is far from satisfactory. In other words, would it be possible for us to set aside the next private members hour so that we could discuss this whole matter and try to arrive at a more satisfactory method of handling this particular procedure than the one we have at the present time?


Charles Edward Rea: That is strictly a matter for the house to decide. The committee only does what it is instructed to do by the house. That is why, in committee, everything must be relevant to the subject matter for discussion. The committee is only able to do what it is instructed to do by the house.


William Moore Benidickson: May I simply say I should like to suggest to the hon. member for Halifax that if there is merit in the suggestion he is advancing he would probably make more progress with a suggestion of this kind if he arranged to see the representatives of the parties prior to the arrival of this particular hour. Perhaps, having next Tuesday in mind, he might come to an arrangement of this kind. I have a great objection to interfering with this hour without adequate notice being given in advance. It is probable that there were hon. members who were interested in the discussion which has just concluded and who felt they could return to other duties. For this reason they would not be here to take part in a debate which they had every reason to think would not come on, supposing, that is, we were to agree to making the alteration proposed. Moreover, there are hon. members who have come here especially to be present during this particular hour, and I do not think they should be asked, except in exceptional circumstances, to agree to a change of rules without there being prior consultation and inter-party discussion.

Private Bills-Divorce


Charles Edward Rea: Shall the 54 bills be discussed in one item? If not, we shall discuss Bill No. SD-41.



MARGARET ESTELLE ELEANOR EVANS LANESE

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill No. SD-41 for the relief of Margaret Estelle Eleanor Evans Lanese-Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Charles Benjamin Howard: I have a comment or two to make in respect of this particular bill and the situation surrounding it, the evidence leading up to the petition being presented, and certain other material considerations which arise in the evidence presented before the Senate committee.
As the petition indicates in the first paragraph, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on September 27, 1952 in Montreal. The allegation of adultery is made in the petition and it is stated that the respondent committed adultery on September 16, 1959 with a person whose name and address is given. The petition states further that the respondent and the corespondent lived openly together as man and wife, and there is evidence given in support of these statements. I may say that there are no children born of this marriage; consequently this is a case with regard to which I do not run any risk of falling foul of the rulings made governing the committee in so far as references to children are concerned.
The petitioner was sworn and at page 9 of the evidence testified that she was married, where, by whom, gave her husband's and her own religion and was shown a document which she identified as the church certificate of her marriage. Some evidence was given about the problems existing prior to the alleged adultery. At page 10 Mr. Leithman, counsel for the petitioner, examined her as follows:
Q. Now, witness, following your marriage to your husband did you live together as man and wife?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. Are there any children?
A. No, sir.
Q. When did you and your husband stop living together as man and wife?
A. About September, 1957.
Q. Will you tell this honourable committee under what circumstances you left. Tell the committee just what happened.
A. Well, as you know-
Q. Just speak to the committee.
A. -I worked, and came home from work about nine o'clock in the evening and found my husband in bed with another woman. He put up quite an argument, and I left and stayed at my sister's for the night. X came back the following night thinking he would have a reasonable answer and found all my clothes outside the door, so I never went back.

Q. In other words, he evicted you?
A. That is right, sir.
That is a startling question. I continue:
Q. Can you recall the exact date? Would you repeat the date?
A. September, 1957.
Q. Since September of 1957 have you lived together as man and wife? Did you get together again?
A. No.
Q. Has he supported you since that day?
A. No, sir, I have supported myself.
Q. You have had no relations at all since September of 1957?
A. No, sir.
I assume the reference is to intimate relations. I continue:
Q. Have you any personal knowledge of the alleged misconduct set out with one-?
A. I have never met her.
Q. Do you know this woman-?
A. I have never met her.
I am deleting the names of the parties.
On page 11 reference is made to the fact that no collusion or arrangement exist between the parties. The examination of the petitioner by her counsel continues as follows:
Q. Now, witness, is there any arrangement between you and your husband that you should go to Ottawa and petition for divorce?
A. No, I have not spoken to him for two years.
Q. Is there any inducement given by him for you to come here to obtain this divorce?
A. None at all, sir.
Q. Have you condoned his act? Have you forgiven him?
A. No, I have not.
Q. Would you take him back?
A. No, sir.
By the Chairman (Senator Roebuck):
Q. And you did nothing, I take it, witness, to bring about the adultery about which you complain?
A. Pardon?
Q. I say you did nothing to bring about the adultery about which you complain?
A. No, sir.
Q. You did not throw anybody in his way, or anything of that kind?
A. No, sir.
There are two investigators in this case, Mr. G. Daigneault and Mr. Clovis Paquette of Montreal. The Christian name of the former appears interchangeably in the evidence as "Gerard" and "Gerald" but I assume it is the same individual and that there has been a typographical error. Mr. Daigneault was sworn and testified as follows when questioned by Mr. Leithman:
Q. Witness, I show you a photograph of an individual, which photograph has been produced as exhibit 2 in the petition. Would you take cognizance of the photograph and say of whom it is a likeness?
The witness gave the name of the respondent. I continue:
Q. Witness, did you have occasion to investigate the conduct of-?
A. I did, sir.



I960

[Stage Direction]
It is established that the photograph was taken probably two months after the marriage, late in 1952. One wonders if a person's features could so change in seven years as to render a photograph invalid for purposes of identification but that is not important here because of other evidence adduced. I continue:
Q. What did you find out about him?
A. Well, sir, we were retained by you, Mr. Leithman, at the end of August 1959 at which time you gave us this photograph over here, and also gave us certain particulars. I verified those particulars, and as a result of our investigation on September 16, 1959 at approximately 12.45 a.m„ accompanied by Mr. Paquette, we proceeded to- avenue, apartment No.-*, where, after knocking at the door a few times, a woman's voice was heard asking who was there. I then asked to speak to -, and she said: "One minute, please", and I heard her say: "-, it is for you". After a minute or two the door was opened by Mir.- himself. I then identified myself and asked to speak to him. He let us walk in and he invited us in the kitchen, which was to the right of the apartment as you walk in there.
In every other case I have reviewed the investigators pushed their way in or walked in casually, but in this instance there was an invitation. I continue:
With the aid of the photograph I asked if that was his photograph, to which he said: "Yes". I told him why I was there and that I knew he was living there with somebody else. At the time I was speaking the woman came back in the kitchen and we started talking, the four of us together. I asked the woman's name and she answered "-", and they both admitted they had been living as man and wife since the month of June, 1959 at that address. Previously, they told us, they were living as man and wife at-. The apartment consisted of three rooms with only one bedroom, a living room and a kitchen. There was a double bed and on the double bed both pillows had an impression.
I assume that he got into the bedroom of this apartment. I notice that Senator Roebuck asked some questions after this:
Q. What time of the day was this?
A. 12.45 a.m.
Q. How was the man dressed?
A. When he answered the door he was wearing grey pyjamas and slippers, and the woman was wearing a blue dressing gown and had the bottom part of pyjamas on, you could see underneath the dressing gown.
Q. Had she shoes on?
A. Slippers.
Then he describes this particular woman, estimates her weight, age, height and other features. I would point out that other evidence is given by Mr. Daigneault to the effect that he made some additional checks and found out that the apartment was registered in the woman's name, the corespondent, and she is paying the water taxes under that particular name.
Following this Mr. Paquette was called as a witness. He gave evidence which substantiates pretty well what Mr. Daigneault had
Private Bills-Divorce said. He answered questions about what were his activities and so on, and then he said:
A. On September 16, 1959, I was accompanied with Mr. Daigneault and we went to his apartment.
He gave the name of the apartment and the name of the street. I continue:
It was 12.45 a.m. when we went to the apartment and after Mr. Daigneault rang the bell we heard a woman's voice asking who it was, and Mr. Daigneault told her that he wanted to see Mr. 

So about a minute after Mr. 
 opened the door
and we identified ourselves we went into the apartment, and once we were in the apartment we found out that there was a woman in the place.
I assume, Mr. Chairman, they knew the woman was there in the first place or they would not have wasted their time going to discover what was taking place there. However, this may only be the phraseology of Mr. Paquette. Perhaps he had to say they found a woman was there; they knew it beforehand but they had to verify it once they got into the apartment. In any event, he continues:
We told him we knew this woman is not his wife and he says, that is right, but we have been living together, I imagine, a couple of years, and he says we are known in the apartment as Mr. and Mrs. So we told them the reason of our visit and after taking a sketch of the place went out.
Q. The woman you saw in the apartment, was it this lady here?
A. No. sir. I never seen this woman before today.
Q. What else transpired while you were there?
A. What do you mean by that?
The lawyer was having some difficulty in getting him to say the right thing here, apparently. I continue:
Q. Was there any other conversation between Mr. Daigneault and Mr.-that you heard personally?
A. He showed him the picture and he admitted that it was his picture.
Q. How did he get the name of the woman who was there?
A. Some other investigator made a previous investigation and I don't know anything about that.
I would gather from this that these particular investigators and others do not follow through one case from the time that they are commissioned by a lawyer. By the time they enter into it from one end to the other some of the investigation is given to some other investigator, and the information made available from previous investigations was probably passed on to Daigneault and Paquette. Then, Senator Roebuck made some comments and asked some questions as follows:
Q. Do you remember whether she was asked her name on that occasion?
A. Yes, he asked her her name and she mentioned-.
Q. When that admission was made were they both together?
A. Yes.
Q. Who spoke, the man or the woman?
A. She said it was-.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills-Divorce
Q. No, X mean the statement about living together.
A. He said it.
Q. And was she there?
A. Yes.
Q. Did she make any response?
A. No.
Mr. McGee:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I draw your attention to citation 144 of Reauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition. For some time now the hon. member and his colleague behind him have been following the practice during private members' hour of connecting up a speech or so-called address to this house with lengthy quotations from a document which he has in his hand. By citation 144 and rulings of other Speakers in the past it has been clearly established that the purpose of the rule is precisely to prevent that pattern of addressing the house or the committee. This citation reads:
It is a rule in both houses of parliament that a member must address the house orally.
Certainly I do not think that citation can be stretched to the point where an hon. member may link together extensive verbatim quotations from any document whatsoever with a very few words. I would appreciate very much, Mr. Chairman, if you would consider whether the pattern of addressing this committee in this way is consistent with the spirit of the citation I have quoted.


Charles Benjamin Howard: May I comment on the point of order raised by the hon. member for York-Scarborough. I say first of all I appreciate his drawing of this question to the attention of the committee. However, I do not think we are justified in giving the weight to the point of order raised by the hon. member that he is asking us to do. Citation 144 reads:
It is a rule in both houses of parliament that a member must address the house orally, and not read from a written, previously prepared speech-
Then, it goes on to say:
-for the reason that, "if the practice of reading speeches should prevail, members might read speeches that were written by other people, and the time of the house be taken up in considering the arguments of persons who were not deserving of their attention".
I do not think the hon. member for York-Scarborough would suggest, for instance, that the comments and questions of Senator Roebuck were not deserving of our attention. This is not a previously prepared speech, I submit. In this instance, what it is is substantiation; in other instances it might be argument against the bill. The bill says, "The marriage is hereby dissolved." Therefore, in order to prove whether the marriage took place in the first instance it is necessary to

read from the testimony before another committee, not a previously prepared speech but testimony, to prove that particular allegation in the bill.
In the bill reference is made to adultery. That is the reason why the marriage is to be dissolved. Again, what I am doing is not reading a previously prepared speech but reading evidence taken under oath before a committee of the other place in substantiation of the question of adultery.


Frank Charles McGee: If I may reply to the hon. member's attempt to avoid the clear implications of this ruling, he has said that he is not reading a previously prepared speech. That is exactly my point.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The Chair cannot accept that point at all. The hon. member for Skeena is referring to evidence given to the committee and I certainly would not want under any conditions to rule that evidence given in a committee cannot be discussed or read in this committee.


Mr. Chambers:: Is it not a rule that things that are read by a member should be vouched for by him? I wonder whether the hon. member would be willing to vouch for the information he has given the committee this afternoon?


Charles Edward Rea: Order. This is
evidence given in committee under oath.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Just as an aside, what I intend to do is to vouch for the fact, with respect to some instances we have discovered, that the evidence given is not true.


Egan Chambers: You are misleading the committee then.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I know that my friend asked that question with a slight smile on his face and in any event he indicated the answer before he asked it. Prior to the point of order being raised, I had in fact reached the end of the quotation from the evidence taken before the other committee because it proves the points that it is necessary to prove so far as marriage, adultery and so on are concerned. I have not looked at the file in this case to see whether the respondent and corespondent were properly served. Neither the respondent nor the corespondent appeared. On the evidence of Daigneault and Paquette it would appear that there was a frank and open admission that these people were living together as man and wife. This carries with it the implication that intercourse took place between them and probably will continue to take place between them as long as they continue to live together as man and wife. In fact, if this divorce is granted it may provide an opportunity for the respondent and

corespondent to legalize the relationship they have had for some two or three years. I think it has existed for about that length of time but in any event it has been in existence for some time.
There does not appear to be a great deal more to add apart from mentioning the evidence of the petitioner herself. She said that she came home and found her husband in bed with another woman. She came back the next evening thinking that he would have a reasonable answer, found her clothes outside the door and never went back again. It makes one wonder why she did not consider taking action for divorce in September, 1957 when this incident occurred in her own home involving her husband and another woman. I do not know why it took some two years for her to petition for a divorce. That is beyond our knowledge at the moment. One wonders why she waited for two years but apart from that I think we can classify this case as one of those so-called open and shut types of cases where there is no conflict in the evidence given by the two investigators.
Both investigators appear to be fairly sure of what happened so far as time and so on are concerned. That is in contrast to other cases we have had where the investigators were not sure. Because these investigators worked on this case together from start to finish and were both there at the same time I think we must insist that their evidence coincide and not be at variance. After all, they are working together and collaborating. How many members did the hon. member count?


Mr. Jones:: Those who are here are getting very tired of this nonsense.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the hon. member for Saskatoon that if he is not careful he will be misquoted again and his remarks will be attributed to someone else as they were the other day. I do not mind his interruption about nonsense.


Henry Frank Jones: I think what the hon. member has to fear is that his own remarks will be quoted.


Charles Benjamin Howard: The hon. member is at liberty to do that any time he wishes. For that matter, anyone else can quote them if they wish. This case appears to be one of those open and shut ones. There is not too much argument about it apart from wondering why there was a delay of two years from the time the wife discovered her husband in bed with someone else in their own home. She left and stayed with her sister over night, came back the next night and found her clothes outside the door. She has not spoken to him 79951-0-217
Private Bills-Divorce
or had any support from him since that time. One wonders why action was not taken then rather than two years later? As I say, this is a matter of speculation and we might wonder about the delay in the same way as in cases that appear before the courts but I doubt very much whether that has too much relevance or importance.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, there are several remarks that might be made about the contribution to the debate we have just heard but more particularly about the poor lady who has come before us to ask for relief. She seems to have been lost sight of in the welter of words that have been read from the proceedings of the Senate divorce committee. Mrs. Lanese, the lady concerned, is 35 years old. She is a receptionist and waitress and as such she falls into the general category of cases that come before us. This is not a place for rich persons to seek relief by divorce. Most of the people who come before us as this woman does are of humble circumstances and most of them are women. She fits into that category.
She is a working woman and was at all relevant times. She came home one evening after working to find that her husband had taken up with another woman. In those circumstances I would think that she would be an object of pity and a person to be helped if some procedure could be found to help her. Years ago the fathers of confederation decided on the procedure and she has followed it faithfully. On September 21, 1959 she signed a petition in due and proper form and it may be found in the case book before us this afternoon.
I suppose when she signed her name on that petition and thought of the relief that would eventually come to her she had no idea that by coming before us she would be treated more miserably and in a more debasing and humiliating way than anybody anywhere else in the world, and in that regard I think, without referring to a particular area, of the debate we had on Wesdnesday last.
That is exactly what is happening here to this 35-year old woman. The record shows no blot against her and no reason why her problem should be flapped around like so much dirty linen in a place such as this. This is the sort of case which has been well handled all the way down the line. The proper procedures that parliament has set up have been used in this case, procedures which some of us have worked very hard to perfect in order that cases such as this would get due and proper consideration.
I will say no more than that, Mr. Chairman. It has been a scandalous state of affairs and if anybody ever had a clear right to come

Private Bills-Divorce
and ask that relief be given in a gentle and considerate fashion rather than in a scandalous and irresponsible manner, it is the woman who petitions us now.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I should like to raise a point of order. I followed very closely the remarks made by the hon. member for Halifax. Although he did not make reference to me, I must assume I am the person to whom he was referring because I am the only person who has participated in the debate so far, although there have been one or two interruptions. The use of the words "scandalous" and "debased" should not be allowed to pass unnoticed. I should like the hon. member to reconsider those particular words as they apply to me because I am sure I am the one to whom he was directing his remarks. I believe those words should not be used in a personal way because the hon. member knows very well, and we have said it I do not know how many times, that it is scandalous this type of action has to come here and be dealt with in parliament. There are so many alternatives which would make it easier for the individual and better for the individual. This is what we are trying to do. If, in the process of doing that, to get them out of parliament, we take up time, we feel it is unfortunately necessary in order to relate the cases as they come before us, whether they be good or bad.
My point of order is that the hon. member should reconsider those words "scandalous" and "debased".


Robert Jardine McCleave: I can assure my hon. friend that I was not using the words "scandalous" and "debased" in connection with his person. I was saying the method was scandalous. I think there is a distinction between the two. I do not want any inference to be drawn that I was making a personal attack on him. It has never been my practice to do that sort of thing in the House of Commons, but I do think the method used is an extremely unfortunate one. The words were strictly directed toward the method and not toward a person in the House of Commons.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: I want to ask the hon. member for Halifax a question. Would the hon. member say that, as a result of the C.C.F. filibuster here he feels the C.C.F. is setting up a new class consciousness and that the poor people are deprived of a divorce while the wealthy people can still go to the United States?


Charles Edward Rea: Order; I am sorry but the Chair cannot allow a question of that kind.


Henry Frank Jones: During the remarks made by the hon. member for Skeena he said that his objective in discussing these bills in the way he has been discussing them was in order to focus attention upon what he considers to be the unsatisfactory way of dealing with these matters in this committee. Now, that statement, Mr. Chairman, is quite out of order. By his own admission, therefore, this whole practice is out of order. He has said, in effect, that he is not discussing the bills that are before the committee at all for any purpose related to those bills, but he is discussing them for the purpose of changing the procedure by which divorce is handled.
He and every hon. member in this house has an opportunity, in the proper way, of bringing suggestions before this house for an alteration in the procedure.


Charles Edward Rea: Order; the point of order was strictly related to two words, and as to whether or not they referred to another hon. member. This matter was cleared up so the point of order has also been cleared up.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I merely want to say that the hon. member for Saskatoon has put succinctly and exactly what we are trying to do. I agree with him; that is exactly what we are trying to do.


William Arnold Peters: The previous remarks remind me of one of our farm labourers. When I was a little boy he used to tell me that there were more ways of killing a cat than choking it with butter. Probably some of the remarks that have been made here were suggestions concerning alternate ways of disposing of that cat.
This bill is probably the kind of bill that the chairman of the miscellaneous bills committee was suggesting might be lumped into a category that would separate it from some of the bills we have been discussing during the past few weeks. In my opinion, and probably in the opinion of any hon. member who has taken the time to read the evidence, this bill is mild in comparison with many of the others. It may be that it was, in the light of this situation, that the chairman of the miscellaneous bills committee suggested this woman was having a disservice performed for her because we were discussing her particular case.
I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the fact she brought her divorce to parliament rather than having it handled through the procedures available in some of the other provinces results in the public of Canada being entitled to know about her problem. It is necessary to discuss it, and discuss it in the terms in which it has been reported to us from the committee which had the
[Mir. McCleave.]

opportunity of hearing the evidence. I am pleased, as was the hon. member for Skeena, to learn that there were no children of this marriage. I believe that if our law were different it would be quite possible, because of the circumstances surrounding this marriage and the fact that there were no children, to dissolve this marriage in a much simpler manner than the course that has been followed.


Charles Edward Rea: Order; we cannot discuss the various methods of divorce. We must discuss this bill.


William Arnold Peters: I was leading up to the fact that the circumstances surrounding the marriage were discussed on page 10 of the evidence. We find the following question asked by Mr. Leithman:
Q. Will you tell this honourable committee under what circumstances you left. Tell the committee just what happened.
A. Well, as you know-
Q. Just speak to the committee.
A. I worked, and I came home from work about nine o'clock in the evening and found my husband in bed with another woman. He put up quite an argument, and I left and stayed at my sister's for the night. I came back the following night thinking he would have a reasonable answer and found all my clothes outside the door, so I never went back.
It would seem to me, in this particular instance, if the woman was going to get a divorce she might base it upon the adultery of that particular night. However, it seems that this particular offence was condoned, and I suggest, Mr. Chairman-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Would the hon. member permit a question?


William Arnold Peters: Yes.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Is it not a fact there were no other witnesses at that particular time, and might that not have had a bearing on it?


William Arnold Peters: I am not so sure that the hon. senators would not have given some consideration, whether or not there were witnesses. I am not too sure about that. But the surprising thing is that the lady came back the next day. She did not really see anything wrong with this procedure. Frankly, if I had been a senator at the time and had been on this committee I would have asked her what they had had the argument about. She said he put up quite an argument. I am not sure what he put up the argument about. Would he not let his wife in bed also or did she want to get the other woman out and he did not, or what was the argument about? It seems to be very academic. Here would be grounds for adultery. If she had wanted to do so she could have gone out and brought in a neighbour. Here is another woman in her bed. It would have been as 79951-0-217J
Private Bills-Divorce strong evidence as we usually get to confirm that adultery has been committed. But no; he put up quite an argument. The committee has not asked about the argument, as I say. I therefore fail to understand just what has gone on. This marriage just did not end at that particular time. There must have been situations and circumstances developing up to that particular night.
Then she left after this argument, but no explanation was given what it was about. I can see many reasons why there would be an argument on that particular night. But I should like to know whether they were the things that I think the argument would have been over or whether they were matters which may have had a considerable bearing on the fact that she did not immediately go out and bring in her next door neighbour and ask her to be a witness to the other woman being removed from her bed or in laying a charge of adultery which could result in this divorce. She came back the next day and I am not sure what she came back for. From reading the evidence it looks as though she came back to move back into the house again but her clothes were outside and obviously she did not do so.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Scandalous, scandalous,
scandalous.


William Arnold Peters: I hear the sponsor of this bill saying "scandalous". I am not sure just what he is referring to. There are a number of things involved at the present moment that are scandalous. One is that the Canadian people are electing their representatives and are sending them to Ottawa to handle this particular bill which obviously should be handled in a court by legal advisers.


An hon. Member:: Order.


William Arnold Peters: It is scandalous, Mr. Chairman, because we are being asked to consider evidence that was obtained at a subsequent date on an adultery charge, when an adultery charge already had resulted and had been quite obvious because of the break-up of this marriage in the first place. It is scandalous in a number of ways. If the legal counsel had been consulted shortly after this offence took place I would be greatly surprised if they could not have established the divorce at that time.


Robert Jardine McCleave: They could not have done so.


William Arnold Peters: The sponsor says they could not have done so. I am just as happy to take somebody's word, that of the sister to whom she went and to whom she probably related the story. That would be almost as corroborative evidence as one would receive from this particular investigator.

Private Bills-Divorce


Robert Jardine McCleave: It would not be in court.


William Arnold Peters: Maybe it would not be in court but we are not in court. We are in the House of Commons debating a bill. I suggest that I personally would be just as happy to accept the evidence given by the sister to whom she went and knowing that probably the other woman was under duress. When she went to her sister I am quite sure she would have told her the story. I think even the sponsor would have given some consideration to that evidence and would not consider it to be unsupported testimony.
But, Mr. Chairman, this is not what happened. Some time went by and detectives were called in. They restated the case. The case, as I understand it, is where the husband has set up a common law alliance and is living with the other woman, and both admit they are living common law. But this happens in 1959, not in 1957 when the original problem developed. I am therefore suggesting there is some discrepancy in that particular. Certainly we are not using the easiest method and providing these people with the cheapest type of divorce bill possible.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The hon. member is back again to the method. We must stick to this bill. I do not want to be obliged to remind the hon. member again about this matter.


William Arnold Peters: I am sure you will recall, Mr. Chairman, that the reason why I mentioned the matter of costs and some of the discrepancies was the fact that the sponsor, in speaking on behalf of this bill just a few moments ago, pointed out that this was quite an expensive divorce and that what was happening was causing undue expense and undue hardship to this lady in other respects. I am pointing out that if the legal counsel at that time had given advice that I think would have been acceptable we could probably in 1957 have established the grounds for adultery nearly as well as we could in 1959 without the added expense of having detectives and the other things.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Will the hon. member permit one question?


William Arnold Peters: Yes.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Would it not suggest itself that this woman was so poor that it took her a couple of years to get the money together to come here before parliament? Will he
also say whether he is going to vote for the bill at the last minute before six o'clock? If he does not do so and if he wants to talk the bill out, perhaps we could agree that it is six o'clock.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The hon. member for Timiskaming has the floor.


William Arnold Peters: I agree that this case is one in which there is a common law alliance. I should have liked to continue and to point out that this common law alliance does not necessarily constitute adultery; but I will not do so because of the fact that it is all of six o'clock, that we want to see this woman get the divorce and in this case we also want to see the corespondent and the respondent get the redress that they are being given by this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Edmund Davie Fulton: By leave.


Robert Jardine McCleave: the third reading of the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. Habel:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Carried on division.


William Arnold Peters: I want the sponsor to be sure to note that I voted for it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division, and bill read the third time and passed.

William Moore Benidickson: Would it be possible for the Minister of Veterans Affairs or the Minister of Justice to give notice now of what might take place on Wednesday? I know we have a supply motion for Monday and Tuesday.


Mr. Brooks:: The business for Wednesday will be announced on Monday night.


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

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

Mr. Argue: Monday, May 2, I960