1960-05-20

IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of a speech he made in London, England, on Monday, May 2, a text of which I saw only this morning. He said:
We shall be able to welcome and absorb into employment many tens of thousands of immigrants.
Will the Prime Minister comment on that statement made in London?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any necessity for any comment. It is very sure and very definite.


Mr. Robichaud:: Tell us where.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: On May 6
the Minister of Transport informed the house that he would take the request of the hon. member for Essex East to the president of the C.N.R. I am wondering if the Minister of Transport can say, after taking this request to the president of the C.N.R., whether a meeting has been held between the president and the mayor of London, and whether he has intervened in the decision to close the car repair shops at London and move them to Montreal.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I passed on the request of the hon. member for Essex East to the president of the C.N.R. I do not know whether a meeting has been held between him and the mayor of London.


Hazen Robert Argue: Since this is a very difficult and urgent problem, would the minister care to get in touch with the president of the C.N.R. and make a report to the house?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as I have explained several times in the house, I have
79951-0-257
talked about this matter on a number of occasions with the president of the Canadian National Railways. As a result of my speaking to him a re-examination of the whole situation took place in great detail. Every possible consideration was given to this matter. Every effort was made to keep the shops at London in operation and it was with great reluctance, as I have explained several times in the house, that the C.N.R. management had to come to the conclusion that it was impossible to keep the shops going. I am afraid I cannot tell the hon. member anything else.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question-


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
a supplementary question. Will the minister, notwithstanding all he says, as Minister of Transport nevertheless seek to persuade, if that is all he can do, the president of the railroad who is in Ottawa today to meet with the mayor of the city of London in order to see if further consideration can be given to this matter? Surely the least we are entitled to-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has completed his question.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the president of Canadian National Railways who, as the hon. member said, is in Ottawa today. I have discussed this matter again with him, and he does not see any useful purpose in again seeing the representatives of the city of London.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question. I wonder whether the minister is prepared to meet the mayor-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I feel that four sup-plementaries all to the same effect are enough for one question.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is about to begin his important assignment in certain countries of Latin America, in connection with which I am sure the house

407G
Inquiries of the Ministry wishes him Godspeed, if he has any comment to make about stories that have emanated from some Latin American questers suggesting that Canada is about to be welcomed into the organization of American states? Has the minister any comment to make in this connection?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I should like to thank the hon. member for Essex East for extending his good wishes with respect to my trip to Latin America. In so far as any comments that may have been published are concerned, I can only say that no government policy has been decided upon, and if and when a policy decision is reached it will be made known to the house in the usual way.


PUBLIC SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. I apologize for not giving him notice, but my staff only handed me this letter about 30 seconds before eleven o'clock. I have a copy of a letter written to the Prime Minister yesterday by Mr. R. A. Tooms, secretary of the joint action committee of the public service organizations of Canada. In this letter there is one short paragraph I wish to quote before I ask the Prime Minister my question.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that the hon. member is within his rights in undertaking to quote even a short paragraph. Can he not phrase his question without doing so?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, I think I can without too much difficulty. In this letter Mr. Tooms mentions that the current practice of the government on this vital matter, that is the giving of civil service salary increases to one group at a time and at different times, will most certainly cause permanent damage to the public service. When I read this statement I thought it was very striking indeed, and I should like the Prime Minister to comment if he would.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Finance has dealt with this matter on a number of occasions, and when he returns to his place he will be able to give an effective answer as usual.


REPORTED FINGERPRINTING OF CIVIL SERVANTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Prime Minister

when the decision was made by the government to fingerprint civil servants, and for what reason?


John George Diefenbaker: No such decision was made, Mr. Speaker.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Minister of Public Works whether it is not a fact that his employees are being fingerprinted; and if so, for what reason.


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Yes, Mr. Speaker; the Leader of the Opposition is quite right. I did state yesterday that certain categories in my department are being fingerprinted. They include cleaning classes exposed to documents, and the night elevator men, the night watchmen, the clerks and those to whom documents would be readily available should they seek to see them are being fingerprinted at the present time.
Although the Acting Secretary of State (Mr. Balcer) will give a full statement on Monday, my understanding is that this is something which was inaugurated by the civil service commission some time ago. I am not aware of the exact date when it started.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Several firms at the lake-head are holding n.s.f. cheques from Speck-ert-Morris Limited, contractor for the fill at the lakehead seaway terminal. Has the government paid the contractor for this work? If so, can the minister suggest how these local people can get their money?


An hon. Member:: Prosecute.


David James Walker: I want to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. In reply I wish to state that the Department of Public Works has made final payment of $180,999.84 for the filling works carried out under this contract.
This work is covered by a labour and material payment bond. Any parties having claims against this contract for labour or material payments should place their claims with the bonding company, which is the Canadian Surety Company, 320 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Does the minister know that the few parking spaces reserved for local visitors to members of parliament have been taken away? Shall I repeat the question?


David James Walker: If the question is being addressed to me, may I say that I have no such knowledge.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Then I should like to ask a supplementary question. Will the minister look into this matter and see that those parking spaces are restored?


David James Walker: I believe this is a matter for the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons, but if I can do anything to assist in the matter I shall be glad to do so.
(Translation):
[Later:)


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege in protest of the fact that someone-I don't know who, because there is apparently no way of getting information about it-took upon himself to cancel the parking privileges which had been available to local visitors calling on their member of parliament. I feel that those spaces allotted to visitors were a privilege to which local members are entitled. When the mayors of certain municipalities in my area called on me this week, they were unable to find any allowed parking space for their cars.
We know that tourists are allowed to park on parliament hill, but local visitors calling on their member are placed in an inferior situation which cannot be tolerated, because I think the privileges of members are being ignored.
This action is an encroachment on the privileges of hon. members, and I ask that a member of the government see that they be restored.
(Text):


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, on the point the hon. member for Hull has just raised, I believe it has been the practice in the past for somebody on the government side, usually the Minister of Public Works, to indicate what the position is; because I think the problem the hon. member for Hull raises is a serious one and one which has come up from time to time. Surely it 79951-0-257i
Inquiries of the Ministry can be rectified. All he is asking is that someone on the government side give the assurance that the privilege which previously existed should continue as it was in the past.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, may I just say a word on this, because last year I took part in discussions with Your Honour between the parties regarding the parking privileges, or the parking arrangements, on parliament hill.
Finally, it should be understood that while the Department of Public Works makes the over-all regulations with regard to traffic, including parking, on government property, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are then responsible for enforcing those regulations, nevertheless the Department of Public Works and certainly the R.C.M.P. recognize that although the precincts outside are not directly within the control of the house, nevertheless parliament itself has an overriding interest in the parking arrangements which are made on parliament hill. Therefore the matter of allocating spaces on the hill has always been discussed with and between the parties, as I understand it. Certainly this is the principle we like to follow and followed last year-that it is then for the Speaker and the Sergeant-at-Arms as a result of such discussion to determine what particular allocations of space will be made.
As far as I am aware there was no change in the allocation of spaces this year. Therefore I am not aware whether any spaces formerly allotted to visitors to members of parliament have been withdrawn. It seems to me that what is necessary if there is dissatisfaction with the allocation of parking space is that the parties should again meet with Your Honour and the Sergeant-at-Arms to discuss what changes or revisions, if any, should be made.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has he any information to give to the house with respect to his meeting yesterday with the national house builders association?


David James Walker: I have several delegations a day that I meet, sometimes as many as 15. We had a very pleasant meeting. A great deal of progress was made in our understanding. I found the delegation very reasonable indeed. I derived great benefit from a consideration of their point of view, and I think they

Inquiries of the Ministry obtained a certain amount of benefit from a consideration of ours. Whatever they have submitted to us will be taken up and studied by the government in due course. I believe a very full report was made in the press by that body after their meeting.



C.M.H.C.-DIRECT LOANS TO BUILDERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. C. Henderson (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has any favourable change been made in the housing situation? The $5,000 limit is too high for the country I come from.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Clarence Henderson: Thank you, gentlemen. I have had numerous telegrams-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest the hon. member reserve the rest of his remarks for the estimates and leave the floor to the minister, if he wishes to reply.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Cariboo for asking this question. It gives me the opportunity to say that as far as N.H.A. direct loans by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which are limited to people with incomes of $5,000 or less, are concerned, we have already received applications which amount to $50 million. I can say this; even with this limitation the sum of money the government has earmarked for loans, in the amount of $150 million to $175 million, will be lent out before the end of the year.
Now, I should like to accommodate all members of the house, and particularly my friend the hon. member for Cariboo, by increasing the limit to $6,000. If that were done, Mr. Speaker, all the money would probably be allocated by the end of June, and we do not want to be in that position. I can say to hon. members that in any situation where there is a cutback there is always inconvenience and hardship. No one appreciates that more than I do. We have done our best to ameliorate the hardships as much as we possibly can.
Hon. members will be delighted to learn that the approved lenders who were so slow in coming into the market are now really coming into it in volume, and with the interest rate on bonds down to 4.5 per cent there is now a considerable differential between government mortgages at 6f per cent and bonds at 4.5 per cent. The result has been that the approved lenders are coming into the market.


John Richard Garland: May I ask
a supplementary question. The minister has mentioned the rather large number of applications he has received. Can he say how many have been approved?


David James Walker: I have not that figure at the moment, no.


John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct another question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the fact that loans under the National Housing Act are down 76 per cent in the first four months of this year, will the minister now consider recommending to his colleagues that the amount of money to be made available for direct lending be increased this year?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, the figures used by the hon. gentleman are not correct. The debate on housing closed some time ago but it seems to be continued every day during orders of the day. I can only repeat to my hon. friend that the question of housing, as he well knows, is under constant and continued study by the government, and things are looking up very nicely at the present time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (Si. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Postmaster General. According to this morning's newspapers it is reported that at a meeting yesterday he said that the plan to use the Bomarc missile should be carried out, giving as one reason that this plan costs only 1 per cent of the national budget. I would like to know from the Postmaster General whether that was the only reason given by him. If not, what were the others?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been considered at great length by the Minister of National Defence and it has been explained to the house. If the hon. member had been present and had been listening on those occasions, he would not have to ask questions like this.
(Translation):



C.M.R.    STATEMENT ON PROPOSED DEMOLITION OF HISTORIC BUILDING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis)

which was a repetition of a preliminary question he asked last year on the demolition of two buildings located on the grounds of the St. Johns Military College, I wish to say that the matter is still under consideration and that the situation has remained unchanged since last year.
(Text):



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Azellus Denis: May I direct a question to the Postmaster General. Is the Postmaster General aware of the fact that during his trip to Paris no robbery was reported in Canada, but since he came back we have read in the newspapers that a robbery took place-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I feel sure that the implication in the hon. member's question will give rise to a question of privilege.


Azellus Denis: I do not want to impute motives.


Mr. Speaker:: If he has a serious question, of course, he will be given the opportunity to ask it.


Azellus Denis: I should like the Postmaster General to comment on the last robbery which took place in Rougemont, not very far from his own place.


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, first I think perhaps I might deal with the first observation made by the hon. member for St. Denis. It merely shows that when I am in Canada I see that every possible bit of information is printed in the press regarding post office activities. It does not imply that I commit these robberies myself.
Second, and I think far more important, with respect to the time of this house and the efforts of this house to get through its business, when a department is having its estimates come up in about three hours' time I suggest that this sort of trivial question is completely unnecessary.



METROPOLITAN TORONTO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has the minister received a letter and documents from
Inquiries of the Ministry the chairman of metropolitan Toronto requesting federal participation in a comprehensive plan of flood control and water conservation in the metropolitan Toronto area?


Hon. Alvin Hamilfon (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Yes. I have also received representations from almost every member in the Toronto area.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister give this request his most sympathetic consideration and receive a delegation of interested officials, if necessary, in order that a repetition of the tragic circumstances of hurricane Hazel may be avoided and life and property protected?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. My question is based on the current May edition of the Indian News, published by the Indian affairs branch, and relates to page 3 thereof, where there is a reference to the passage of legislation by this house, and other steps, with respect to the right of Indians to vote. Perhaps I could preface this by telling the minister that there is a picture of the Prime Minister with excerpts from the remarks of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
In order to prevent accusations of a partisan approach, would the minister in a subsequent edition ensure that there appear excerpts from comments of other hon. members in respect of their views?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to take the suggestion into consideration.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Would the minister inform the house as to the number of live claimants for unemployment insurance benefits as of the latest date in April for which such figures are available to him?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as of April 30, which is the last available compilation, there were 555,885 male claimants and 159,009 female claimants.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production or the Minister of National Defence. Has the development work on the Bobcat armoured vehicle reached the stage where serious consideration is being given to letting a contract for its production?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur may I say that I shall have to take it as notice and advise him at a later date.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources whether he has had an opportunity to look into the returns I asked about a couple of days ago.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member mentioned motions Nos. 11, 15 and 101. These turn out to be actually motions Nos. 22, 31 and 30.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I took them from the list supplied by the Secretary of State.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes. The hon. member used the list from the appendix of July 7. I am giving the actual motions.
Motion No. 22 requested all correspondence on the forest access roads and trails program in Ontario since January 1, 1958. I accepted this motion on February 2, 1959 on the understanding that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, whose motion it was, would look at the files and point out the documents he wanted, and these would then be returned to the house. The hon. gentleman apparently has not yet done this; therefore the department feel they should wait for him to do so.
I should point out that in motion No. 36 of this session the hon. member for Assini-boia asked for information on the same subject but covering all provinces and that
[Mr. Roblchaud.l
return will provide the Ontario material requested by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. That motion has been accepted and will be presented to the house shortly. The material is all ready for tabling, but we have yet to receive replies from all the provinces.
Motion No. 30 requested correspondence on roads to resources with all provinces. This motion could not be returned, of course, until all the provinces had given consent. The Saskatchewan government signed only on March 11 of this year. This material, consisting of literally hundreds of documents, will be ready for tabling on Monday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether he has had an opportunity to look into the returns about which I made inquiries.


David James Walker: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister give an indication as to when they will be brought down?


David James Walker: Perhaps I misunderstood my hon. friend. To which returns does my hon. friend refer? I believe there were two.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A couple of days ago I asked the minister about two returns to orders passed last year, and the minister said he would look into the matter.


David James Walker: I have done so, Mr. Speaker, and I am happy to say that within a week we will be able to have those returns.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Production and marketing branch-
10. Agricultural Stabilization Act administration, $315,130.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Chairman, as I started to say last evening, the stabilization board has done a great service for the farmers of Canada generally and particularly for those in western Canada in whom I am greatly interested. Last year saw a record number of hogs sold, second only to the year 1942. In some manner or other we were able to handle a large number of hogs and store the surplus, and now we are getting rid of the surplus. In 1942, the only other year that compares with last year, Great Britain had a great demand for hogs. During the war we exported hogs to Great Britain in considerable quantities.
Last fall the stabilization board was of great assistance to the sheep industry when

lambs had to be supported, largely due to the scrapies disease that afflicted some of the western flocks, when some of the states south of the border placed an embargo on lambs going into that country. What would have been the price of lambs last autumn had there not been a support price? I think chaos would have reigned in the sheep industry. I know that neighbours of mine who sold lambs were greatly worried. In my opinion the stabilization board played a vital role in supporting the lamb market last year, and I was pleased to note that this support cost the board only $360,000.
As I mentioned last evening the hon. member for Assiniboia made no recommendation as to how to improve conditions or provide support for deficiency payments. His main argument was on behalf of the large producer. I think it is evident that the deficiency payment is made on hogs particularly to assist the small producer. I have always advocated deficiency payments on hogs and did so a year ago before the government brought them into effect. The small producer receives as much benefit as the large producer, and that is perhaps the way it should be. Surely the small producer has a right to as much support from the federal treasury as does the larger producer.
The hon. member for Assiniboia went on at great length to tell us how disappointed he was in the Conservative party, and how at one time he had great hopes for it because of the young members who were elected in 1957 and 1958. He did not say what hopes he had for his new labour party, of which he has become a member. He did not say that the Saskatchewan government has not adopted the labour party; he shied completely away from that.
He says he is disappointed in some of the Conservative members. I am disappointed in him as representing a rural riding of farmers. I am afraid he has sold them down the river to the labour party, which is controlled by unions in the United States. This is what has happened, and this is what is concerning farmers. He has joined a party which is dominated by international unions in the United States. He has sold the farmers down the river, and the Saskatchewan government has realized that fact and is playing safe until after the election of June 8.
I am told that somewhere around 85 per cent of the producers of hogs sell only 100 or fewer than 100 grade A and B hogs in a year. Eighty five per cent of all hogs sold grade A and B; therefore it is evident that by far the majority of the small producers particularly are being supported by this present stabilization method. The only ones
Supp ly-A griculture
that I could see it would hurt would be some of the larger producers whom my hon. friend from Assiniboia is attempting to support.
The hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska said that hog exports had fallen 30 per cent. I am looking at the livestock trade report put out by the Department of Agriculture for the week ended May 12. Exports of live hogs to the United States are more than double those from January 1 to May 7 of last year. I am quoting from page 13 of this report. Live hogs exported to the United States this year ran over 3,300; last year they were around 1,400. On the same page we find the pork exports. They may be down 3 million, but a little further along I notice that canned meat is up over 6 million. Without doubt a great deal of canned meat consists of pork, and I would say that roughly our pork exports are holding at about the same level as last year, and certainly are not down 30 per cent. Where the hon. member got this figure I do not know.
He said that the main object of the stabilization board appears to be to reduce the surplus. It would be easy for the stabilization board to reduce the surplus. All they would need to do would be to do away with support altogether. If that was the main object of the government they could bring in a measure that would do away with support of hogs altogether, if the object was to reduce the surplus. Certainly surpluses have to be managed. The money from the federal treasury has to go to the small producers, or those who are in trouble. Certainly it is the small producer who needs the financial backing, and he is entitled to as much assistance as the large producer.
As I said, I have always advocated a deficiency payment plan on hogs. Perhaps it should have been initiated before the support price was lowered to 80 per cent of the 10-year average. I hope the minister and the government will see fit to make a semiannual payment on hogs. The farmers of western Canada particularly are accustomed to interim payments and final payments on their grain. We have been paid our deficiency payment on a half-yearly basis, and I hope the government will see fit to make a semiannual payment, perhaps on July 1 of every year, on hogs.
I say this because as a farmer I know that a few years ago when I started out farming, in the middle of July I allowed an insurance agent to sell me an insurance policy which cost me $50. For the next six or seven years, whenever the insurance premium came due, I was broke, and I received notice after notice from the insurance company asking me to please send in my money or they would have to revoke the policy. It was always

Supply-Agriculture
after about the very last notice in September that I seemed to be able to scrape up enough money to meet the insurance premium.
It is in the spring and summer that the farmer is hard pressed for cash. I urge the government to consider this and make the deficiency payment on hogs on a semi-annual basis. The minister said it would amount to only $2 or $2.10 at the present time, but $2 each on 50 hogs in the middle of the year, assuming that the farmer sold 50 hogs in the first half of the year and 50 in the second half, would amount to perhaps $100, which would go a long way toward keeping the farmer mobile and in a position to pay his bills throughout the summer. As I said, this would be welcomed by the farmers and particularly the small farmers who are producing a small number of hogs and are perhaps faced with a great many financial difficulties at that time and cannot wait until January for the money for their hogs. It seems difficult for them to wait until next January to get deficiency payment assistance.
I know full well there may not be any payments next year because the price of hogs may come up high enough to raise the level. If this is so the government should raise the support level. I would like to see it come up, because the small producer needs this assistance. I hope we have enough of a surplus by the end of this year so we can increase the support level to where it was, namely 84 per cent, rather than the mandatory level of 80 per cent.
This is about all I have to say on the stabilization board. It has been of great service to the farmers. Since the March 31, 1958 election, referred to by the hon. member for Assiniboia, the farmers have begun to realize just what a good act it is and just how much it will support them in case of a sudden drop in prices such as in the case of lambs, which occurred last fall in western Canada. The stabilization board has been of great benefit to the farmers and I hope it continues to be of service to them for a good while in the future.


Hazen Robert Argue: I rise at this time, Mr. Chairman, to answer some of the statements made by the hon. member for Acadia. I said in my speech a week ago I felt that the government premise on which this act was based was exceedingly shaky; that the government in fact was not carrying out the act as required; that instead of bringing in a type of deficiency payment the government in fact was robbing the farmers of the support price they had.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Only the large
farmer.


Hazen Robert Argue: Robbing all the farmers, robbing every single hog producer it could- and it will do it-every single hog producer who has sold hogs far below the so-called stabilization price; because any deficiency payment that is made will be inadequate and will not be enough to bring up the lowest prices that have been paid to the producer to the so-called support level.
To that extent the government, I suggest, is breaking its own act. It has considered this act to be no more than a piece of paper, which it is tearing up in the eyes of producers, certainly in my view based on the clauses in the act, based on the statements made by the minister and government supporters in the past. In reading the act I see nothing in it to suggest that the 80 per cent price over a period of years is not to be maintained as a firm price by way of return to the producers on all of the commodities that have been covered. But this is not the case; this is not what the government is doing under the act, and I feel that the farmers are not getting what they are entitled to under this legislation.
During the past winter the federation of agriculture presented a brief on this subject to the government and to other members of the House of Commons, and in it they came out very strongly in favour of the offer to purchase method. When Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner was minister of agriculture I suggested that the farmers did not in every single instance receive the prices to which they were entitled under the offer to purchase method, but I have no hesitation in saying that they received a far larger share of the support price than under this legislation, which is robbing them of their just due. The hon. member for Acadia went far afield from this stabilization item-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No farther afield than you.


Hazen Robert Argue: -and in addition to some rather insulting and abusive remarks-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Oh, terrible.


Hazen Robert Argue: -he made statements that were most unparliamentary.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You are one to talk.


Hazen Robert Argue: He suggested that I had sold the farmers down the river-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hazen Robert Argue: -to some so-called labour party that is merely a figment of the hon. member's imagination.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What do you call it?


Hazen Robert Argue: He knows so little about these developments that he does not know it is not going to be and will not be a labour party, and the people who are most determined-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I can answer the hon. gentleman who made these statements. This party for which we have been working will not be a labour party, and the people who are most determined to see that it will not be a labour party are the trade union members themselves.


Mr. Speakman:: Controlled by American labour racketeers.


Hazen Robert Argue: I did not hear that remark; perhaps the hon. member would like to repeat it. I heard something about labour racketeers. It will be very interesting to see these comments on the record made by hon. members who are attempting to malign the leadership of the trade union movement in this country.


James Stanley Speakman: No, not in this country.


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member for Acadia said I had sold the farmers down the river to a labour party comprising trade unions that, in his words, would be controlled by Americans. This is an old tactic. It is not a new tactic, but the old tactic of smear and divide and rule if you can. I was sorry to hear a very active member of the Conservative party use this occasion to try to drive a wedge between the farming people and the workers in other industries in this country.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You have already driven a wedge.


Hazen Robert Argue: This man is trying to stir up one class against another, and I think that is an abominable thing for anyone to do.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What are your C.C.F. members doing?


Hazen Robert Argue: I will take a back seat to no one as a champion of the rights of the farmers of this country, but in doing that I do not have to malign and smear trade union members or the labour movement of this country. In addition to a very large body of farmers in my constituency, I have the honour and privilege of representing many people who work in stores, garages, hospitals and the sodium sulphate plants in my riding, and who are members of the trade union movement. I think these people are just as honourable, just as honest and just as good Canadian citizens as any member of this house, and they will resent the implication by the hon. member for Acadia that they are being controlled by gangsters from outside this country.
79951-0-258
Supp ly-A griculture


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is very interesting to hear hon. members say "order". As a member of the house I have a right to reply to the statements which have been made. I agree that they were out of order, but as they have been made I have a right to reply to them. The hon. member said that I have sold the farmers down the river. I challenge him and I challenge the Minister of Agriculture, as I have on other occasions, to appear with me on a public platform anywhere in western Canada to discuss the government's agricultural policy, the way the minister has endeavoured to hoodwink the farmers of this country and how he has failed to carry out the promises of the government to bring about parity prices and adequate support legislation. I know the minister will not accept my challenge, because he is too timid to face the agricultural producers of western Canada and take part in a public debate to discuss the way the government has mismanaged the stabilization legislation, and how it has been instrumental in driving down the prices of eggs and hogs.
After his initial tirade the hon. member for Acadia got around to saying something about improvements that could be made in the act. Everything the government was doing was fine until he got around to talking about the act itself, and then he thought there were many things wrong with it. He suggested that there should be semi-annual payments on hogs because he knows, and he said so, that if the price of hogs should go up toward the end of the year then, on the statement of the minister, the farmers may be deprived of a deficiency payment even though their hogs have sold at far below the so-called stabilization price.
I suggest that what the farmers need and have a right to is a daily and individual accounting with respect to the prices at which they sell their products; and whenever the price of a single hog or a single dozen of eggs falls below the stabilization price the farmer who has sold the eggs or the hog should have the right to the difference between the stabilization price established under this legislation and the market price. This is the difference, Mr. Chairman, from the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board Act under which, when the initial prices and initial grades are established, there is a guarantee without qualification that when a farmer markets a certain grade and quantity of grain he will receive the basic initial payment. There is no such guarantee in this legislation. There is no guarantee in this legislation whatsoever. The farmers are

Supply-Agriculture
thrown on the mercy of the market, and if the farmers are taken to the cleaners completely the minister may then by his own formula give them some little hand-out after their products have been marketed.
Under the legislation we are now discussing the farmer cannot say, because no one can say, what his rights are having regard to the manner in which the government is administering the support legislation. Although farmers have sold hogs this year, some of them have informed me, for as low as 18 cents, 17 cents or 16 cents a pound, they have no assurance, and the minister will not give them any assurance now, that he will pay to them the difference between the price they received, which was well below the stabilization price, and the stabilization price.
This is a hit-or-miss method as far as the farmer is concerned. The main objective of the minister is to clean up the surplus, clean up the inventories and drive the farmers out of the production of hogs, drive the farmers out of the production of eggs, liquidate the farmers so far as being producers is concerned, because that is exactly what the minister is doing. Then he will say, "My legislation has been a great success. I have moved the surplus products, and this is the main thing I should be considering in connection with my legislation". I do not believe this is a good thing. The producers are asking for equity; they are asking for fair treatment; they are asking that the formula in this legislation be maintained and that they be not chiselled by the administration of this act.


Mr. Graffiey:: Chiselled?


Hazen Robert Argue: Do you want something stronger than "chiselled"? I think it has been stolen.


William Heward Grafftey: Stolen?


Hazen Robert Argue: They have taken from them the thing they have a right to expect; and because of the statements made by hon. members opposite when this legislation was being put through this house-


James Stanley Speakman: Why did you vote for it?


Hazen Robert Argue: There is a brilliant question from my hon. friend.


James Stanley Speakman: Well, you did.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, I did, yes; in spite of the fact that my hon. friend and others wanted to twist the position we had taken in connection with the bill. We had a little more faith in the government at that time than we have now. We thought that when the bill was drafted in clear and precise English

terms, the government would carry out the provisions of the legislation. We thought this was better than no legislation at all. We still have-


Mr. Ricard:: You would vote against it today, then?


Hazen Robert Argue: -in our memory the ringing declaration of the Prime Minister that his policy for agricultural producers was parity, not charity. Well, the parity has been forgotten. It went out the window when the Prime Minister got this tremendous majority in the house. Even by way of charity there is little going to the agricultural producers at this time.
I did not intend, Mr. Chairman, to reenter the debate on this subject at this time. However, the remarks of the hon. member for Acadia, in which he endeavoured to set one occupational group against another, were of a character that should be answered.


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, I feel that I should say something at this time, in view of the tub-thumping political speech which the hon. member for Assiniboia has just delivered, and which is a repetition of one he delivered last Friday. In each case his statement was full of inaccuracies, and took no cognizance whatever of the practical situation in this country so far as the production and marketing of agricultural products are concerned. These statements, as I say, were intended purely for political consumption and really have nothing to do with these estimates or an examination of these estimates.
The hon. member for Assiniboia repeated today what he said last Friday, that the act is not being followed in so far as the provision of support at the mandatory 80 per cent level is concerned. This is completely incorrect. We are providing support at the mandatory 80 per cent.


Hazen Robert Argue: Not to the farmer.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, we are providing it to the farmer. The hon. member and many other people have been going about this country talking about eggs at 15 cents and hogs at 16 cents, and various other figures along that line. In every case they have been picking out the lowest price at which any product has been sold at any time in Canada during the past several months. Then they say that is the price they are getting for their product. They say nothing about the fact that we have in effect the support price which is going to give to the farmers across this country the average support price. The support price provided for hogs, which is the average for Canada, is of course $22.65.

The hon. member and other hon. members who are talking for political purposes are only trying to stir up trouble. They omit to say that this support price is guaranteed to these farmers. What the hon. member is actually doing is constantly saying that we should have continued the support by means of purchase; and so are hon. members of the Liberal party. They say we should have continued the support by means of purchase, which was the method being carried on previously and which resulted in an accumulation of surplus products. The hon. member has asked a series of questions as to the prices paid for these products, and I shall proceed to answer them shortly. I hope the answer will present a complete picture and show how utterly impossible it was to continue support by the purchase method for a product such as hogs.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if the minister would permit a question.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Just a minute; I should like to finish what I am saying. The hon. member for Assiniboia and hon. members of the Liberal party can talk about supporting these products by the method of purchase-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Offer to purchase.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -or offer to purchase, whatever you like to call it. It is actually by making a purchase that you support the price. Their thinking is 20 years out of date; that is what is wrong with it. They leave out of consideration entirely the growth of contract farming and the integrated operations which have taken place in this country in recent years, and which were going on very rapidly, so far as hog production was concerned, when we stopped it by putting the deficiency payment method of support into operation. As a result of the hog contracts which were being made and as a result of the big integrated operations which were taking place, the production of hogs was zooming up and up. If we had continued the offer to purchase method of support that production would have continued to zoom, and it would have been impossible to handle the product.
Under those circumstances it was absolutely essential that we change the method of support so that we could support all the bona fide farmers, but cut out from support those people who were contract farmers, many of them businessmen who were going into this type of operation because they had a guaranteed profit from the government on it.
The hon. member for Assiniboia and hon. members of the Liberal party, in continuing to insist that we should have in effect the 79951-0-258i
Supply-Agriculture
offer to purchase method of support, are actually insisting we should continue to use the taxpayers' money to support the large commercial operations.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is not true. That is a false and ridiculous statement.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is the actual fact. This self-styled defender of the small man, the small farmer, is actually insisting on a course of action which will support the large commercial farmers, the big feed companies, the abattoirs and people engaged in this kind of contract farming.


Hazen Robert Argue: I rise on a question of privilege.


William Heward Grafftey: Take your medicine on the chin.


Hazen Robert Argue: My question of privilege is that the Minister of Agriculture is putting words in my mouth which have never been there. He is giving a false statement. I have never at any time breathed one word of support in this house for the great corporations engaged in agriculture production, for the integrated farm or anything else. I have been an opponent of vertical integration, and I still am.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think you realize, Mr. Chairman, that this is a completely false question of privilege. There is no question of privilege involved. The hon. member is trying to say I did something that I did not do. What I said was, and I repeat, that by trying to insist that we keep in effect the offer to purchase method, he is in effect-these were the words I used-asking us to support the large commercial concerns to the detriment of the small farmer. That is exactly the situation.


Frank Howard: In effect you are not telling the truth.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that you have that remark withdrawn immediately. The hon. member has said, "You were not telling the truth".


The Chairman:: Order. I heard the words used. I think the expression is unparliamentary, and I am sure the hon. member for Skeena will withdraw it.


An hon. Member:: Save it for television.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Frank Howard: I am sure the hon. member for Skeena would not care to withdraw what he said. What I said was "In effect the minister is not telling the truth". If the minister can use the expression "in effect" to introduce words which were never uttered by the hon. member for Assiniboia, then

Supply-Agriculture
anybody else has the right to do precisely the same thing. I know what I say.


Jacques Flynn: I do not think it is necessary to discuss the explanation of the hon. member. What I was mentioning to him was the fact that under our standards the expression he used should be withdrawn. I am sure that on reflection he will withdraw it.


Frank Howard: If I may speak to the point of order again, Mr. Chairman, may I say that we went through this situation with the same minister and myself a couple of years ago with regard to a somewhat similar expression. Even though I said that in effect the minister was not telling the truth, there is a vast difference between saying a person is not telling the truth and saying that he is telling a lie. I did not say that the minister was telling a lie.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: There is a distinct difference there.


William Heward Grafftey: Will you explain it?


Frank Howard: Certainly I will explain it.


An hon. Member:: It does not require any explanation.


Frank Howard: One of your colleagues over here asked for an explanation. Why do you people not keep in concert with each other? It is unparliamentary to say that a person is telling a lie because this is saying that he knows precisely what he is saying and that he is lying deliberately, is telling a falsehood, is distorting what I have been saying. But to say that a person is not telling the truth is namely saying in effect that he does not know what he is talking about.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. May I suggest to the hon. member, as one who occupies a neutral position in this situation, that he really ought to withdraw the words to which objection has been taken. I think he will find that such words have been interpreted by previous Speakers as being offensive and unparliamentary. In fairness to the hon. member-and I know he does not mean to violate the rules-may I suggest that he might use a more effective synonym and say that the Minister of Agriculture is guilty of a terminological inexactitude.


Frank Howard: Speaking on the point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I could not accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Essex East either. We know how smooth, capable and mellifluous he is in his ability to get around difficulties, to say one thing

and put it in different words so the statement does not sound quite so offensive. What I said is quite true, Mr. Chairman; but on your insistance that this expression be withdrawn because it casts a reflection on the minister, I will withdraw it to that extent.


William Heward Grafftey: You are defying the Chair.


Frank Howard: I am not defying the Chair. I have just said that I withdraw it. Does the hon. member not pay attention to what is going on?


Jacques Flynn: Order. I think the incident can be considered as closed. I thank the hon. member for Skeena for withdrawing the expression.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I was just speaking of the really untenable position of the hon. member for Assiniboia and members of the Liberal party in continuing to insist that we should continue with the offer to purchase method of support of perishable products such as hogs, eggs and so on which can be produced in extremely large quantities. A system of that sort, of course, for those products encourages contract farming, integrated operations and so on which produce a quantity of these products which you just cannot handle. The offer to purchase method really comes down to this situation. You are using a great deal of the taxpayers' money to support people who are not farmers at all, or are not bona fide farmers, and there is no justification for using the taxpayers' money for this purpose.
Under the system we have in effect for both hogs and eggs there is real protection for farmers. In the case of hogs, something over 90 per cent of the hog producers- that is practically all the bona fide farmers -are fully protected on the prices of the A and B hogs which they deliver. All those farmers across Canada will get on the average the support price we have guaranteed. If the price they actually receive does not come to that amount, we will make a deficiency payment in order to make up the difference.
The hon. member was complaining that these payments are not on an individual daily basis. This would be a completely hopeless operation. The cost would be away out of reason. In addition to that consideration it just is not workable anyway, because then there would be no incentive to the individual farmer to get the best price possible for his hog or his group of hogs, and it would lead to one of the worst black markets that ever existed in this or any other country. It just is not a practical proposition from any point of view.

The hon. member advocates things along that line because he has no business experience and no practical experience in administration. He does not understand what he is advocating when he advocates these things.


Hazen Robert Argue: The wheat board can do it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is very easy for wild theorists to advocate all kinds of things, but most of the things they advocate are just not practicable or workable. That is the situation with regard to many of the things advocated by the hon. member for Assiniboia.
The hon. member went on to say that we are trying to liquidate the farmers as producers. The whole purpose of this scheme is to protect the bona fide farmer and to get the non-farmer-the businessman, the contract man, the feed company and so on- out of the production of hogs and eggs and other products.
The hon. member quoted the federation of agriculture and tried to make out that they were unanimously against this system and in favour of the offer to purchase system, something which does not happen to be the case. Some of the member bodies of the federation are certainly in favour of the offer to purchase system, particularly the ones that are dominated by the big producers. But he said nothing about the farm unions, who endorse this method of support. As a matter of fact he is generally quoting the farm unions here, but in this case he did not mention anything about them because he knows they support the deficiency method of payment in order to prevent what I have just been talking about, namely the growth of contract farming, integrated operations and so on. Hence this statement that we are trying to liquidate the farmers is the exact opposite of the case. We have put this type of support into operation for the specific purpose of protecting the bona fide farmer and preventing competition with him on the part of big business concerns.
As far as these general statements along that line are concerned, I think that is all the time I will take in order to deal with them at the present moment. There is just one other thing. The hon. member for Assiniboia stated that under the previous government the method of support in operation was much more advantageous to the farmers than is the case under the stabilization act.


Hazen Robert Argue: No.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If the hon. member says he did not say that, well and good. What did he say along this line?
Supply-Agriculture


Hazen Robert Argue: I said the farmers got a higher proportion of the support level for their products than they get under this act.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not know what the hon. member means when he says they got a higher proportion of the support level, but here are the actual figures of what they got. For the 12 years the Liberals were operating the Agricultural Prices Support Act the farmers got a total of approximately $24 million in payments under that act, except for hogs and cattle during the period of foot-and-mouth disease, when special measures were taken. A great deal of pork was canned at that time, and so forth. That canning and support program during the foot-and-mouth outbreak amounted to $36.6 million for hogs and $33.3 million for cattle. But apart from those special measures to meet the foot-and-mouth outbreak the total amount which the farmers received in 12 years under the Liberals was $24 million.


Hazen Robert Argue: That was taken out of the treasury.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, in the last year alone we expended $57.6 million. That is in one year alone, as compared with $24 million in 12 years; yet the hon. member says that under the previous government the farmers got more support than under this government. The figures themselves show how ridiculous is a statement like that, and every farmer in the country knows that is the situation. There is just no use arguing about the figures, because they speak for themselves.
As far as the argument the hon. member now makes is concerned, namely that they get a lot of other indirect support because the money was put out by the treasury, that is correct. It is correct now, it was correct then and it has been correct right through. As I pointed out last Friday, the actual amount of money which the treasury puts out is no measure of the amount of benefit for the farmers. I indicated some figures last Friday to illustrate that point so far as the dairy industry was concerned, and I will not repeat them again. But that statement applies now just as it did before. These figures actually indicate the disparity in support as between what was provided under the Liberal government and what has been provided under this government, and as I say there is no comparison.
Some questions were asked which I was requested to answer today. First of all the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska asked about pork imports into Canada from the United States since the lifting of the

Supply-Agriculture
embargo. Fresh pork, which includes trimmings, amounted to 1,067,000 pounds. In addition there was pickled and cured pork to Newfoundland, 691,000 pounds. That has been going on for years and is a well established trade. I might point out that the weekly kill during recent weeks has been running better than 21 million pounds a week. Information also is that the imports which were made were not successful financially, and repeat orders have not been going forward.
The hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska also asked for the number of farmers who had registered for deficiency payments for hogs, and the number is 180,420. I have the figures broken down into provinces but I will not give them all unless he asks for them. I will give him the figure for Quebec, and that is 27,382.
The hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska asked another question last night which I was not able to catch on the translation system. However, it appears in Hansard in this form as reported on page 2 of the translation:
Could the minister tell us whether legal action was taken against farmers who took advantage of the Agricultural Stabilization Act trader two registration numbers?
I stated some time ago that certain farmers were using two registration numbers. Therefore, I ask the minister whether legal action was taken by the Department of Agriculture.
At the time the hon. member brought this up I first of all asked him if he knew of any cases of this kind, to give me the names of the people concerned and I would take immediate action. I have not received the names of anybody concerning this matter. Naturally I cannot send police officers around to investigate all the farmers in Canada. That is not a practical proposition, and in any event I would not do it. If a farmer had a police officer or some other investigator come around to his place and ask him a lot of questions as to whether he had two registration numbers or whether he was conniving with somebody else and having that somebody else use his registration number, then I think that farmer would have justifiable grounds for complaint. But if the hon. member, or if any other hon. member, can give me any specific case where they have reason to believe this practice is going on, we will deal with it, because we are most anxious to see the practice stopped.
The hon. member for Assiniboia asked me a lot of questions about statistical information. I now have that information here and am prepared to give it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is with regard to the purchase of pork?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In Alberta?


Douglas Scott Harkness: This is not Alberta; this is Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thought the question dealt with Alberta.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for Assiniboia asked me to provide, beginning with January 1, 1959, the monthly totals of pork products purchased under the act, the average price paid per month, the average price paid for bellies, the average price which has been obtained from the companies, some indication of the larger purchases which have been made, and the lowest tender price received by the government for the pork bellies.
Mr. Chairman, these are the pork cuts purchased, by the month: I will give the total poundage purchased and the average price. Starting in January 1959 the poundage was 8,603,000-in will leave off the hundreds- at an average price of 34.8 cents; in February,
13.597.000	pounds at an average price of 36.82 cents; March, 12,154,000 pounds at an average price of 37.25 cents; April, 26,878,000 pounds at an average price of 37.97 cents; May, 20,806,000 pounds at an average price of 37.71 cents; June; 8,690,000 pounds at an average price of 37.27; July, 5,548,000 pounds at an average price of 35.22 cents; August,
9.616.000	pounds at an average price of 36.15 cents; September, 13,138,000 pounds at an average price of 36.36 cents; October, 12,488,000 pounds at an average price of 38.2 cents; November, 9,043,000 pounds at an average price of 35.33 cents; December, 8,832,000 pounds at an average price of 33.53 cents.
Then for the year 1960, up to where the program ended; January, 19,693,000 pounds at an average price of 35.38 cents; February,
5.093.000	pounds at an average price of 35.37 cents; March, 606,000 pounds and I have not the price for that month. That makes a grand total of 174,780,000 pounds at an average price of 36.53 cents a pound. That covers the first two questions the hon. member asked, the monthly totals and the average prices paid.
The hon. member also inquired about the prices paid for bellies. That information is as follows:
Date	Toronto price
November 14,	1958	
$32.00January 23,	1959	
33.25March 9, 1959	
33.75March 23, 1959	
34.20April 6, 1959	
34.45April	20,	1959	
34.75May	18,	1959	
34.45June	15,	1959	
33.80July	13,	1959	
33.55July 22, 1959	
34.05August 10, 1959	
34.65September 21, 1959	
34.95
Date	Toronto price
September 28, 1959	 32.60
October 14, 1959	 32.35
October 27, 1959	 32.05
December 21, 1959	 32.60
January 4, 1960	 32.90
April 27, 1960	 27.25
Winnipeg cuts $2.95 under Toronto Saskatoon cuts $3.80 under Toronto Calgary cuts $3.90 under Toronto
The hon. gentleman requested the information on a monthly basis, but I trust he will find this computation acceptable.
The next question related to the amount of bellies sold for rendering and the price received therefor. There were 13,578,410 pounds of bellies sold for rendering at an average price of 2.63 cents per pound. The highest price received was $3.60 a hundred; that is, 3.60 cents a pound. The lowest price was $1.50 a hundred.


Hazen Robert Argue: Were the bellies sold for any purpose other than rendering?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, some were sold for export and so on. I will come to that. The hon. member wanted to know the names of some of the largest purchasers. I have the names of the four largest purchasers. That information is as follows:
Name of Purchaser	Quantity Purchased
Canada Packers Limited ______ 7,701,512	pounds
Swift's	
1,604,746	poundsLegrade	
1,366,232	poundsEssex Packers	
2,932,883	pounds
The last two are comparatively small packers; the first two are comparatively big packers. One of the three biggest packers, Burns and Company, does not apear on the list at all, which I think is sufficient indication that the statement made by the hon. member to the effect that someone had been making a killing out of this or something along that line is not borne out by the facts. If there was big money to be made in this I am sure the hon. member realizes that these companies would have been in on it as strongly as they could.


Hazen Robert Argue: My understanding is that the companies that bought them in large quantities had them in storage in their own plants.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is not a fact. It was all in public storage. These bellies were taken out of public storage for the purpose of rendering.
With respect to export sales of pork cuts, a total of 18,111,761J pounds were exported with a total value of $2,283,722.05. Of this quantity 2,190,3664 pounds were pork sides or carcasses sold to Czechoslovakia at a price of 184 cents per pound to the value of $405,217.80. The balance of 15,921,935 pounds
Supply-Agriculture
was made up of 14,840,717 pounds of bellies, 280,248 pounds of hams, 693,477 pounds of backs, 53,249 pounds of pics and 53,704 pounds of butts. The total return for that quantity was $1,878,504.25, at an average of 11.5 cents per pound.
I believe that concludes the statistical answers to the questions asked by the hon. member for Assiniboia. The outline I have given of the situation with respect to handling pork and the extreme difficulty I have mentioned that exists in trying to handle a large surplus of a perishable commodity of this nature is the best possible demonstration of the fact, as I said earlier, that an offer to purchase system is simply not practical or even possible for commodities of this kind.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, the minister in his last remarks repeated what he said at the beginning of his last statement, and in doing so he attacked not only the opposition to our immediate right but also and more particularly the official opposition. If we said, as we continue to say, that this particular policy on hogs and eggs represents a repudiation of government policy I have no hesitation, notwithstanding what the minister said last night, in repeating it because that is exactly what this policy on hogs and eggs is.
I have before me the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture in this house when he introduced the bill in 1958. The minister said, as reported at page 3740 of Hansard of January 24, 1958:
The main purpose of the bill is to provide guaranteed yearly prices which can be set for any agricultural commodity except wheat, oats and barley produced in the western area. These guaranteed yearly prices once they are set-
I ask hon. members to note the following words:
-will be in effect for 12 months in the future. In other words the bill brings forward prices into effect for the first time, and it provides to the farmer, through the ultimate security clause, through the guaranteed yearly price which will be put into effect-and which will be the one chiefly in effect-a very much greater degree of security than he has ever enjoyed.
To that statement of the Minister of Agriculture must be added a statement made by the Prime Minister, who on the introduction of the bill-this, of course, occurred before the last election-had the following to say:
This legislation if passed will permit the agricultural board to let the farmers across Canada know this yeas what shall be their minimum price during the present year. That is being done under this legislation to the end that the farmer may know-
And I underline the following:
-in anticipation each year what he is going to receive. The objective is to give the farmers a fair share of the national income, in the fixation

Supply-Agriculture
of the prices, regard will be had to the cost of production in so far as the basic price is concerned, which is a price which I might call an emergency price, in order to protect it from a general fall as a consequence of economic dislocation everywhere, not only in Canada, but throughout the world.
These were the statements of the minister responsible for the introduction of the agricultural prices stabilization bill, supported by the words of the Prime Minister. The farmers were going to know in advance, 12 months ahead, what their situation would be in terms of price. I do not say that the government, having regard to the surplus of hogs today, is not faced with a serious situation, a situation which incidentally, they were warned about by the farmers of Canada when they fixed the floor prices of hogs and eggs at the levels they did some months before this change of policy was announced.


Mr. Barrington:: Was it too high?


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member for Essex East was in support of it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I stated what the farmers said. The regret is that the farmers' organizations were not consulted.


Merrill Edwin Barrington: What does the hon. member for Assiniboia say?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend must not let his temper rise too high; he must listen to a reasoned argument.


Hazen Robert Argue: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The fact is that farmers' organizations were not consulted. We ought to examine why the government repudiated, as I say it has, its support price based on the principle of offer to purchase, and decided on deficiency payments. We ought to examine the reasons for this change in government policy. They are not difficult to ascertain. As the minister himself said, the policy was changed because of overproduction and the rapid accumulation of stocks.


Douglas Scott Harkness: May I ask the hon. member what he is reading from?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not reading from anything.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, you are.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, my hon. friend now charges me with something very unusual. I have always been accused of being too free and easy in my speeches. Now the minister says, because I am trying to be a little more precise and referring to my notes, that I am reading from something.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask the hon. member a question. Is he reading from the Martin research bureau or the Pearson research bureau?


Paul Joseph James Martin: What I am going to do is read from the "Current Review of Agricultural Conditions in Canada," page 41. This is what it says:
A very sharp increase in output of hogs was the most striking development in 1959 in the livestock section.
These are not my words; I am reading from a publication of the hon. gentleman whose intervention a while ago was designed to get me off the track.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I do not see this document which the hon. member says he is reading from. He is reading from a typewritten speech.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is the minister saying I am quoting from something different?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No; I say you are reading from a typewritten speech.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the minister will look at the "Current Review of Agricultural Conditions in Canada" at page 41 for 1959 he will find what I have said. If he will look at page 44 he will see where his own publication estimated the stocks of pork accumulated as at December 31, 1959 at 201 million pounds, compared with an average of about 39 million pounds for the period 1947-1956, with 25 million pounds in 1957 and 47 million pounds in 1958. What is the explanation for this sharp increase in the output of hogs in 1959? There is only one explanation, and that explanation is government policy. That is why we have a right to say now that the government by its own action in 1959 was responsible for a situation which caused it to repudiate the policy and the concept of the Agricultural Stabilization Act. That is the situation now.


Mr. Chambers:: How about giving the sow some credit?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It made this change without consultation with the farm organizations. The minister did not consult the Canadian Federation of Agriculture; he did not consult the interprovincial farm union. This was a case where the government did not consult farm organizations but decided on its own policy, with the disastrous results we now see before us.
Surely, in the face of this situation, the minister is not justified in saying that there is no repudiation of policy. This minister in particular spoke of the Agricultural Stabilization Act as something that was designed to

give to the farmers of Canada a form of security which no other measure indeed would be able to do. He complained about an editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of April 6, 1959, and I now use his own words as they appear at page 2581 of Hansard of 1959. Here is what the Ottawa Citizen had to say, which the minister criticized:
Under a support price, farmers know in advance the minimum returns they can except and can plan their program accordingly. If the floors are attractive, they become a powerful incentive to production. Under the deficiency payments scheme they don't know where they stand until after the product has been marketed.
I believe that statement in the editorial of the Ottawa Citizen was correct. What did the minister have to say? He said at the page of Hansard to which I referred:
Well, this is completely incorrect as regards deficiency payment for hogs. We have announced a definite floor price and we are going to use the method of deficiency payments to maintain that price rather than the method of purchase. As I said, the writer of this editorial just does not understand the situation and what is meant by a deficiency payment, as properly used in this sense.
Then the minister went on to say:
We will not be doing any marketing of pork at all. We will pay the farmer the difference between what he gets in the market place and the price support announced.
The minister nods.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Correct.


Paul Joseph James Martin: These are the words he used, and they are to be found on page 2581 of Hansard.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Absolutely correct.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I say that on that occasion the minister misled the house, because that is not the situation. What the farmer will get is not the difference between the support price and what he gets in the market place but the difference between the so-called support price and the national average price, which is another thing altogether.
The minister cannot deny this last response of mine to his nod of a few moments ago. The original statement was correct. No matter what forensic arts the minister may devise, the fact is that he has repudiated his own policy by the deficiency payments on hogs and eggs, and he does not satisfy us in the official opposition that the government does not intend to continue a process of further repudiation of its policy by applying the principle of deficiency payments or some method other than those concepts envisaged and embodied in the Agricultural Prices Support Act.
If the minister has some policy in that regard he ought to tell the house; he should
Supply-Agriculture
not wait until we leave here some time toward the end of August to state what the policy is going to be. Parliament is now in session. If the government has further intentions with respect to withdrawal from the agricultural prices stabilization legislation, now is the time to say so in order that we may be given the opportunity of knowing what are the facts. If the minister takes that course I think he will find we will be inclined to assist him by constructive criticism, as is always our intention and purpose.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I think it is quite apparent that no matter what the present government does it will not meet with the approval of the hon. member for Essex East. He will condemn it no matter what it is. If we had set the support price at half the level at which it was set it would be no good. If we had set it at twice as much it would be too high. It would not matter where we set it, because as far as the hon. member for Essex East is concerned it would be wrong. I think everybody in the house realizes that is a fact. I only hope, and I think this is increasingly the case, that people throughout the country realize that is a fact.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You will see when the elections come.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member's tiresome repetition of the word "repudiation", in which he has indulged time after time after time, certainly does not carry any conviction to anyone. If he thinks that by adopting the method of Dr. Goebbels of repeating an incorrect statement time after time after time he will eventually be successful, I believe he is wrong as far as the farmers of the country are concerned.


Hazen Robert Argue: I rise on a point of order. If I understood the minister's statement correctly he said that the hon. member for Essex East uses the technique of Dr. Goebbels of repeating an incorrect statement. I think that statement is unbecoming of the minister, if I heard him correctly. If I did not hear him correctly I am prepared to sit down, but I do not think the Minister of Agriculture should make that kind of statement.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, there is certainly no question of order here, but in any event the statement I made was that if the hon. member for Essex East believes that the method employed by Dr. Goebbels, the propaganda method of repeating a misstatement time after time after time or a certain word time after time after time, is going to be successful, I think he is mistaken.

Supply-Agriculture


Hazen Robert Argue: That is the most unbecoming statement I have ever heard from a cabinet minister.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I see nothing wrong with it at all. If the hon. member would prefer that I say the method of Dr. Coue, that is quite satisfactory to me. He had the same system, whereby if you repeat the same thing time after time you will finally believe it and you hope other people will.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend's knowledge of psychology is not great. Dr. Coue had the doctrine of association of ideas.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In any event, the main point is that the hon. member believes that by repeating the word "repudiation" time after time he is going to gain something. I think he is completely incorrect. There is no validity whatever in his endless repetition of the statement that we have repudiated what we said in connection with the stabilization act, that we have repudiated the act itself and so forth. The speech I made in dealing with the stabilization bill when it was introduced, from which the hon. member quoted, is absolutely correct and represents exactly what we have done. We have provided stabilized prices so that farmers have known 12 months in advance what they were going to receive. That is exactly the position as far as hogs are concerned.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not the
case. How can the minister say that?


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is the position of the farmers as far as eggs are concerned. It is their position with respect to all the products under the stabilization act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What will the price of hogs be 12 months from now?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Just sit down until I have finished.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister is inaccurate.


Douglas Scott Harkness: These people are making all these complaints about hogs and eggs, but for two to three years now we have had exactly the same thing in effect for wool, sugar beets and so on. Has there been any great complaint as far as wool is concerned? I have had scores and scores of letters of thanks from wool producers with regard to the deficiency payments for wool. They do not complain about it.


Hazen Robert Argue: You are pulling the wool over the hog producers.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Members of the opposition and certain big operators-


Paul Joseph James Martin: And certain
members of your own party.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -who under this method were going to lose their guaranteed profits have raised a big complaint about it. They and members of the opposition, for their own political purposes, have been making a great to-do about the deficiency payment method of support for hogs and eggs. I say they have not made any complaint at all as far as wool is concerned. The method has been in operation there since the stabilization act was passed and the wool producers have found it very satisfactory. The sugar beet growers have found it very satisfactory.
At the present time, as I say, hon. members opposite are trying to make out that there has been a repudiation of the stabilization act. The system has been in effect for sugar beets and other commodities ever since the act came into force, and there has never been any claim that there was any repudiation. It was one of the methods of support which I indicated we would make use of when I introduced the stabilization bill. In my opinion and in the opinion of many other people it provides a much better type of support to bona fide farmers than the method of purchase does.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not what the government said in 1959.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for Essex East went on to say that we were warned by the farmers that the support prices we set were too high.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not say that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is what the hon. member said; I wrote it down at the time. He said that we were warned by the farmers that the support prices we set for hogs and eggs were too high.	*


Paul Joseph James Martin: What I said was that you did not consult the farmers.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Then he went on to say that we did not consult them. Both these statements are completely incorrect. I do not know why the hon. member makes these statements which he must know are incorrect. He says we did not consult the farm organizations. He knows that we consulted the soya bean people-


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are talking about hogs and eggs.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -in his own part of the country, that we consulted the sugar beet people. He must know that we consulted the farm unions, the federation of agriculture and so forth. The number of farm delegations that have been in my office during the time

we have been in power has been very much greater than was the case under the former minister of agriculture.


Hazen Robert Argue: They need to come.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They are more troubled now.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We have consulted with farm organizations by the dozens, by the scores, by the hundreds; and if the hon. member says we have not consulted them that is a completely incorrect statement.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m. (Translation):
Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words following the remarks made by the Minister of Agriculture this morning.
First of all, I wish to ask him, in view of the remarks he made on May 13, 1960, from which I quote the following paragraph:
(Text):
I mentioned last year, and I believe I mentioned again this year on one occasion, that a cost of production study had been carried out with respect to hogs. The survey showed that in one area of Quebec, for example, the cost of production was considerably less than in Alberta, although everybody is aware of the fact that the biggest item in the cost of production of hogs is feed and the cost of feed is less in Alberta than it is in Quebec. This happens to be one outstanding example of the fact that these cost of production studies frequently produce results which very few people are willing to accept.
(Translation):
In view of that statement, could the Minister of Agriculture supply us with figures relating to the production costs he established for the province of Quebec, compared to those he established for the province of Alberta?
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I have not determined any figure for either place. These cost of production studies, in both instances, were made by provincial bodies or organizations. I put all the figures on the record on one occasion last year. I have not got the figures here at the moment, but they can be found in last year's Hansard and they indicate what the variation in the cost of production of hogs was as between the different provinces.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: When you gave figures last year, I do not remember that you revealed the source of your information. If I am not mistaken, the information was somewhat
Supply-Agriculture
vague and that is why I am asking now whether you can provide figures in support of your statements.
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: When I gave those figures, Mr. Chairman, there was nothing vague about them, and although I would not want to be too definite, I believe the source was given in each case. As I said, they were figures which had been produced by various provincial organizations in the different provinces.


Mr. Pascoe:: I should like to deal briefly with one aspect of this stabilization act to which little reference has been made so far. I refer to the incentive under this new deficiency payment plan to improve the quality of the product. Before I do that, Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a brief contribution to the debate we have had with reference to farm support for these deficiency payments. I should like to read from the Union Farmer a report made by Mr. Alf Gleave, president of the Saskatchewan farmers' union, in which he refers to the farm program. He says:
-in these moves-
He is talking about the recent moves by the federal government.
-toward crop insurance and long term farm credit, as well as the deficiency payments program on livestock products, we are moving forward bn the agricultural program which the farm unions have advocated.
I should like to put that on the record. We have heard strong criticism from opposition speakers concerning the deficiency payments policy on grade A eggs and top grade butter. These payments are made under the Agricultural Stabilization Act. I should like to refer briefly to this aspect of the matter. I suggest that the new policy of deficiency payments on top grades of eggs and butter will result in a greater emphasis on quality production. I will go further and say that the present policy of price support in connection with eggs and butter has already brought about this emphasis on quality production.
In order to support this statement, I should like to quote from four recent articles in farm publications. In the first two articles, one in the Free Press weekly and the other in the Western Producer, there is a reference to a program just initiated in Saskatchewan to raise the quality of eggs. In announcing the new policy one article quotes the Saskatchewan minister of agriculture, and here is an excerpt from the article which is headed, "Saskatchewan has ambitious plan to boost quality of eggs". The heading on the other article is, "Saskatchewan will Initiate Program to Promote Eggs of Better Quality". I

Supply-Agriculture
should like to read briefly from the lead paragraph which says:
A quality egg program for Saskatchewan poultry producers was inaugurated April 1 and will continue through March 31, 1961, Hon. I. C. Nollet, minister of agriculture, has announced.
Objective of the program is to encourage the production of uniform high quality eggs-
At the retail level. The Saskatchewan minister of agriculture, Mr. Nollet, is quoted directly in this article as saying:
Saskatchewan is badly in need of an incentive program to encourage improvement since tests consistently show our egg quality to be much below that of the rest of Canada.
He goes on to say:
Fifty per cent of the eggs marketed through Saskatchewan egg grading stations are below grade A, compared with only 20 per cent for Canada. Egg grades are especially poor in this province during the spring and summer months when only 20 to 25 per cent of the eggs grade A.
The Saskatchewan minister of agriculture is now suggesting in this egg quality program that an incentive to quality was needed. This incentive, I suggest, is provided in the deficiency payment for grade A eggs now in effect.
There has also been strong criticism by opposition speakers, especially by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska, with regard to the support price of 64 cents a pound for top grade butter. As in the case of eggs, this policy of the federal government will put more emphasis on the need for top quality butter.
In this regard I should like to read excerpts from another farm publication, namely the Ontario Rural Co-operator of April 26. The heading of the article reads "Dairy Price Supports Welcome". The lead of the article states:
The recently announced dairy policy for the 1960-61 production year must surely be welcome news for dairy farmers across Canada.
It goes on to state:
Let us express our appreciation in every way we can for the consideration given to our needs by government.
Then the writer adds this last with regard to quality:
Any farmer who supplies his creamery with anything less than a good first grade cream is a detriment to the industry and is contributing to the lowering of butter consumption and making it more difficult to obtain a satisfactory price for butterfat.
In another article in the Rural Co-operator of May 10 the heading is "Needn't Lose a Cent: Let's Push Butter Quality". The article reads in part as follows:
As long as producers provide their creamery with a top grade cream and creameries do a good job, there is no excuse for turning out butter
[Mr. Pascoe.l
that grades less than 40-93 and thus commands the top price of 64 cents. We are quite sure the government is aware that an important factor in any decreasing of butter consumption is the fact that some of the butter sold to consumers is not the best quality.
With this in mind, the one-cent differential could and should act as an incentive to improve quality. It is the writer's opinion-
I may say that the writer is Mr. R. W. Morrison.
-that the government would be very happy to have all butter grade 40-93 and pay the full 64 cents per pound because there is little doubt that consumption would increase and storage holdings would cease to be the problem they now are.
He goes on to say this:
If everyone does his or her part properly, the price paid farmers for butterfat does not need to be any less than it was last year.
With regard to this matter I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he agrees with the suggestion I made, namely that the deficiency payment on eggs and butter will bring benefit to the whole industry of agriculture through production of higher quality products which will find a better retail market.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What the hon. member says is of course correct. We provide a support price for the top qualities of products of various kinds. It is one of the indirect benefits of the stabilization act that there is an incentive to people to produce the best quality products and as a result we are going to have a constant improvement in the quality of the products produced.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I appreciated the remarks of the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Pascoe), and of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) ; but I do not quite agree with them. It is true that we have to turn out products of higher quality, especially in the case of butter, and if hon. members really want to improve the quality of our butter, there is a very easy way to do it, and that is to offer a premium on high grade products.
Consequently, instead of lowering the quality of butter we should have added one cent a pound for the 40-93, or 40-94 grade. In doing so, we would have encouraged production of high grade butter.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words in connection with the remarks the Minister of Agriculture made this morning in respect of the Agricultural Stabilization Act. He came back to the same tack, stating that the change in methods as far as price supports are concerned, had helped reduce farm surpluses. Hon. members on the government benches



I960

[Stage Direction]
seem to share the minister's opinion, that the legislation helped the farmers.
Mr. Chairman, I have always claimed, and still do, that such is not the case, as indeed was pointed out by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), whose great qualifications as agricultural expert I readily recognize, and who, thanks to his interventions in this debate, has helped improve the Canadian farmer's position.
If we refer to the preamble of the act, which I have read into the record before, but which I have to repeat here, we find that it says:
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 income.
Mr. Chairman, if we now take a look at the net farm income-
(Text):
I will put it in English so that the minister will understand: the total net income of farm operators from farm operations.
(Translation):
-we note that, in 1959, our income amounted to only $1,189 million, in spite of the increase in population, in spite of domestic consumption, which is increasing from year to year. That surely indicates that the income of farmers is on the decline.
Mr. Chairman, I have here a list of the prices which farmers got for their hogs. In 1959, the average price for grade A hogs was $22.99 per hundredweight; on the other hand, if we consider the average price for the ten years prior to 1959, we note that it was $28.40 per hundredweight.
This means that since 1957-1958-1959, farm prices and farmers' income have fallen.
The minister has just told us that his Agricultural Stabilization Act has been a boon to farmers. He said, among other things, that last year the prices stabilization board had spent $57 million in support prices.
Although Canadian taxpayers have paid $57 million in support prices, farm prices have kept going down. This is evidence of the minister's insincerity, when he introduced his Agricultural Stabilization Act, which was supposed to stabilize farm income.
In this connection, I should like to quote an article from the magazine Terre de Chez Nous, dated November 19, 1958, which
Supply-Agriculture
explains the purpose which the Minister of Agriculture had in mind when he introduced the Agricultural Stabilization Act, or the change in method which he brought in last fall.
The Hon. Mr. Harkness said to the farmer's representatives that he has no hesitation in using the Agricultural Stabilization Act as often as necessary. but always on the condition that this practice will not bring about cumbersome surpluses.
"If surpluses were created that could not be sold, or even given away in some eases, said the minister, we would not be able, under the Agricultural Stabilization Act, to maintain prices to their actual levels and even less increase them-
We see by that statement that the minister never considered maintaining farm income at its normal level but was seeking instead to get rid of farm surpluses.
As for the support prices on eggs, I should say that the farmers, in general, are not satisfied with this method. The hon. member who spoke earlier quoted some letters; I would like in turn to quote one or two letters to prove that the farmers in this country are not satisfied with this system. One is a letter sent to the Minister of Agriculture, as well as to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), on January 28, 1960; it is signed by Miss N. M. Purdy, Balcarres, Saskatchewan.
In this letter of which I am giving a French translation made by Terre de Chez Nous, and published on March 16, 1960, we find the following:
The removal of the support price on eggs, replaced by deficiency payments, is supposed, in the long run, to benefit the poultry industry, it is said. But tell me, since when is it consistent with morals to allow the patient to die in order to cure his ills?
That sudden reversal of policy, without our being given the least chance to prepare for it, has not only removed our benefits completely but has forced us to spend money which is now impossible for us to earn if we want to keep operating from day to day. No income of any kind, for family expenses, while we are forced to resort to credit to pay the cost of operations.
We are worse off than during the great depression years of the thirties. At least, at that time we were all in the same boat. We could hire a man at $15 a month in summer, and $5 a month in winter, and a servant at $8 or $10, who still knew they were lucky to have at least a place to hang up their hats.
And it was the same with the rest, besides the fact that it was still possible to keep out of debt if we really wanted to. But the labour market is no longer at that level. Today, we have to face competition from a high-pressure economy you are so fond of boasting about, and our costs remain at top levels.
Further down, the letter continues:
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture
Whose fault is it, after all, if the poultry industry is going through hard times? Are we to blame? Is the average poultry producer to blame? Who advised poultry producers to keep larger staffs to operate more efficiently? Section 3 of R.O.P. practically compels us to expand.
Who increased the support price on eggs in the central provinces, which are so close to the main markets in this country?
When it is too late, and the mess of your policy has become obvious, you come up with radical changes without sufficient warning for us to prepare accordingly. Our chicks were already hatched when we were given the first indication that a change was in the offing. When the new policy was announced in June, in western Canada, the particulars given were far from complete enough to allow us to properly plan our breeding. Finally, we learned the worst after laying had already begun. As a result of low prices of poultry meat at the time, who could blame us for keeping pullets whose breeding costs we had no chance to recover?
The text closes as follows:
You should be proud of the success of your program. What will be, in your opinion, the effect of your policy on the R.O.P. breeding program?
How many flocks will be able to hold out? Must you ruin 40 years of fine work by your department? As for us, we have been following the R.O.P. policy for 33 years without a break, but we are seriously considering withdrawing, out of necessity, and not by choice. The steadily decreasing number of producers is a cause for great concern. You are dealing us a death blow.
This letter reflects the opinion of many poultry producers throughout Canada.
I have in my hand another letter addressed to Mr. G. R. Wilson, Chief Inspection Service. Ottawa, Ontario, and written by Mr. W. J. Major.
I shall only quote three paragraphs from it. (Text):
This mess all started with the uncalled for raise of floor price for eggs at 44 cents A large by the present government and it was further aggravated by the government's policy of not admitting its error by going back to prior floor. It got out from under by shifting its responsibility of supporting its increased or even prior floor and thus forced us to feed the Canadian consumer at a price far below cost and drawn from our economies of the last two decades.
Of course the further government policy of deficiency payment to the 1000 dozen farm is placing those of us with sufficient layers to try and make a living from poultry in competition with the federal treasurer. We were first told that this was to do away with integration but from the decreased chick orders received we are finding out that the producer of over 1000 layers is trying to carry on while the sideline small producer is not ordering and saying to hell with it all.
As it is impossible for us to compete with the federal treasurer, who derives his revenue by act of parliament, we are forced to pare off all possible costs including our test pens and until such time as we can have a better era and recoup our present deficits it will be impossible for us to start them up again.

(Text):
Those are reports from responsible farmers and poultry producers which are selfexplanatory. There is another report that proves that small farmers are affected, especially if we consider the orders received by various hatcheries in this country.
An inquiry was made in Ontario in order to ascertain whether the new policy on prices would affect big or small farmers. It is stated in this report-unfortunately, I do not have it at hand just now-but in any case, it states that 45 per cent of small flock owners, of small poultry producers, have not renewed their orders for chicks during 1960, that is from January 1 to March 31.
Besides, according to my own personal experience there are farmers and poultry producers in my district, who own 5,000 hens and over and who did not cut down on their orders for chicks. In other words, instead of protecting the small farmers, we are protecting the big ones.
I therefore ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he could tell us how many farmers requested registration permits in order to come under the Agricultural Stabilization Act. I know that when at the end of January, we asked that question, we were told that out of 347,553 poultry producers, only 78,296 had registered, and this, at January 15, 1960. At that time, this figure represented 20 per cent of the poultry producers who come under the Agricultural Prices Support Act.
J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman-
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: In connection with the
question raised by the hon. gentleman, the number of egg producers registered is 89,545.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, that figure therefore represents about 25 per cent of Canada's poultry farmers.
Now, when the minister amended his methods, he said 90 per cent of the poultry farmers would benefit from the new price support system. Moreover, it must be remembered that those poultry producers who have registered will get price support on only 1,000 dozens. What we would have liked to know, therefore, was what proportion of egg production would qualify under the agricultural price support legislation.



[Stage Direction]
This is only my own deduction, of course, but I think less than 5 per cent of Canada's egg production will qualify for deficiency payments.
J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I have been following closely the remarks made a moment ago by my hon. friend from Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger). As I understand his remarks, he has said that Canadian farmers were not satisfied with the Agricultural Stabilization Act, indeed that they were dissatisfied with it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, that is not what he said.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I am not surprised at this interjection from the hon. member for Essex East, because he has been prompting his colleague all along, as the latter is unable to speak for himself.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member should withdraw that statement. He knows quite well that the hon. member for Drum-mond-Arthabaska is an expert on agricultural matters.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: This is particularly obvious by the way he talks.
Mr. Chairman, I have been wondering whether the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska has any authority to speak on behalf of the farmers of Canada.
(Text):


Mr. Habel:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman is stating that the hon. member from Drummond-Arthabaska has no right to speak on behalf of the farmers.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That is not what I said. I said the hon. gentleman had no authority to speak on their behalf.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. We can hear only one hon. member at a time. Does the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot wish to speak?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I did not say that the hon. member had no right to speak on behalf of the farmers of Canada. What I said is that the hon. gentleman has no authority to do so.


Azellus Denis: What about you?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Stand up if you want to speak.


Azellus Denis: All right, I will stand up.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot.
(Translation):


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I shall go on with my remarks, in spite of interjec-
Supp ly-A griculture
tions from the opposition benches, and say that farmers, more particularly in our part of the country-for I do not hesitate to say this of all farmers in the province of Quebec, and throughout Canada-are satisfied with the Agricultural Stabilization Act which this Conservative government introduced to provide farmers with the fair share of income to which they are entitled.
I have here, Mr. Chairman-and I had to go and fetch it in all haste-some excerpts from the press to prove my arguments. For instance, I have here an article published in Le Courrier of St. Hyacinthe of Thursday March 3, 1960, which reported on a meeting of members of the Canadian farmers' union (U.C.C.) in Granby, under the title:
Local fanners in favour of price support.
Mr. Chairman, if farmers did not favour the price support act, they would certainly not meet in a convention to ask the government and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) for an extension of the legislation on price stabilization which was worked out and introduced in order to give our farmers what they are entitled to get.
I also have here another item from the same paper, dated December 10, 1959, which deals more particularly with the price support for beets. In that article we find that, for the riding of St. Hyacinthe, subsidies were $41,390.70, whereas, for the whole province of Quebec those grants were $73,039.99. If you wish, you may add the $4 million which went into the Quebec farmers' pockets in the form of a subsidy of 25 cents per hundredweight of milk, and you will get a very appreciable amount which our farmers were very pleased to receive and for which they commended and will continue to commend the government, which had the courage and vision to consider their interests.
I shall give you another irrefutable proof, from the very lips of the so-called expert on agriculture, the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska. As we may see on page 2464 of the English text of Hansard, he said that for twelve years, under the Liberal administration, that is from 1946 to March 1957, the Agricultural Stabilization Act had brought the farmers he amount of $25,052,809-98. And he deplored the fact that this government had given farmers $78 million in the shape of grants.
Those people, Mr. Chairman, do not know when they should cry or laugh. They want to do both at the same time. And they think

Supply-Agriculture
that all the farmers are not bright enough to see through their game. They always want to play politics and that is why they are now out in the cold, on the opposition benches, where they will remain for a long time.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I should like to give a brief answer to the remarks of the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot. I said that the government had given $57 million last year and, $78 million during the two preceding years, that is, in 1957 and 1958. I do not remember-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That is what I said.


Samuel Boulanger: I stated that, during the last 12 years of Liberal rule, the government had given $24 million in deficiency payments to our farmers, at a time when farmers were selling their grain-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You deplore the fact that farmers had too much.


Samuel Boulanger: I can prove, Mr. Chairman, that even with the price support act, and with the amount of $57 million we disbursed last year, the farmers were not satisfied with the prices they had obtained. I have here a list of prices from 1947 to 1956-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You have so many of them that you get all mixed up.


Samuel Boulanger: The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe has a way, which I find it hard to describe, of distorting our arguments. But I know perfectly that he is in no position to tell me much about agriculture. From 1947 to 1956, in the last ten years of the Liberal regime, these were the prices paid to farmers for some of their products.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I have read them.


Samuel Boulanger: Wheat was selling at $1.49; under the Conservative regime, it was selling at $1.23.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You are comparing ten years with three years, the third to the whole.


Samuel Boulanger: From 1957 to 1959, the Liberal regime has given-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You are comparing ten years with three years.


Samuel Boulanger: Barley was selling at $1 a bushel from 1947 to 1956, under the Liberal regime, while Department of Agriculture was headed by the greatest minister of agricultural we have ever known; and it was

75 cents from 1957-1959. Oats was selling at
67.6	cents, while in 1957-1959, it was selling at 53 cents.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: That is because of the surpluses you had piled up.


Samuel Boulanger: Flaxseed was selling at $3.62 under the Liberal regime, and at $2.67 under the Tory regime.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: We had to get rid of your surpluses.


Samuel Boulanger: From 1947 to 1956, hogs were selling at $27.16 a hundredweight while from 1957 to 1959, they were selling at $26.19.
From 1947 to 1956, eggs were selling at
41.6	cents a dozen, and at 35 cents a dozen from 1957 to 1959.
If the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot wishes to obtain other figures, I am in a position to supply them to him.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You do not understand them, and that is the trouble.


Samuel Boulanger: The average price for the ten-year period preceding 1957, on which was the support price for hogs was based, was $28.40 the hundredweight, while in 1959, after three years of Tory regime, hogs were selling at $22.99.
As for the price of eggs, in 1959-


Mr. Villeneuve:: Give us also the prices of cheese and butter.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: He just does not want to talk about those.


Samuel Boulanger: If you want me to talk about butter, I shall do so. Right now butter is selling at 64 cents a pound-


Mr. Parizeau:: How much was it selling for under your administration?


Samuel Boulanger: Under the Liberal administration, it was about 58 cents a pound-*


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: And you say we reduced the price?


Osie F. Villeneuve: What about the price of cheese?


Samuel Boulanger: The price of butter has gone up. That, I admit, as I said the other day. Apparently, the hon. members were not in the house at the time. I said the price of butter had risen, and I explained why the present price of 64 cents a pound is worth no more than the 58 cent price a few years ago, because the index of production costs has risen tremendously. So if you want to compare the present price of butter, namely 64

cents a pound, with the price of a few years ago, butter would have to sell at 66 to 68 cents a pound.


Osie F. Villeneuve: Can you name one country where the price of butter is as high as in Canada?


Samuel Boulanger: It is not a matter of comparing Canada's farm prices with those of other countries. To do that, you would have-


An hon. Member:: Our production costs are not the same.


Samuel Boulanger: -to quote production costs. When we criticized the agricultural prices stabilization act, we were told it would protect farm income-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Then why did you vote for it?


Samuel Boulanger: -and as far as I know-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You supported it.


Samuel Boulanger: -the farmer's income has not been guaranteed, because his net income has dropped 7 per cent in 1959. That is an estimate, but when the revised figures come out-perhaps they are available by now- the drop will be 10 or 12 per cent.
Those, Mr. Chairman, are a few thoughts I wanted to submit to the house following the inappropriate remarks of the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot; should he need further information, I am prepared to supply it.
(Text):


Osie F. Villeneuve: Mr. Chairman, this seems to me to be about the right time to get into this debate. I believe the people of Canada are very grateful to this government for what it has done. I can understand it is the duty of the opposition to criticize the government but let them take a realistic view and make a comparison beween world prices and what the farmers are receiving in Canada. Certainly we would all like to see an increase in the returns to our producers but we cannot control world conditions; we cannot control production.
We consider that the standard of living in the United States is high and possibly higher than ours. We have a reciprocal trade arrangement, and have had it for a number of years, under which we trade back and forth at set duty rates. Therefore, whether we like it or not, our market values are somewhat in line with theirs. It is only fair to make a comparison with the last four months period of 1959. If we do that we will find that the average price of good steers in the United States was $23.74 and in Canada $24.55, which shows that we are closely interrelated as far as prices are concerned.
Supply-Agriculture
In the last three months of 1959 the price of hogs in the United States was $16.43 dressed weight basis, whereas in Canada the national average was $23.67, which means that our price was $7 a hundred higher than the United States price. But, in 1952-our friends in the opposition will not say this -a disease broke out among hogs in the United States and the producers in that country were not allowed to send them into this country until that disease was cleared up. Permission was given to allow them in in the early part of 1960. On a reciprocal trade basis they were permitted to send pork products into Canada.
The United States is a country which raises 10 times as many hogs as we do and they can produce much more if they have to. Certainly, our prices are closely in line with theirs. The minister took the only sound approach that was possible or feasible and the figures he gave today as to exports and particularly with respect to hog bellies rendered into lard indicate that the returns were less than you would get for dog food. Is it logical or sound to waste the taxpayers' money to encourage overproduction, especially by commercial organizations, without in any way limiting the quantity that may be produced? I want to substantiate the minister's stand and I may say I have figures here for the Toronto market which after all is the largest market in Canada.
In the three months from October 1 to December 31, 1958, 95.75 per cent of the producers of hogs sold less than 50 hogs in that period of time which is the period of the year when there is the heaviest marketing. But when we take the total number of hogs that were put on the market we find that 70.4 per cent of the hogs were marketed by 95.75 per cent of the producers which proves beyond any question of doubt that during that period of time 4J per cent of the producers sold 30 per cent of the hogs. Is it sound judgment or good practice for the government to continue a policy that involves a guarantee to the owners of large piggeries who are perhaps making $8 to $10 a head and are raising as many as 8,000 to 10,000 hogs in the vicinity of Montreal or Toronto for marketing in those cities?
That was the situation, and I want to compliment the government and in particular the Minister of Agriculture who had the courage and conviction to try to protect the family farmer. Today in my constituency, as is the case elsewhere, 75 per cent of the farmers are men from 35 to 60 years of age with no more than ordinary academic training. If they and their families are forced off the farms they have no alternative but to go to industrial centres. We have a condition of

Supply-Agriculture
unemployment today and we will only be sending these people into misery and hardship. Therefore I repeat that the minister's stand was a courageous one and the only one that was feasible or sound in the face of the facts before him.
We do not hear too much criticism about beef because we are in a cycle of high prices but in a year or two from now when the United States starts to ship surplus cattle into this country we will be bound to feel the effects because their cattle population is ten times that of Canada. Therefore over the course of the years we are bound to feel the impact of that sooner or later.
As far as dairy products are concerned, our friends do not say very much about them because we guarantee 64 cents a pound for butter when there is no market in the world outside of Great Britain that will buy it at any price and Danish and New Zealand butter is being sold there today at 35 cents a pound. I ask the hon. member to name one market where we can sell any butter at the price that we guarantee in our home market. The same thing applies to cheese. I should like the hon. member for Essex East to stay here because he was one of the members of a cabinet that did not pay much attention to the cheese producers.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member, whom I hear speaking for the first time and who by the way declaims very well, if I may say so-I wish I could say the same thing about his argument-says that when I was in the cabinet nothing was done for the cheese producers of Canada. I want to let my hon. friend know that I was not aware that he was a member of the same cabinet or that he was clerk of council and was in a position to know what went on. I want my hon. friend to know, now that we have had an opportunity to compare the results of the present agricultural policy with the agricultural policy of the previous government


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -that there is no comparison with what the former government did.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I do not see
any point of order raised by the hon. member.


Osie F. Villeneuve: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to give the hon. member every opportunity because the fact is that in the last six years his government was in power cheese prices held fairly well in Ontario thanks to the Ontario government which had to take over a second mortgage on the product in order to stabilize

it for the rest of Canada. Today we are receiving a fair return. I admit that we would certainly all like to see the farmers have a better living but on the basis of world prices, when New Zealand is selling cheese to Great Britain today at 23 or 24 cents a pound and having in mind that in Canada there is a guarantee equivalent to 32 cents a pound plus a subsidy of 25 cents per 100 pounds of milk or almost 35 cents altogether, I think our farmers are reasonably fair and appreciate that sort of protection. Certainly they never enjoyed it under the former government.
The hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska put forward arguments on the basis of the period from 1947 to 1956. He failed to state that that was the aftermath of the war and that during that period we had to send our surplus production to countries which were demolished during the war. We also had the Korean war during that period of time. There was an altogether different position with respect to the disposition of surplus food stuffs. But the hon. member failed to tell about the mess they left which the present government inherited and the fact there were no markets available in which to sell our surpluses. It may comfort him to tell his side of the story. I suppose if I were in the opposition I would do the same thing, but nevertheless I believe in being fair. (Translation):
Last week, the hon. member for Drum-mond-Arthabaska made a comparison between the price on hogs in 1956 and in 1960. However, he forgot to check on his information beforehand, because in 1956 the average weekly production was about 115,000 hogs, while in the first three months of 1959 and 1960, production reached more than
164,000	hogs each week. Therefore, the present overproduction should be considered.
The hon. member did not say anything about the price of beef, nor about the price of butter and cheese; he preferred to mention only the price on hogs and eggs.
I congratulate the government and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) for their efforts to protect the family farm. Before the year's end, I feel that it will be possible to establish an average production, thus enabling egg producers to get a higher income. Moreover, I am convinced that hog breeders will obtain a higher price, and before August, too.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, may I say just a few words following the remarks made by the member for Glengarry-Prescott (Mr. Villeneuve). However, I do not want to disprove his remarks, which might take too long and, besides, I have already dealt with them. All I want to say is this. Members on

the government side say the farmer is satisfied with the agricultural acts which have been in force for some years, but I will simply quote from press reports which reflect the view of farmers and of farm representatives of the province.
I have here an excerpt from an article published in he Devoir of October 21 last, signed by Mr. Jean-Baptiste Lemoine, president of the Quebec Catholic union of farmers, who is recognized by all as an authority in the field of agriculture. Here is what he said:
We are walking in a fog, towards the unknown.
After writing about the Agricultural Stabilization Act, he said:
We are walking in a fog.
Here is the view of the Canadian federation of agriculture on that matter:
That legislation should not apply to products such as pork, beef, eggs and dairy products.
Furthermore, a supporter of this government, the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden) said the following, in this house:
If I understand the formula correctly, it is the most backward that could be adopted from an already established position.
And a little further on, he said:
I believe the program which has been announced and introduced destroys all hope in the production and sale of perishable goods. This program can only serve the opposite of the intended purpose. Instead of helping the small producers, it crushes them. It encourages speculators to play with the prices. It favours a lack of balance between supply and demand.
Mr. Chairman, before we carry this item, I would have to ask the Minister of Agriculture a few questions arising from an article published by the Ontario farmers union, of 1960. I would like to ask the minister to tell us if he confirms or denies this part of the article that I want to quote:
(Text):
According to the poultry products market report dated April 1, over 2,348,000 pounds of dressed poultry were imported into Canada in this first part of 1960. This is a million and a half pounds more than the same period of 1959. In spite of these figures, it is reported that prices have increased to the consumer from 37 or 38 cents a pound for turkeys to 56 cents.
(Translation):
Lately, there have been delegations of farmers calling to submit briefs to the Minister of Agriculture, and the matter of imports came up.
I should like the minister to tell us what has been the amount or value of our imports from January 1 to the latest date, as compared with the same period last year?
Supply-Agriculture
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: In connection with that last figure, these figures appear every week in the poultry products market report. This report shows that dressed poultry imported up to May 14, 1960 was 1,942,580 pounds of chickens and in 1959, 449,140 pounds of chickens. In so far as turkeys are concerned, there were 1,151,000 pounds imported in 1960 and none in 1959.
I should like to point out to the hon. member that we do not have a closed border with the United States. During the time that we have been importing a few million pounds of poultry from the United States, we have been exporting to the United States very large quantities of cattle and hogs. No hon. member, of course, can expect that trade is going to be a one-way street.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: This, of course, does not tally with the promises made by the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister in 1957 and 1958, to send out an army of salesmen in every country of the world to find markets for our products.
If our imports go on increasing all the time, I just wonder what will happen to the poultry farmer before very long. There is already some discrimination against poultry farmers in Canada, and unless imports are checked, our poultry farmers will be wiped out for good.
(Text):


Mr. Jones:: I did not intend to take part in this debate at this time, but some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Drum-mond-Arthabaska should be corrected. He has been highly critical of the agricultural stabilization measure. He has not been the only one who has taken that view. I recall that in January, 1958, before the 1958 election, the hon. member for Assiniboia said that the agricultural prices stabilization measure would be the death warrant of the Conservative party. That prediction did not turn out to be very sound, and I do not believe the arguments presented by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska are any more sound.
This program is one of three particular projects which the government has adopted to deal with the problem of the fluctuation in farm income. The other two are the amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, which have resulted in 10 per cent to 15 per cent more farmers benefiting from that legislation than formerly, and the crop insurance program under which the federal government has offered to pay 20 per cent of the cost of the premiums and 50 per cent of

Supply-Agriculture
the cost of administration, in addition to making loans to those provinces that take up the scheme.
The introduction of this agricultural prices stabilization act, as is well known, has resulted in the establishment of mandatory floor prices on nine commodities, with an additional dozen or so other agricultural products receiving support. In view of the remarks of the hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska, and the earlier remarks of the hon. member for Assiniboia, I should like to put on the record the official views of the only farm organization in Canada which represents all farmers on a national scale. I refer to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture which presented its views to the cabinet on February 24 of this year. This is what they had to say about price support:
We recognize that in present price support programs we have most of the fundamentals that we, as producers, have asked for and agreed are desirable.
That is the view of the only farm organization which represents the generality of farmers on a national scale. I think their views should be taken into consideration when discussing this particular item of legislation. The hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska made some comments about the level at which support prices should be maintained. I should like again to refer him to the presentation by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture when they said that they recognized that supports which create and perpetuate surpluses cannot be satisfactory over a period of time.
The hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska has been dealing with dairy price supports and with the butter support program. Surely it was welcome news to the farmers of this country and to the members of this house who are seriously concerned with the problems of agriculture and who, for example, take into account the views of the Ontario Rural Co-operator, when the minister announced in this house the establishment of the butter support price for this year. In their April 26 issue they carried this headline "Dairy Price Supports Welcome". They went on to say this:
The recently announced dairy policy for the 1960-61 production year must surely be welcome news for dairy farmers across Canada.
That is the view taken by responsible farm organizations in connection with this particular item which is under discussion at this time. I think those views are in direct refutation of the position which has been taken by the hon. member who has just been speaking. Coming from an area where poultry and eggs are raised not by large producers as the sole source of income but

as a necessary part of the farmers cash income, I can say that the egg support policy adopted by this government has proved to be satisfactory.
Some doubts were expressed at the initiation of this particular program. We were faced with a situation in which egg factories capable of mass production on a low cost basis were flooding the markets to the detriment of the small poultry raisers. With the introduction of this deficiency payment system providing for supports under the deficiency payments scheme on up to 4,000 dozen grade A large and extra large eggs, supports were provided to the farmers who needed them most, namely the great majority of the small egg producers. As must be apparent to everyone and as has been apparent to the egg producers themselves, under the previous system the production of eggs was being increased by what proved to be an incentive price and huge surpluses were being piled up for the benefit not of the ordinary egg producer but of the mass producer, the egg factory.
In conclusion may I say that from the approval given to the price support policy in general by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and others it is fairly evident that this act has worked out to the great benefit of Canadian farmers.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I just want to ask the minister two questions. Can he tell us again-he has probably given this information to other members-the difficulties, as he sees them, with regard to bringing pulpwood under this particular administration? The second question is this. Has he any figures at all that would indicate, on a regional basis, how much time and money handled by this administration has gone into the northwestern Ontario region?


Douglas Scott Harkness: As to the latter part of the question, may I say that we have no breakdown along that line for pulpwood. There are almost insuperable difficulties as far as bringing it under the act is concerned. If we attempt to purchase it under the act, we have no place to store it or anything else along that line. If we were paying a deficiency payment on it, it would really be a deficiency payment to a large extent to the large pulp and paper companies, which would enable them to get their wood at a lower price than they would be paying for it otherwise. Actually I think the best means of improvement along that line are the ones which have already been initiated by the pulp producers in forming their co-operative associations and as a result being in a better bargaining position to improve the price for their

pulpwood. This has already happened in a considerable number of places.


Douglas Mason Fisher: With regard to the pulp question, I know that in Quebec the provincial government has encouraged the formation of co-operatives by pulp producers. An attempt is being made to form one in our own region at the present time. I do not like to bring to the minister's attention campaign promises or election promises but strong indications were given by a number of ministers during the last campaign, and I would remind the ministers specifically of what the Prime Minister said in Rimouski, Quebec, prior to the last election. It seems to me that the whole movement on the part of the government has died almost of inanition.
I should like to know more about the difficulties than the minister has given us. How thoroughly did his department go into this question? The reason I raise the matter is that every farmer who cuts pulpwood is aware of the economic power of the people to whom he sells it. These are large corporations. I do not know of a group that in the main have had less co-operative experience and who have less pressure to exert in a political and economic way than have the bush farmers. Can the minister give us a little more explanation as to how much study his department and the government made of this matter, when it came to this decision and whether there are any steps it can take, in co-operation with the provincial governments, to improve the position?
The minister did not mention one weakness in trying to set up a scheme that is very apparent today, namely the regional nature of so much of the pulpwood market and the high cost of transportation. We have in northwestern Ontario a situation that I could point out to him in which pulpwood is coming down from northern Saskatchewan and from northern Manitoba all the way to mills at Fort Frances and Kenora, a fairly long transportation haul. One of the difficulties that is occasioned here is that the farmer in Saskatchewan and in Manitoba is in a position to take a much lower price than are the ones in northern Ontario. This is an example of an invasion of one group of farmers' pulp market by another region. I just wondered how much analysis went into this matter. Can I put on the order paper a request for papers and expect to get anything from the department?


Douglas Scott Harkness: We looked into this matter quite thoroughly. I do not think there are any papers particularly that I could produce in response to a request for the production of papers. The one definite step, of course, that was taken by the federal government to
Supp ly-A griculture
correct the situation was the prosecution of the paper companies for having a combine to depress the price paid to the farmers for pulpwood. That action, of course, resulted in a considerable improvement in the price in certain areas, combined with the formation of these co-operative pulp selling organizations by the farmers.
As I indicated previously, the practical difficulties in the way of providing price support for a commodity of this kind are extremely great. Indeed, it did not look as though it would be a practical proposition. Certainly on an offer to purchase program there was just no means that we had to handle the pulpwood; and on a deficiency payment basis, it created a situation in which it was just that much easier in a way for the paper companies to get away from pressure to increase their price for pulpwood. In effect, what we would have been doing by deficiency payments would have been to contribute to a considerable extent to the welfare of the paper companies which certainly do not need that sort of assistance from the general taxpayer.
For these various reasons, we did not consider that this was a practical means of dealing with the situation. We therefore went ahead with the combines investigation prosecution and we have been doing what we could to encourage the provincial governments and groups of farmers to form their own selling organizations.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have one question. Does the minister's department consider pulpwood to be a farm product?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Strictly speaking, I do not know that you could consider it to be a farm product the same as, we will say, wheat, oats, barley or other products along that line. I do not know that there is in the act anything which would specifically exclude it. But certainly it is not a farm product in the same way as is a commodity such as the grains I have mentioned or livestock and so on.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The reason I raise this point is that under provincial legislation in Ontario it is possible under their marketing act to bring in pulpwood. However, there is one other factor. We have a pulp mill situation at the lakehead where all the big mills have large limits held from the crown; that is, the crown through the province of Ontario. At the same time each of these companies buys a considerable amount of pulpwood from what we call farmers, bush farmers, and this is a very important part of their income. Recently one of the companies in particular-there are others-has not only been importing wood from Manitoba and Saskatchewan, which is

Supply-Agriculture
after all an interprovincial matter and nothing that we can complain of, but it has also been importing in considerable quantities- at least, the value is up I believe over the $1 million mark-of pulpwood from the United States. It is really carrying coals to Newcastle in the minds of many people there.
What it is very difficult for us to do is to put our finger on someone who could be responsible. I see that the chairman is looking at me and I am probably getting somewhat away from this particular item, but I would like to have the minister's opinion whether it could properly be a matter of concern, if this product is a farm product, that United States competition is coming in into this particular market.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, all I can say is this. As I mentioned in connection with some other products, so far as imports from the United States are concerned we have a big two-way trade and we certainly export a great deal more in the way of pulp and paper products to the United States than the amount we import. The amount we import from them is comparatively negligible. As I have said before, we cannot expect to be able to carry on trade and have it flow all in the one direction as far as any one particular product is concerned. Therefore, I just do not see that there is anything that can be done to prevent a limited amount of United States pulpwood which happened to be in a given geographical situation, particularly in the Lake of the Woods area, where it can be marketed more readily and cheaply in Canada than in the United States because of its proximity to the paper mills, coming in to our markets.


Douglas Mason Fisher: There is no way of setting a price?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I would think it is extremely difficult to set a price for something which is imported from another country unless you put it under import control. If you did that, of course, it would lead immediately to retaliatory measures, and in the case of pulp and paper products it would certainly be to our terrific disadvantage.


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Chairman, I have one question I would like to ask the minister. On May 10 various farm organizations presented a brief to him, and I am wondering if the minister will tell the committee if he has taken any steps toward meeting the requests made to him. If not, does he intend to write to those various farm organizations and reply to their requests, stating what he intends to do about them?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is the hon. member referring to various poultry associations which came to see me?


Augustin Brassard: Yes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I told these people when they were here, and I have also stated this in reply to a question in the house, I believe this week although it may have been last week, that we would attempt at the next GATT negotiating conference to secure equalized rates as between ourselves and the United States as far as duties on poultry products are concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
11. Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, $62,667.
Mr. Smith (Lincoln):: Mr. Chairman, in reviewing item No. 11, which is for a subsidy for cold storage, I am a little concerned about the sharp reduction in the amount of money available this year. Perhaps after I have spoken briefly on this matter the minister might be able to clarify it to some extent.
The matter of cold storage is very important to fruit and vegtable growing, which is the most important industry in the Niagara peninsula where I represent the county of Lincoln. I notice that the chairman has given a certain amount of leeway today and I am going to take advantage of that in saying to the minister that this year, as far as I know the only year for a long time, the fruit and vegetable growers in the Niagara peninsula have not presented a brief or petition or something like that in connection with dumping from the United States, which for so long has been their great problem. There have been changes in the regulations. The price stabilization act has been passed; there has been an extension of the seasonal tariff; and there has also been this matter of fair value for duty. However, in spite of all this the fruit growers still have problems, and one of their problems is the selling of their products. There is about 60 per cent-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The Chair has been quite lenient so far but I hope the hon. member will come back to the item referring to cold storage.


John Smith: Mr. Chairman, I was just about to come back to it. About 60 per cent of the crop goes for processing and 40 per cent to the basket trade, and the need for cold storage is very important for both of those ways of disposing of the crop.
In recent years there has been a sharp reduction in the number of canning factories which means that cold storage is very essential because sometimes the farmers have their crops ready to take to the plant but they

find the plant cannot handle them that day, or the following day, which means they have to put them into storage space. As you know, tender fruit and vegetables are very hard to take care of unless you have suitable cold storage acccommodation for them.
As far as the basket trade is concerned, I think the matter of cold storage is even more important because in years gone by most of that trade went to the corner grocery store or the home canner, but today it is sold to about six large buyers, the chain stores. They do not take it in small quantities; they like to get it in carloads which means that the fruit has to be stored for a certain length of time in order to supply their requirements. As I said, I am concerned about why the subsidy is reduced by so much this year and I am just wondering if the growers in the area are not taking full advantage of the subsidy available to them.
There is also the question of private cold storage. I quite admit that there is no subsidy available for that at the present time but I understand a great many of the larger growers in my area are considering something of that kind. I would like the minister to take that into consideration and make some kind of subsidy or grant available to the private family farmer who wishes to build a cold storage plant for himself.
Another thing which I would like to suggest to the minister concerns the preparing of plans and specifications for small cold storage plants. X think the experimental farm could help there, and we have a wonderful experimental farm in Lincoln county which could render great assistance to the growers in preparing plans and specifications of some kind. The growers in the Niagara peninsula have gone through some rather bad years; but everything looks much better now with new anti-dumping legislation and there is the possibility of the old family farms, the larger farms, coming back again. Therefore. I would certainly urge the minister to give this matter of cold storage very serious consideration.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, this reduction is more apparent than is likely actually to be the case. The figures here are not really comparable. The figure of $433,510 was the final figure for the amount of cold storage subsidies. It has been the custom for some considerable time as far as this vote is concerned, to put in the amount of subsidy that will be required to pay for the applications which are already in and have been approved. In this case they happen to amount to this figure of $62,667. Since the original estimates were prepared before Christmas- some time last fall-there have been several other applications for subsidies which have
Supply-Agriculture
been approved aggregating something over $190,000, I believe. Those will appear in the first supplementaries when they are introduced. I can assure the hon. member that any of these cold storages which qualify will be dealt with just as they have been in past years by supplementary estimates after the applications come in and have been approved.


Mr. Pugh:: Mr. Chairman, I have just received a letter from the Osoyoos co-operative fruit and vegetable growers in British Columbia in regard to cold storage. Apparently there is a new quality control regulation which has just been brought in the result of which will be to pay an additional 15 cents per box for possible costs to come in the future, provided the top cold storage requirements are met. I was wondering whether the department had received any correspondence in this regard because I can see that there will be a rather large request for further cold storage out in that area.
The letter I have received was written, as I say, by the Osoyoos co-operative fruit and vegetable growers who previously had a 10-year building plan in hand. They had been requesting that the department pass on their total plans for the next ten years. This letter informs me that because of the change in the quality control they are faced with asking for this cold storage subsidy to help in the development of an additional 40,000-box storage. Has the minister received any information in regard to this quality control within the Okanagan valley?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have not received anything personally. My officials inform me they have no knowledge of any such request having come in. However, I should like to assure the hon. member that requests for cold storages on the part of co-operatives are always dealt with by us in as considerate a way as possible under the act. It would not be possible under the act to approve of a cold storage program which was to extend over the next ten years. Farmers' co-operatives that request assistance in building cold storages get first consideration and priority as far as we are concerned. It is only because we want to assist organizations of that kind that the act has not been repealed.


David Vaughan Pugh: May I clear up one point, Mr. Chairman. This co-operative will be applying within the next few days. Due to the lateness of the season I hope I can have an assurance from the minister that everything possible will be done to speed up the processing of the application.

Supply-Agriculture


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we will certainly attempt to deal with it as expeditiously as possible and I can assure the hon. gentleman that we do this in all cases o 1 this kind.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, a little over a year ago a group of farmers in the lakehead became interested in trying to develop a cold storage plant there to take advantage of the operations of this act. They did not meet with success largely due to the fact in my judgment that they lacked experienced guidance and help. This brings up a question I have already brought to the minister's notice and on which I wish to speak later in another part of his estimates. I refer to the role played by the department in small isolated areas where because of the small number of farmers it is difficult to organize in such a way as to have the weight to take advantage of funds such as this and where it is difficult for these groups to acquire the necessary expertise.
Every time this brought to the minister's attention, probably through the advice of his officials, reference is made to it being a provincial matter, in essence, and to the fact that initiative should come from that source. The situation remains that our agricultural economy at the lakehead continues to drop. Appeals to provincial authorities do not appear to be effective. We do not seem to get the required leadership from the federal department in our region and we tend to be just a little saw-off of the Winnipeg offices of the department.
I was wondering if the minister could comment on this estimate of the situation and state whether or not he would agree that it is extremely difficult in an isolated region like ours to get a group together that can take advantage of this kind of legislation without much stronger leadership from the department.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, as I have noted on several occasions previously, extension work in agriculture is the field of the provinces. We have no organization or staff available to carry on extension work nor do we have an organization from which we could draw men to send to all parts of the country to organize farm groups whether it be for the purpose of building a cold storage warehouse, a cheese factory, a potato warehouse or something else. In the division of responsibility between the dominion and the provinces this is a responsibility of the provinces and not the dominion. We do not have the staff or organization to do it.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Could the minister say whether in the last year or two any money has been spent in the area west of the clay belts to the Manitoba border?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am informed that we do not have the records here beyond last year but last year there was no cold storage subsidized in that area.


Douglas Mason Fisher: When I look at the provincial estimates and the pattern there I see a surprising number of these cold storage warehouses across the province of Ontario that have received support both under this and the provincial legislation but there seems to be a complete gap up in northern and northwestern Ontario. I urge the minister to have this situation examined and perhaps have a request sent to the provincial authorities asking them why there have been so few requests from that part of the country.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think I would be going beyond what is generally regarded as acceptable conduct if I were to support putting pressure on the provincial government to do more extension work in a particular part of the province. I believe that would be looked upon as unwarranted interference on my part in a provincial responsibility. I cannot give the hon. gentleman the assurance for which he asks.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister if the reason for that would be because it is now apparent that Premier Frost is not satisfied with the fiscal policy of the government?


Douglas Mason Fisher: That is a red herring.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, as usual the hon. member for Essex East is trying to introduce completely irrelevant red herrings.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not a red herring. It is a genuine question.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I want to underline the point I have made, Mr. Chairman, because in situation after situation, we cannot take advantage of this and other legislation due to our isolation. I am sure there have been no funds spent in our region under the stabilization act. There is hardly anything I can think of in the spending of this department that goes to the aid of our farmers because of their isolation.
I can cite an example from the pulpwood industry relating it to a portion of the agricultural marketing act of Ontario which contains a provision for support of co-operatives by the province. I took it up with a provincial minister and he said that he was not going to get himself involved in anything like that if he could help it; let sleeping dogs lie. While the minister's department is wait-



[Stage Direction]
ing for the provincial department to take the initiative our little agricultural economy is collapsing. In so many aspects of the spending by the federal government the smaller places just have not a chance. It seems to me this requires a special effort, not only on the part of the smaller places themselves but on the part of people who have any ministerial responsibility. Even if the minister could do it unofficially will he just ask Mr. Goodfellow why it is that the provincial government is not taking any initiative in this particular item for our part of the country?
Item agreed to.
Dairy products division-
12. Operation and maintenance, $841,525.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, on this vote I wonder whether the minister would give the committee a short statement on the cheese producers in Canada. What I have in mind is the cost of production vis-a-vis the selling price, the premium on quality cheese, how it is divided as between the provinces?
While I know that the province of Ontario, and more particularly eastern Ontario, benefits in larger part from the premium on high quality cheese than any other province, none the less I think it would be helpful if the committee had a statement from the minister to that effect. I think the committee should also know what the position is of exports, what exports of cheese are being sent to the United Kingdom and the United States and what the position is in so far as that is concerned. I think it would also be of interest to the committee to know how the subsidies for the construction and reconstruction of cheese factories have been divided as between the provinces.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, so far as the
subsidies to cheese factories, which I think is the next item, are concerned, I have not a breakdown as between the two provinces but I can read them off and the hon. member can make a breakdown later: Williamsburg, Ontario, $15,100; I will give the round figure: Hammond, Ontario, $10,500; St. Croix, Quebec, $41,400; Albanel, Quebec, $52,000; St. Felicien, Quebec, $60,000; Chambord, Quebec, $60,000; St. Coeur de Marie, Quebec, $60,000; Newburgh, Ontario, $44,100; St. Jules de Beauce, Quebec, $60,000.
The hon. member will see from that that the great bulk of the money put out in the form of those subsidies last year, as it happened, went to the province of Quebec.


Lionel Chevrier: Are these subsidies for the construction of factories?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.
79951-0-259
Supply-Agriculture


Lionel Chevrier: How are subsidies divided as to quality premium?


Douglas Scott Harkness: As far as quality premiums are concerned, I have not a breakdown again between provinces; for Canada 94 score cheese or higher, 22,668,000 pounds; 93 score cheese, 34,780,000 pounds; 92 score or less,
37,652,000	pounds. There is still some room for improvement in the quality of the cheese produced in some areas.


Lionel Chevrier: I take it that the subsidy on most of this high quality cheese is paid in the eastern part of Ontario?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think that is probably the situation. I am sorry we have not that breakdown.
As the hon. member knows it is a little difficult to have all of these statistics with you. The general situation is that the quality of cheese production in Quebec has been improving in recent years and, generally speaking, is now considerably higher than it was a few years ago. As a result of that the premium price which people are willing to pay -and they were willing to pay a very considerable difference at one time for some of the Ontario cheese-for Ontario cheese as compared with Quebec cheese has narrowed quite considerably and is down now on the average from one half cent to 1 cent a pound.


Lionel Chevrier: What is the position with reference to exports?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Last year, which was a bigger year for exports than we have had for a long time, we exported something in the neighbourhood of 17 to 18 million pounds, as I remember. I am not guaranteeing that to be the exact figure but it is in that neighbourhood. The exports this year have not been running as heavily as last year. However, I think we have every prospect of being able to export a very considerable amount of cheese; I would hope it might be very close to what we exported last year but it will have to be at lower prices.
The hon. member probably knows that last year the cheese producers got more for their cheese than they had ever got at any time in Canadian history. It just so happened that the very high price was to a large extent due to the drought in Europe last year which created a relative shortage of dairy products.


Lionel Chevrier: What was the price of the cheese sold on the United Kingdom market?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Some of the cheese sold on the United Kingdom market was sold at prices somewhere between 40 cents and 44 cents a pound. This was last year during, as I say, a period when the price of dairy products

Supply-Agriculture
went up very rapidly and materially in Europe. At the present time cheese is being exported at about, I think, 32 cents a pound.


Lionel Chevrier: Is most of it going to the United Kingdom?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes; we have no material exports anywhere else. The hon. member is probably aware that we have a quota of, I believe, 468,000 pounds of cheddar cheese in the United States, and that is all we are allowed to export to that country.


Lionel Chevrier: Was that quota filled in 1959?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It was filled in 1959, yes.


Osie F. Villeneuve: On the subject of cheese, I understand that the GATT trading arrangement is up for renewal with the United States this year. Is it possible to increase the amount of cheese that we are sending to the United States? After all, half a million pounds is the make in my constituency alone of 10 days in any of the summer months. It is an insignificant amount to go to a very good market when one considers the overall production of the country. The population of the United States is over 180 million and certainly 500,000 pounds do not appear to be an advantageous amount to our cheese producers.
With respect to the questions asked by the hon. member for Laurier, I may perhaps be a little closer to the situation than is the minister because the five eastern countries of Ontario produced roughly 30 per cent of the total production of cheddar cheese manufactured in Canada in 1959. I believe the quantity of cheese that scored 92, 93 or 94 and thus commanded top prices and the bonus was a little better than 97 per cent.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I now have these figures. Exports of cheese last year were more than the figure I had in my mind. They were 20 million pounds rather than the figure of 17 to 18 million pounds that I gave. As to the scoring of cheese, cheese scoring 93 or more points in Quebec amounted to 59.34 per cent of their production and in Ontario cheese scoring 93 or more points amounted to 62.01 per cent in 1959.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott brought up a point which it seems to me is a very excellent one. If there is anyone in the house who knows the cheese situation I am sure it is he. He referred to increasing the export quota to the United States. We now have a number of committees on the ministerial level, the parliamentary level and also the business level in which United States representatives participate, the object of which is to iron out any problems or difficulties we

have with the United States. It seems to me that this might be an excellent opportunity to bring up on the ministerial level at least the increasing of the quota. If the position is as the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott states, and I am sure it is, that there could easily be a great increase in the production of cheese, then here is an opportunity to sell more cheddar cheese to that country. Would the minister give some consideration to the suggestion which has been thrown out?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, this would be a very desirable thing if we could accomplish it. As I think the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott knows, I have made representations on several occasions particularly at ministerial meetings on economic affairs with ministers of the United States. Very strong representations have been made that the quota on cheddar cheese should be increased. We have not been given that but I hope that we may secure an improved quota over the one we have at the present time. Of course, I must say that whenever these matters are brought up the Americans point out that we have a complete ban on dairy products coming into this country and that we do not allow the entry of cheddar cheese or butter from any other country. Under these circumstances it is pretty difficult to say that they should increase their quota when we do not give them any quota at all.


Mr. Milligan:: Mr. Chairman, I should
like to say a word or two about increasing the quota. I was in the United States some time ago and I noted that our Black Diamond cheese was selling for $1.59 a pound there. Some of that cheese came from my own area where it is purchased for 32 to 34 cents a pound. There is a market in the United States and I suppose our cheese commands a premium price because of the limited quota. I should like to ask the minister whether we have anybody in Great Britain who is attempting to promote the sale of our cheddar cheese there?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The answer to the hon. member's question is yes. The president of the Ontario cheese producers association is either over there or on his way over right now. This is also one of the things to which our agricultural counsellor in London gives constant attention.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I want to bring a few matters to the minister's attention from the brief presented by the Thunder bay milk producers association to the agricultural marketing inquiry committee of Ontario. Premier Frost of Ontario has become quite a committee man in recent

years and has been sending all kinds of committees foraging around the province to get ideas. Kecently this committee visited the lakehead to find out just what the complaints of the farmers were and the milk producers submitted a brief which I can only say is an extremely pessimistic one, and with good reason because the farm decline in our part of the province has been astounding. I think it is proper to speak of it on this item because so much of the farming in our region is dairy farming.
It is apparent now that the quantity of improved land occupied and operated in the Thunder bay region has dropped phenomenally just as the population on the farms has dropped at a rate about ten times as great as in the other rural parts of the province. When the milk producers were through setting out their problems, competition from Manitoba, the very high costs of milk production in our area because of the long winter and short growing season, the scarcity of feed and other such factors, they wound up with a conclusion that I would hope will lead to a bit more initiative on the part of the provincial department of agriculture. They point out in their brief that they wish to emphasize that the farmers of the north require special help, assistance, understanding, leadership and support from the various departments of government, both provincial and federal, if they are to stay in the business of farming and to have the opportunity to provide a good standard of living for themselves and their families.
I know this is a platitudinous generality but it is a platitude with a tremendous amount of truth in it. If the provincial government does approach the federal government in connection with the problem of the dairy producers in our isolated region I would ask the minister to give the matter every attention. I know that he is not going to take any initiative on his part to enter into what he thinks is primarily a provincial matter, but if something should come from the provincial government in response to this complaint of the Thunder bay milk producers, I should like to have the assurance from him that he will seize that invitation much more boldly than is perhaps normal in his department.


Clarence Adam Milligan: I should like to ask another question. Would it be possible to have a salesman from the marketing branch sell cheese in Great Britain?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the primary job of our agricultural counsellor, who is quite a high ranking officer in the high commissioner's office, is to promote the use and sale of our agricultural products in Great Britain. I do not know that the stationing 79951-0-259J
Supply-Agriculture
there permanently of somebody from the marketing branch would be anything more than a duplication of work that is already being carried on. At one time or another we have sent people over on special missions to iron out particular difficulties. In fact, I have done a little of that myself on each of the last two occasions when I have been in the United Kingdom, last fall and the fall before.


Clarence Adam Milligan: I certainly appreciate what the minister has done when he has been over there. I know he has promoted the sale of cheese. But I was thinking of 1953 when we were not selling any cheese to Great Britain. I happened to be at a dairy congress over there and at that time I met the dairy commissioner of Ontario who was at the meeting and also on a mission to sell cheese. I had the privilege of staying with him for a couple of weeks. We made some contacts and through the contacts we made at that time we succeeded in selling $10,000 worth of cheese inside of a week. That was the first cheese Canada had sold for some time and we have been selling cheese ever since. It seemed to me that the contacts he made at that time and the sales talk he put forward were responsible for the opening up of this cheese market again at that time, and perhaps if we had something of that sort, a man to assist the cheese producers to sell their cheese, it might create a little larger market in Great Britain for some of our surplus cheese.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
16. Health of animals division (including the former administration of Animal Contagious Diseases Act and Meat and Canned Foods Act, and the former animal pathology) -
Operation and maintenance including authority, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year from packers requiring special services, $8,778,641.
Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: If I may, I should like to make a few brief comments on the health of animals division in the minister's department, and the work that they have been doing. I should like to commend them for the work they have been doing and are doing. I should like to say a few words, however, concerning one of the difficulties they have in connection with veterinarians. I refer to the difficulty in recruiting qualified personnel to look after the veterinary work right across Canada.
This brings me to the subject of a veterinary college in western Canada. As the committee may know, in 1958 there was a university committee set up to conduct an investigation of the feasibility of establishing such a college, and they came to the unanimous decision that

Supply-Agriculture
we needed one in western Canada. Unfortunately a meeting of the three provincial ministers of agriculture vetoed the idea for the time being. We feel that this was a very retrograde step on their part, certainly when one considers that of the veterinarians in western Canada, 36 per cent are working for the federal government. This represents a large proportion of the veterinarians, and this branch of the department is having a great deal of trouble in recruiting qualified personnel. The opposition to the establishment of a western veterinary college rests on the fact that the maximum number of students are not now taking advantage of the courses offered at Guelph or St. Hyacinthe. This view, however, does not take into account the long distance from western Canada at which these colleges are situated, nor does it take into consideration the differences in the problems with which we are confronted in veterinary medicine in western Canada as compared with eastern Canada.
In order to give hon. members some idea of the number of veterinarians which we have in western Canada, I may say that we have one for every 13,000 head of livestock as compared with the United States which has one for 20,000 head of livestock. Certainly, with the very much improved program we have for tuberculosis, brucellosis and Johne's disease in cattle right across the country, we are going to need a large number of qualified veterinarians and technicians, as well as other people associated with veterinary medicine.
I should like to make a suggestion to the minister, that the heads of the four western colleges should get together again and perhaps if the minister can induce the Canada Council to make a substantial grant of several hundred thousand dollars toward the formation of a new veterinary college in western Canada, then the provincial ministers might give further consideration to this question. Certainly if we are going to maintain our livestock industry as it should be maintained in western Canada, we are going to need these veterinarians. Certainly if we are going to maintain the general health, not only of the animals but of people as well, then we have to have more qualified veterinarians, and we have to have the technical knowledge in this country. I hope the minister will try to give this a push, either officially or unofficially. I am sure it will do a great deal for the livestock industry in western Canada.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The shortage of veterinarians is, as the hon. member for Jasper-Edson pointed out, a serious matter in Canada, particularly so far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned. Had it not been

that we were able to recruit a considerable number of veterinarians from the United Kingdom and from some European countries we would not have had sufficient staff to carry on the activities which, under the various acts, we are required to carry on in the way of inspection facilities and so forth.
I was very disappointed when the four western universities, or perhaps their governments, decided not to go ahead with the construction of a western veterinary college. I certainly hope they will see fit to do that in the relatively near future. So far as a grant from the Canada Council is concerned, I would be a little doubtful whether the members of the Canada Council, except our representative from Alberta who is a rancher and represents the livestock and agriculture industry generally, would look upon a veterinary college as a cultural activity.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am not quite sure whether I am in order, but I think I am approximately in order. I want to say a word or two about a matter that does concern an increasing number of my constituents who are interested in the raising of beef cattle. I may say, for the information of the minister, that there has been a considerable increase in the population of beef cattle in the Kootenay West area, particularly in some of the isolated valleys. When I tell him that I know of one valley that has 16,000 acres of first class grazing land which are, as yet unused, he may understand the possibilities for development in the future.
However the West Kootenay and central farmers institute, and I think the deputy minister of agriculture in British Columbia, have had some correspondence with the health of animals branch with respect to getting Nel-way designated as a port of import and export for Canada. I took this matter up with the minister in February, and he kindly informed me that Nelway is designated for the inspection of cattle, but that it is entirely up to the United States authorities whether or not they agree to have their port designated for the export of cattle. I fully appreciate that situation, but I would ask the minister and his officials to keep the matter in mind, knowing that there is still great interest in this question. It is a great inconvenience to those who ship cattle from West Kootenay or from the eastern portion of East Kootenay to ship through other ports. I trust the department will keep the matter in mind, and if there is an opportunity to persuade the United States authorities that they would be justified in taking this action it would be very much appreciated by those people who are raising beef cattle in my constituency and in the surrounding area.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I recall this case. I remember the United States authorities took the position, which I could not say was not justified, that there was not sufficient traffic through this point to justify the maintenance of a regular inspection service. However, if there was need for inspection, say every two weeks or once a month, they would consider providing that inspection service. The amount of traffic is very small, and it does not justify them having a man there; there is no question about that.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would I be correct in suggesting to the beef producers that if they could make some arrangement to ship at a certain time, and notify the authorities, it might be possible to have an arrangement made with the United States authorities?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Under these circumstances I think we could make arrangements with the United States veterinary service to have somebody there to make an inspection.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
17. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $343,540.
Alexis Pierre Caron: I notice in the details there is an amount of $265,200 for the construction or acquisition of buildings, works and land. Could the minister give some details of this item?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The buildings provided for are at Saint John, New Brunswick, construction of a cattle barn, and a railway siding, $79,000; at North Portal, Saskatchewan, construction of a corral, $4,000; a cattle barn and a railway siding, and an administration building at Lethbridge, Alberta, $100,000; fire protection system at Lethbridge, Alberta, $80,000; and access roads to the new laboratory site there, $2,200. Those are the buildings.


Alexis Pierre Caron: That comprises the $265,200?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, for building.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This vote is No. 17. I note that the request for the fiscal year 1960-61 is $343,540. That was also the amount asked for in the fiscal year 1959-60. In the matter of an estimate for the construction of buildings or for that matter in any estimate, it is rather unusual that the precise amount asked for in the previous year should be asked for in the current year. Does this represent careless estimating? Is this not an indication perhaps that the government is not taking the steps with regard to retrenchment which we were assured were taken? In any event, I think the committee is entitled to an explanation of why the precise amounts are covered for the two fiscal years.
Supply-Agriculture


Douglas Scott Harkness: Again, most of the construction moneys provided for were revotes which were in last year. Apart from that fact, the reason for this is that treasury board reduced our requests by a considerable amount here and brought them down to the same amount that we had provided for last year. We were obliged to distribute the money on that basis. That is the explanation of their being brought down to this point. We had actually asked and put in an estimate for a larger amount than that which appears.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can understand how you could have the same amount if you were giving a grant to some organization; but where it is a question involving the construction of buildings, unless you propose to leave out a door or not instal a bathroom, I cannot understand the situation.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think the hon. member does not realize that this vote takes in equipment as well as construction; and the equipment is the item particularly which has been cut down.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The explanation is not too satisfactory but I suppose we shall be obliged to accept it.


Alexis Pierre Caron: When a building is contemplated is any plan or estimate made by the department before they go to the treasury board to ask for the money?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, of course, we have a plan. We have a plan for, say, public buildings A, B, C, D and E. We put them in the estimates and the treasury board may insist that we take out one or two of them, thereby cutting down the amount.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Is there not any fixed estimate as to what such a building or such equipment would cost? How is it possible to cut it down without looking at the estimate? That is, how is it possible to cut it down to the very same amount it was the year previous without looking at the estimate?


Douglas Scott Harkness: As to equipment, you can adjust it down almost in any way you wish. You just buy that much less equipment of various kinds. We put in a certain amount for equipment and treasury board says, "You will have to get by with less equipment and get this vote down to not more than it was last year". That is the position in which we found ourselves.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
21. Supervision of race track betting, $589,374.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the minister explain why the vote this year is just about $2,000 less than that in 1959-60? Does this mean there is less gambling?

Supply-Agriculture


Douglas Scott Harkness: The difference is chiefly owing to travelling expenses. Travelling expenses are responsible for most of the reduction. One thing I should like to make clear to the committee, if everyone does not understand it, is that this does not mean any money out of pocket as far as the dominion of Canada is concerned. We take in a part or percentage of the money wagered. One half of one per cent of the money wagered comes to us. In return for that money we provide race track supervision including eye in the sky, the testing of horses, saliva test and so on.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is eye in
the sky?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is a camera device which follows the race right around. By looking at the film it can be determined whether the jockeys did anything which was illegal and so forth. It is a means of ensuring to the general public that the race has been run completely fairly. Also, of course, it determines at the finish line, by photographic means, exactly which horse won.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
22. Grants to agricultural fairs, exhibitions and museums in accordance with regulations of the governor in council; payments pursuant to agreements in force on March 31. 1960, with exhibitions covering the construction of buildings and other major undertakings; and a grant of $50,000 to the royal agricultural winter fair, Toronto, and freight assistance on livestock shipments for exhibition thereat. $929,600.
Mr. McFarlane:: I should like to bring one or two points to the attention of the minister. At the present time under the regulations governing the application of exhibitions under class B, section 5, the application is accompanied by a statement certified by a responsible officer of the fair showing the details of the prize money paid by the fair in respect of specified exhibits in each of the three years preceding the year in which the application is made and showing that in each year the prize money so paid amounted to not less than $5,000.
I feel that the intention of the act was to help the small exhibitions. Apparently by Setting the help on a prize money basis of $5,000 we are not recognizing the smaller exhibitions until they get into the big time area. The present regulation eliminates all the local fairs which require assistance federally and more or less of a provincial nature.
In my area we annually hold a very excellent exhibition and fair in the lake Windermere valley sponsored by East Kootenay Industrial and Agricultural Exhibition. It is unfortunate if exhibitions of the smaller

nature are going to be prohibited from making application for assistance at a time when they really need it in order to get started.
I feel that if exhibitions of this kind could be assisted, it would not be long before they would be able to expand and include the facilities and also the buildings they have on the ground.
As I mentioned previously, this agricultural fair that is put on in the lake Windermere valley actually needs assistance in order to get started and get on their feet. I should like to suggest to the minister that these regulations be reviewed so that the smaller exhibitions will have a chance to expand.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The $5,000 in prize money is for class A fairs. There are also class B fairs for which the requirement is $3,000 in prize money. That, of course, takes in a large number of the smaller fairs. Fairs which are smaller than that and have a prize list of less than $3,000 are by and large assisted by provincial grants and they are looked upon as being really a provincial responsibility. When you get down below $3,000 in prize money you get into the local fairs. These quite small local fairs with prize lists of less than that are looked upon as a provincial responsibility. They look after them and we look after the regional and provincial fairs, the large fairs.


Walter Clarence Henderson: In my district we have two large fairs. I have spent the past winter in arguing with the Department of Agriculture about one fair which had made a mistake in their prize list. I was the manager of this fair for five years and it has been in existence for seven or eight years. I will give you an idea of how large it is. In one class alone there were 200 saddle horses. We also have cattle of all kinds. As I understand it, we must wait until next year to get into class B. What we are trying to do is to get into class B. The other fair is at Prince George. It is a large fair. I want it made easier for these fairs to get into the class B classification because then they get help, the minister says. We have these two fairs. I want those in authority to take a little easier view of this thing. With regard to the prize list, what happened was this.
Prior to this what happened was that the prizes, cups and all kinds of silverware worth hundreds of dollars did not count at all, and from being a B class fair last year we recovered an amount of $140 although I cannot be exact now. I phoned up, the department phoned up, the accountants took charge of the figures. I was at the meeting in the Peace river country where we have the Dawson Creek fair, and the accountant for the government said that everything was

Supply-Agriculture
O.K., yet when I got back here it was not. the production and marketing branch, live-So I would like to see things a little easier stock division, because most of them deal for the fairs.	with livestock grants.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I can assure the hon. member that I remember this case quite well; he brought it to my attention some time ago. At the Dawson Creek fair the difficulty apparently was that their auditors put in a sum which did not include all the prize money, and on the basis of their audited statement, under the act we were not allowed to pay. We have attempted to get things straightened out by a new audited statement which will I hope qualify this fair for the grant.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the views expressed by the previous member. I was manager of a fair for over ten years and in one class alone there were over 200 jars of pickles and jams. But as far as this vote is concerned I speak particularly of the west Kootenay agricultural exhibition which is held in Nelson. I was taken with the remarks of the hon. member for Cariboo when he mentioned that sufficient credit was not given for the valuable cups, prizes and other things. I think there should be a review of the basis on which these grants are made in order to assist what from our point of view in the little areas are quite substantial and developing fairs, and I wholeheartedly support the remarks of the previous member.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
24. Grants to agricultural organizations as detailed in the estimates, $239,250.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, one comment here; I have been very restrained all day. First of all, I am very glad to see that in this vote provision is made for the continuation of the $10,000 for the women's institutes of Canada. They are doing excellent work, particularly in the rural areas. I cannot help but bring to the attention of the house the fact that the present president of this organization, the federated women's institutes of Canada, Mrs. Roylance, is a lady who comes from a very well known pioneer Kootenay family, a person we are all very proud of because of the work she is doing for this organization.
I have one question. I am rather intrigued by the fact that this $10,000 for the federated women's institutes of Canada is included in the vote under the livestock division. Could the minister explain that?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I might explain that that is purely for administrative purposes. These grants have to be administered by one branch of the department, and this is included under


Mr. Weichel:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a word here about the 4-H movement, which comes under this item. 1 understand that the 4-H movement had its roots in the gardens of our rural schools more than 40 years ago. From that humble beginning the organization as we know it gradually evolved, and today numbers 75,854 boys and girls. Many thousands of people on farms or in jobs related to agriculture acknowledge their debt to their early association with 4-H. The governments, both federal and provincial, are solidly behind 4-H because the value of its educational, vocational and social activities has been amply proved. The care of livestock, knowledge of crop cultivation, particularly the value of good seed, and on the distaff side, homemaking with special reference to rural life, are among the subjects taught which are most closely related to the farm. Other less tangible assets derived from 4-H work, but of paramount importance, are leadership, ability to work alone and with a group, making decisions, public speaking and citizenship.
As we well know, the federal government last year broadened its own farm loan program and in setting up the Farm Credit Corporation made special provision for loans to capable farmers as young as 21 years of age. If such a farmer has sufficient equity and qualifications he can get a loan as high as $27,500 for the purchase of a farm. Such a loan would cost only 5 per cent in interest and the period of repayment could be stretched to 30 years if necessary. Of course the lending authority would have to be satisfied that the enterprise and the plan of operation bore reasonable promise of success, but this is to the advantage of the borrower as well as ensuring that the public money will be repaid. Loans are made up to 75 per cent of the assessed value of the farm and every assistance is given by the local district officer of the Farm Credit Corporation In preparing and presenting loan applications. I mention this to demonstrate that our government is confident that there is a great future on the land for those citizens who prepare themselves for such a career.
At the 4-H stage we are concerned that the young folk develop a love of farm life, or at least an appreciation of the part the farmer plays in the structure of the nation. There are more than 20 agricultural and home economics projects in which the children may engage. They learn good practices at an age when they have not had time to

Private Bills-Divorce learn bad practices. Some of them have appeared at provincial forums and in recent years the representatives of each province have been our unofficial ambassadors in the United States, meeting their opposite numbers and seeing something of the great agricultural organization set up by our neighbour farmers across the line.
Graduates of 4-H find themselves at the threshold of a variety of careers. They may continue as junior farmers and carry into practice with their own stock and crops the knowledge they have gained from others. Many go into technical schools for training and some enter universities and eventually become professional men in one of the various fields open to young people today. It is very pleasing to record that some of the best leaders in 4-H work have been recruited from the ranks of junior farmers in Ontario and, in other provinces where there is no equivalent organization, from the graduates of 4-H clubs.
In Waterloo county I am told that there were 212 4-H projects completed in 1959. Of these, 132 were in calf clubs, 38 in swine clubs, 10 in a poultry club, 19 in a tractor club and 13 in a conservation club.


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 pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15, it is my duty to rise and report certain resolutions and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house, as the case may be.


Oscar William Weichel: I have just a few remarks left, Mr. Chairman.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.


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



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-46, for the relief of Glafira Milczyn Sohn otherwise known as Vera Milczyn Sohn-Mr. Mc-Cleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
Charles Edward Rea: Shall we take these 49 divorce bills in one item?


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, before a decision is made perhaps I might be permitted to speak briefly to this point. Looking ahead at the cases I find that there are several where the legitimacy of children is


going to be affected by the decision we take here and I am wondering whether or not we could proceed with dispatch to a consideration of some of these bills. I therefore appeal to the hon. member for Skeena and the hon. member for Timiskaming who is not now present in the committee that they select the bills which they would like to have debated in the committee and let the other ones go through. It would be a most humanitarian gesture if in those cases where there is apt to be a question of illegitimacy we could prevent it.


Frank Howard: I desire to co-operate in every way possible.


Mr. Thrasher:: What a laugh.


Frank Howard: Perhaps the hon. gentleman who has raised a similar question on other occasions has had an opportunity of going through those bills and gleaning this information from them. He is doubtless in a better position to select the bills that might be considered in this light. Perhaps another day we could do this. It was my understanding that the hon. member would make the selection, since the question was raised before. I will therefore proceed with Bill No. SD-46.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, the petitioner who comes before us this afternoon asking for relief from parliament, like a goodly number of other applicants, is from the province of Quebec. She is a woman 49 years of age who is employed as a clerk. Her salary is approximately $70 a week. A few months after her marriage in 1958 her husband practically threw her out of the common home and took up residence with another woman.
As I have mentioned before, most of these cases from Quebec are applications by women who are in extremely humble circumstances and this petitioner is exactly in that category. If the House of Commons could see fit, in its humanitarian way, to grant this woman relief I am sure we would all leave this chamber at the end of the day feeling a great deal happier.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Halifax I want to speak to this bill.


Egan Chambers: Will the hon. member speak for the same length of time?


Frank Howard: I want to make the hon. gentleman as happy as possible and I trust his hopes in that regard will be met. The details mentioned by the hon. gentleman are correct. The petitioner is a person of humble means. It is unfortunate that she must pay

the very high cost of this divorce and were she living in another province that had a divorce court-


Robert Jardine McCleave: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I submit that this is entirely out of order. There is no indication anywhere in the evidence as to the amount this woman has paid for the divorce and, second, any reference to an action in another province is clearly irrelevant.


Charles Edward Rea: The hon. member for Halifax has a valid point and I am sure the hon. member for Skeena realizes that. We have had these cases before us on previous occasions and I am sure the committee now knows what can and cannot be discussed. I hope the hon. member for Skeena will conform to that.


Frank Howard: Certainly, Mr. Chairman. The petition was signed March 24, 1959 in Montreal, Quebec. Reference is made in point No. 1 to the date of the marriage, September 27, 1958 in the city of Outremont, district of Montreal. In point No. 5 it is stated that there are no children of the marriage as the hon. member for Halifax said.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I did not say that.


Frank Howard: In point No. 6 is stated the allegation of adultery giving the name of the corespondent, the address at which the misconduct took place and the date, March 6, 1959. There are two investigators called as witnesses, Mr. Etheridge and Mr. Brault, both of Montreal. They have appeared as witnesses before in other cases and presumably will appear in future cases.
The petitioner was called as a witness and in reply to questions asked by the clerk as reported at page 9 of the evidence testified:
Q. When were you married?
A. In 1958, September 27.
Q. Where?
A. In Montreal.
Q. Montreal or Outremont?
A. Outremont, yes.
She then gives the name of her church and and identifies her marriage certificate and the fact that the names and dates on it are correct. A photograph is entered as exhibit No. 2 and is identified as a picture of her husband taken approximately two weeks after the marriage probably in October, 1958. There is evidence of marital difficulties preceding the alleged adultery. The petitioner is questioned by her counsel, Mr. Lieff, at page 10 as follows:
Q. Until when did you live with him?
A. Until December 24, the same year.
That is two or three months after marriage. I continue:
Q. What was the trouble?
79951-0-260
Private Bills-Divorce
A. After the marriage he went on a trip to Brazil and when he came back it was all changed. He made up his mind and it was all changed. He started to pick on me and he made me pay the bills.
Q. What bills?
A. I had to pay for the apartment and I had to pay all bills like insurance and everything.
Q. Out of your moneys?
A. From my own money, yes. I had to give him my pay. He told me I would always be working because I was settled down, and when he did not get any more money, all the money he wanted, because I stopped paying the bills, he told me, "You better get out from here." So, I spoke to my family. Then he said again, "If you don't move out, I will throw you out," and I went on Christmas eve in the evening; my family came and picked me up.
Then there are subsequent questions relative to the age of the husband and of the petitioner. Questions were also asked as to whether there was any collusion between the petitioner and the respondent. Questions were also asked by Mr. Lieff as follows:
Q. Is there any understanding between you and him to get a divorce?
A. No.
Q. Did you scheme about the adultery complained of or arrange that adultery should be committed?
A. No.
Q. Did you put any woman in his way, either directly or indirectly, to tempt him or to trap him?
A. No.
Q. Were you with him on the 6th of March,
1959, at

, apartment No. 308, in the town of
Mount Royal?
A. No.
Q. Have you lived with your husband as man and wife and had marital relations with him since the separation?
A. No.
Then, there is a question relating to how long they had known each other and the answer to the question and then Mr. Lieff goes on:
Q. Do you think that if you had more time you could perhaps rebuild your marriage?
A. No.
Q. Would you take him back?
A. No.
Q. Under any circumstances?
A. No.
Q. Have you forgiven him for the adultery complained of?
A. No.
Q. Did you do what you could to make a success of your marriage?
A. Yes.
Q. You tried to make a success of it?
A. Yes.
So much for the questions in regard to making the marriage a success. Then questions followed by the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Cameron, and also by Mr. Lieff, which deal with the problems that arose shortly after the marriage, about paying the bills, and income, and matters of that kind.

Private Bills-Divorce
Then Mr. Etheridge appeared as a witness and was sworn and gave testimony with respect to what he had discovered. Mr. Lieff questioned him as follows:
Q. Will you please take communication of exhibit No. 2, a photograph. Can you identify the person of whom that is a likeness?
A. That is Mr.-. That is the picture given me by Mr. Usher of Montreal, attorney, during the month of February, 1959.
Q. Did you make inquiries about him?
A. We had certain information which we verified, that he was living at-.also that he was a bookkeeper working for-.
Q. Did you verify that?
A. Yes. We found out also that he had no driving accommodation and was using autobuses to go back and forth to work. We found that there was a woman living on the premises with him. On Friday, March 6, 1959, Mr. Brault and myself took up observation in the vicinity of-, and at 3.45 we went up and rang the doorbell. There was no answer. We made a phone call to that telephone number but there was no answer. At 6.15 Mr.-entered alone. At 8.45 he came out and walked to a drug store at-, and at 9.25,-the woman he was living with came into the drug store and the two were in the drug store for about 20 minutes and then both walked back and entered at-, and went up to apartment No. 308. At 11.15 p.m. we rang the doorbell at apartment 308. We had originally got information from a client of ours who has lived in that building. We obtained certain information and we were on the inside and could gain access without having to ring the bell from downstairs. After we rang the doorbell the door was opened. We presented ourselves and he was flabbergasted at seeing us at the door at the very moment he opened it. I asked him if he was-and I identified myself. At the same time Mr. Brault and myself entered with him to a small hallway.
Q. When you asked him if he was Mr.-what did he say?
A. He admitted that he was. We said we wanted to speak to him privately and we stepped in with him.
Q. Did you have the photograph with you?
A. Yes. When we were inside the apartment we identified ourselves once more and he admitted that he was-and also that the picture which was in our possession was a picture of himself.
Q. And that picture was exhibit No. 2?
A. That is right, the same picture we had that night. When you were in the apartment there was a little hallway and there was a large living room to the left completely bare except for a green carpet and a television set; there was no other furniture. The kitchen was off the living room and facing you as you entered there was another room, completely bare.
Q. Do you mean there was no furniture?
A. None whatsoever. The bedroom was to the right and we went to the bedroom and saw a woman lying on the right-hand side of the bed and we could also see where he had alighted from the left-hand side of the bed to come and answer the door.
Q. Someone had got up from that side?
A. Yes. The woman sat upon the far side of the bed. She was wearing the top of red pyjamas and she admitted that her name was-. There were women's underclothes on a chair on the far side and there was a man's long winter underwear on a chair to the left as you entered the room. The overshoes of both parties had been noted outside in the hallway.
Q. Noted by whom?

A. By Mr. Brault and myself. We had seen them prior to entering. We informed them that we had seen everything that we needed and that he would be hearing from his wife's attorneys in the near future. He was wearing a blue flannel dressing gown and slippers when he came to the door.
Q. Was the woman whom you saw there the petitioner who is sitting here this morning?
A. I have never seen the petitioner until this morning.
That is the end of the questioning of Mr. Etheridge. Mr. Gerry Brault appeared as a witness. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that in some cases they spell this fellow's Christian name with a "J" as they do in the minutes of the proceedings, but in the evidence it is spelled with a "G". Mr. Brault is asked to identify the photograph, exhibit 2, and he does so. Then he is asked these questions:
Q. Did you investigate his conduct?
A. Yes. On March 6 at about 11.30 I accompanied Mr. Etheridge to-and we went up to apartment -We rang the bell and Mr.-opened the door, wearing a blue dressing gown and slippers. We walked into the apartment and Mr. Etheridge identified himself to him and he admitted that he was-and he admitted that the picture in our possession was his picture.
Q. That is exhibit No. 2?
A. Yes. We walked into the bedroom and a woman was lying in the bed and she sat up in the bed, wearing the top of red pyjamas. When Mr. Etheridge asked her name she gave it as-So, Mr. Etheridge told both of them that they would be hearing from his real wife's attorney. They both admitted that they were living as man and wife. Mr. Etheridge said that they would be hearing from his real wife's attorney in the near future, and we left. The bed showed that it was occupied by two persons. On one chair there was a woman's underwear and on the front of a chair near the clothes closet we saw shoes and stockings.
Q. Did you go into any other rooms?
A. Yes. We went into the other room. Well, it was one set-up. There was nobody there, only one bedroom, only one bed and it showed that It was being slept in by two persons.
Q. Please look at the petitioner. Was she the woman whom you saw there and who gave her name as-?
A. This is not that woman.
We can see from this brief reference to the evidence that this case is unlike so many other cases. There is no great difficulty involved. There are no arguments and no one gets angry at the investigators. It appears to be quite a normal thing for the respondent to want to participate in such an event. Perhaps he too expected such action was forthcoming and that if, as is given in the evidence, he and the corespondent were living as man and wife he could expect almost daily that something of this nature would occur and that divorce proceedings would be be initiated. I would imagine that anyone in similar circumstances could reasonably be expected to think in somewhat the same terms

As I said before, the evidence given here shows that circumstances existed which could reasonably be interpreted as indicating either that adultery had taken place or might reasonably be expected to take place. That is also corroborated extensively by the reference to the respondent and corespondent living as man and wife in a common law arrangement when in fact they were not married. Probably this is sufficient in itself to be acceptable as proof of adultery. I understand that evidence of this nature would be completely acceptable in a court of law, that the evidence is quite acceptable where it appears that a situation exists where a couple are living together as man and wife and in fact this is considered to be grounds for a divorce even though some slight reference must be made to adultery by indicating that there is a bedroom, that the pillows have both been used and the bed is mussed up and that there is only one bed. It would seem, of course, that we should give different degrees of weight, as I am sure a court would do, to different types of evidence and different circumstances. If, for argument's sake, evidence had been adduced that this couple had visited a hotel or motel where they had registered for only one night, perhaps additional corroborative evidence would be needed by the courts and by the committee of the other place to establish the necessary proof.
I have no further comments to make, Mr. Chairman. I am quite sure that in this instance, as was indicated by the hon. member for Halifax, there is no conflict in the evidence of the investigators apart from a 10 or 15-minute time difference which actually means nothing. One investigator specified the time and the other gave an approximate time, but apart from that this is one of those cases where the evidence was submitted clearly. The investigators corroborate each other as to what they saw and there is no real conflict between them.
There appears to be no reference to invasion of the rights of individuals such as we find in other cases, that is, evidence of investigators forcing themselves into someone's premises. They walked in and we might assume that there was some form of invitation or acquiescence at least on the part of the respondent. In short, this is one of those cases where we probably cannot engage in too much discussion.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed on division.
79951-0-260J
Private Bills-Divorce

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-47, for the relief of Militza Anich Racette-Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, only a few useful words can be said about this case. The petitioner comes before us as another woman from the city of Montreal. She is 37 years old and of somewhat better means than the average in these cases. Her income is $540 a month and she has a position as an advertising manager. The facts are that her husband is living with another woman, as frequently happens in these cases. The evidence is presented in a straightforward manner and I would commend this woman's future to the tender hands of the House of Commons.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, there is a great deal of similarity to the case we have just been debating although, as the hon. member for Halifax points out, the petitioner appears to be in better financial and economic circumstances than the young lady in the case with which we have just dealt. There is another point of difference. There was one child born of this marriage and there is some evidence of cruelty on the part of the husband. The petition shows that the marriage took place on April 15, 1954, in the city of New York, in the state of New York, U.S.A. There is one child of the marriage born on May 15, 1956. The allegation is that adultery took place on September 9, 1959, and the address given there for the corespondent is the same, the corespondent is indicated to be living at the same address. There are two investigators involved in this case, namely Gerard Daigneault and Clovis Paquette, both of Montreal. Mr. Lieff also appears as counsel for the petitioner in this case, and the petitioner appears as a witness and gives evidence.
Upon questioning by the clerk of the committee, she gives her age, occupation and so on. Then, he asks:
Q. Are you married and, if so, to whom?
A. Yes, I am-
She gives the name of her husband, the respondent in this particular action. Then there is another question to clarify the name because apparently the husband, on occasion, uses a name quite a bit different from his surname as given in the petition.
Q. When were you married?
A. I was married six years ago.
Q. The date, please?
A, April 15, 1954.
Q. Where?
A. In New York.

Private Bills-Divorce
She says where she was married, her religion and that of her husband.
Q. X show you a document. Do you recognize this?
A. Yes.
Q. What is it?
A. This is my marriage certificate.
There is a question about the names and dates, and she indicates that those are correct. The certificate is filed as exhibit 1. She is also shown a photograph taken shortly before her marriage in 1954 and this is filed as exhibit 2 when she has identified it. There are some questions then by Mr. Lieff of the petitioner, and he asks:
Q. Did you have a family issue of this marriage?
A. Yes, one daughter.
Q. What is her name?
She gives the daughter's name.
Q. Was she born on the 15th of May, 1956?
A. Yes. she was.
Then there was some court action with respect to the child and questions are asked by Mr. Lieff with respect to the judgment:
Q. This action in court, was that finalized by a judgment? Was there a judgment?
A. There was a judgment.
Q. Did the judgment deal with the question of the custody of the child?
A. Yes.


Charles Edward Rea: I must remind the hon. member again that there is nothing in this bill concerning the child and, therefore, that subject is not relevant to the bill.


Frank Howard: If I may deal with that question of order, sir, I know that you yourself have made rulings on this question of children. However, if I may I should like to draw to your attention the fact that I believe you were in the chair on May 6, 1960 when the hon. member for Timiskaming was discussing some of the questions in the evidence. According to page 3667 of Hansard for that date, the hon. member for Vancouver South rose to a point of order as follows:
Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I do not think that under our rules any hon. member is allowed to read with the extreme length and detail at which the hon. member is reading from the report to the committee. We are supposed to be debating this bill and not reading irrelevant portions of the record of the committee. I submit he should refer to the evidence and give his own views.
Then the deputy chairman said, and I believe this was you:
The evidence of the committee can certainly be used in the house in any way an hon. member wishes to do so. He may read it, discuss it or refer to it.


Mr. Broome:: But, Mr. Chairman, would an hon. member be allowed to read at extreme length without any point to his reading?


Charles Edward Rea: I certainly would not want to rule under any condition that the evidence given in a committee of the other place could not be read or discussed here. I invite the hon.
IMr. Howard.]
gentleman to remember that such a ruling would affect all private bills and not only divorce bills.
Then the hon. member for Halifax entered the discussion of the point of order. I will not go further into this. The whole case is before us. The hon. member for Halifax said:
On the point of order, should not the reading be relevant to the consideration of the committee which I think is the point that more concerns my hon. friend? We have had a discussion of the children, reconciliation procedures and other matters which do not seem very germane to an act for the relief of this particular woman. That is the point of order I raise.
My friend the hon. member for Timiskaming as a substitution for debate has read most of the evidence on pages 9, 10 and 11 of the report but this does not strictly concern itself with the substance of the bill that is before the committee this afternoon.


Charles Edward Rea: Anything in the evidence which refers to the bill may, of course, be referred to and read. The Chair has already ruled that the hon. member cannot discuss the children and he appears to understand that ruling. I hope that straightens away the matter.
The only point I am raising here, Mr. Chairman, with deference, is that there appears to be some conflict between the ruling that was made in one instance when the deputy chairman says:
The evidence of the committee can certainly be used in the house in any way an hon. member wishes to do so. He may read it, discuss it or refer to it.
If anything can be read or discussed in debating this particular bill, that refers to the children. I am attempting to have this particular point clear because I think there is some doubt in my mind as to whether or not it is permissible under the ruling to make reference to the evidence taken before the committee of the other place, even though the subject matter to which that evidence refers is beyond our jurisdiction here.


Robert Jardine McCleave: May I speak briefly to the point of order? I thought the previous rulings were to the effect that we could read the evidence, even ad nauseam of the Senate divorce committee on a particular case, if the matters that were read or if the matters that were discussed there were relevant to the bill under consideration. I think that is the obvious point of distinction that should be drawn. I think it would be improper for us to deal with matters relating to the children which are matters of court procedure in the province of Quebec and, therefore, not really matters under the jurisdiction of the Canadian parliament in considering a divorce bill.
I think that point of order has been raised before and I think there is a clear answer to my hon. friend about reading from reports. Yes, it may be done if it is relevant to the issue before us.


Frank Howard: Before you do rule, Mr. Chairman, may I make one more comment about this. It raises another matter and perhaps I can put this, not as a point of order but as a question with which you may deal. When the hon. member for Halifax opened the discussion on this bill he made a reference to the economic position of the petitioner and stated the income which she was receiving. I wonder whether Your Honour would rule, also, whether or not such a reference is germane to the bill before us.


Charles Edward Rea: Of course, in ruling on the question of children, I made it very plain before that the evidence given before the committee of the other place may be used here if it is relevant to the bill before us. I thought I had made that plain, and I believe that answers the other question as well.


Frank Howard: I take it, Mr. Chairman, that hereinafter we cannot deal with the income of an individual or his economic or other circumstances. I had intended to follow along, because the hon. member for Halifax had done so, in making a slight reference to the income of this petitioner in this particular instance and the sufficiency of it for herself. As I agree with your ruling, Mr. Chairman, which is now clarified fairly well, we will dispense with that particular reference.
Some difficulties arose prior to this time. Perhaps I could make reference to them. This is with respect to their living together and cohabiting:
Q. Until when did you live with your husband?
A. Until January three years ago.
Q. Would that be January 1957?
A. Yes.
Q. What happened at that time?
A. He left our home towards the end of January.
Q. Had you taken any action in the courts?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it as a result of the action he left your home?
A. Yes.
Q. Prior to that what was the situation in your home?
This answer gets to the relevant part of it.
A. About a year and a half after our marriage he began to mistreat me very badly both mentally and physically.
Q. What do you mean mistreated you physically?
A. He beat me.
Q. How often did that happen?
A. Very often, at least two or three times a week.
Q. What finally happened?
A. Finally one evening he beat me so badly that he burst open my ear.
Q. Did you get assistance at that time?
A. No. I was too ashamed to mention it.
Q. Did you ever have to call anybody into the house in connection with these beatings?
A. I did not because I had a full-time housekeeper who heard this last beating.
Q. I was thinking of the police or something of that nature.
A. Oh yes, I did call the police on one occasion.
Private Bills-Divorce
If this young lady, the petitioner here, and her husband had been living in the province of Nova Scotia, I am sure they would have had no difficulty in obtaining a divorce on the evidence given here. It seems odd that people in one province have different opportunities for divorce from those of people in another province.


Egan Chambers: Order.


Frank Howard: Perhaps our federal laws should be altered accordingly so that there is uniformity.


Egan Chambers: Order.


Mr. Lambert:: Continued attempts to disregard the Chair.


Frank Howard: My friend says "continued attempts to disregard the Chair".


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


Frank Howard: May I say this? When the chairman calls to my attention the fact that perhaps I am not strictly following the rules, I invariably bow to his suggestions.
On page 10 there is some reference to whether there was any understanding or agreement. The following questions were asked by Mr. Lieff:
Q. Is there any agreement or understanding between you and your husband to get this divorce?
A. None whatsoever.
Q. Do you know what the word connive means?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you connived at the adultery or schemed about it or planned it in any way?
A. No.
Q. Is there any chance of a reconciliation between you and your husband?
A. None whatsoever.
Q. If you had more time do you think you could rebuild this marriage?
A. No, we had plenty of time and I feel that we are both too mature to change.
Then there is reference to the child which you, Mr. Chairman, say is not relevant. Then we find the following questions:
Q. Have you forgiven him for the adultery which you complain about in the petition?
A. I have not.
Q. Do you know a-
And here is given the name of the corespondent.
A. No.
Q. Were you with your husband on September 9 1959?
A. No.
Q. Have you had marital relations with him since the separation?
A. No.
Q. How long did you know him before you were married?
A. One year.
Q. Was there any indication during that period that perhaps this marriage might not succeed?
A. No.
Then follows a question about the respondent's use of another name and Mr. Lieff

Private Bills-Divorce
makes a motion, which is granted, that the petition be altered also to read accordingly. Then Mr. Daigneault is called as a witness. He is an investigator and Mr. Lieff poses questions to him. He identifies a photograph as being that of the respondent. Then the following questions are asked by Mr. Lieff:
Q. Did you investigate his behaviour?
A. I did, sir.
Q. Over what period of time?
A. Our services being retained by Mr. McKay of Montreal during the early part of August, 1959, at which time Mr. McKay furnished us with this photograph.
I assume that Mr. McKay is another barrister or solicitor in the city of Montreal and that Mr. Lieff is, in fact, what is known as an agent or working with Mr. McKay. Then we find the following:
Q, Exhibit 2?
A. That's right, sir, and also giving us certain instructions. I verified those particulars and found them to be true and as a result of the investigation, on September 9, 1959, accompanied by Mr. Paquette we proceeded to-
There is given here the address in Montreal and the apartment number. The answer continues as follows:
-where after ringing the bell a few times the door was answered by-
Here is given the name of the respondent.
-at which time he was wearing a maroon dressing gown, slippers, and bare legs.
I identified myself to him and we walked into the apartment and I told him why I was there,-
You will notice, Mr. Chairman, the ease with which this takes place. There is no question of asking whether they can go in. He says:
I identified myself and we walked into the apartment and I told him why I was there, and on the righthand side of the back of the apartment was a pulled-out studio couch in which the woman was lying on the far side near the wall. That woman answered to the name of Mrs.-
There is given here a surname which is the same as that of the respondent. The answer continues:
-when I went to the door previously. I went to the bed and asked her her name and she hesitated a few moments and then she answered-
Here is given the name of the corespondent. The answer continues:
I asked her her address and she said, "I am living here". We told both of them they would be hearing from his real wife's attorney in the near future, and we left afterwards.
Q. How was that woman clothed?
A, When X went to speak to her she was in a kind of sitting position and she was at least in the top part of pink pyjamas.
Q. How many beds in that room?
A. That was the only sleeping accommodation in the whole apartment.
Q. What was its condition?
A. The left-hand side seemed to have been previously occupied because there was an impression on the pillow.

Q. Please look at the petitioner. Was she the woman you saw there on that occasion?
A. No sir, I never saw this woman there.
By Senator Bradley:
Q. This woman,-
Here is given the name of the corespondent.
-was in bed when you saw her?
A. Yes.
By Mr. Lieff:
Q. What hour was that?
A. Approximately midnight.
At this point I should like to mention one thing I noticed immediately which appeared to be at variance with the usual method of giving evidence in these cases. I refer to the fact that in the initial part of his evidence Mr. Daigneault makes no reference to the time at which they appeared at this particular apartment. It will be noticed that in other cases it is always 11.15 or 11.35 or 12.30 or whatever the actual time of the day it might be. In his initial evidence I think perhaps Mr. Daigneault, he being quite experienced in these matters, could have cleared that point up immediately unless, of course, he had lost his mimeographed slip from which these gentlemen give this stereotyped evidence. In any event, they finally got around to saying that this was the hour of approximately midnight.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Would the hon. member permit a question on a point of information. Does he not realize that witnesses are not allowed to read from statements in the Senate? They can refer to notes.


Frank Howard: Yes. Perhaps in this case they were mimeographed notes. All I say is, Mr. Daigneault is apparently quite a competent, able and thoroughly experienced investigator, and surely after this period of time has come to know his role full well and to give evidence in that fashion of times and everything else. It did seem a little odd why this was not done previously. Then the chairman, Senator Cameron, intervenes and asks:
Q. Did it seem like they had been living there?
A. I asked Mr.-"Are you living here with this woman?" And he said "Yes, I have been living here with this woman for the past month or so".
By Senator Bradley:
Q. She heard that?
A. Yes.
Q. And she made no objection to it?
A. No.
In this instance the circumstances are similar to those in the other case except that the common law arrangement here is tied down to a period, "for the past month or so".
Mr. Paquette then appeared as a witness. He was sworn and asked certain questions by Mr. Lieff about identification of the photograph.
Q. Did you make any inquiries about him at any time?

A. On September 9, 1959, I accompanied Mr. Daigneault to his apartment, apartment 4, at- Montreal.
Q. At what time of the day?
A. It was about five minutes before twelve when we arrived there. Mr. Daigneault rang the bell and Mr.-opened the door. We identified ourselves and we went into the apartment. Once we were in the apartment he showed him this picture.
Q. He showed whom?
A. Mr.-
Q. The picture, exhibit 2?
A. Yes. sir. He admitted it was his picture. So, due to the fact it was only a one and a half room apartment we noticed right away there was a woman in the studio couch.
By Senator Bradley:
Q. It was then a bed, was it? What you call a studio couch was then arranged as a bed?
A. A double bed, yes. So at that time Mr. Daigneault asked her who she was and she said her name was-
Giving the name of the corespondent.
By Mr. Lieff:
Q. How was she dressed?
A. She sat in the bed and she had on the top of, it could be, baby doll pyjamas.
Q. What was the condition of the bed?
A. The bed was disturbed. You could see it had been used by two persons.
Q. How was Mr.-dressed?
A. He had a dressing gown on and it was open and you could see his bare legs and a pair of slippers.
Q. How many beds in the room?
A. Just the one double bed.
Q. Please look at the petitioner. Was she the woman you saw there then?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was there any conversation other than what you have told us?
A. We told Mr.-the reason we were there and that Mrs.-was taking a divorce.
Q. Did you find out how long-had been living there?
A. No, I don't remember.
Here again, Mr. Chairman, we have an indication of a common law alliance, although just where you draw the line between a casual acquaintance and a situation which will result in them being able to say they are living together as man and wife, I do not know. In this instance Mr. Daigneault
Business of the House
indicated that they had been living there together for the past month or so.
This may be an interesting point that the judiciary has ruled upon or developed some case law on, namely as to when a relationship between a man and a woman who are not married changes from that of being a casual one to one in which you can say a common law arrangement exists. I only raise this point because I think the courts and undoubtedly the committee of the other place as well as this committee here would give more weight to a petition for divorce where there was in fact a common law or man and wife living arrangement than they might to the question whether there was an actual opportunity for adultery to take place.
Perhaps I might refer briefly to other cases by way of comparison. There is the evidence given in other cases where hotels or motels are involved, where they go to some length to talk about the state of the clothing and the condition of the bed, and the time element-waiting till the lights go out and all that sort of thing-in order to show that reasonable opportunity existed for adultery to take place.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed on division.

Mr. Mcllrailh:: I wonder if the house leader would indicate the business for next week, to the extent he is able to do so?


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Speaker, the business for next week will be the same as that announced last night, with the possibility of a change on Wednesday which I will report to the house on Monday night.


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