1960-08-09

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour if he is now in a position to make available to the House of Commons the report of the interdepartmental committee on estimating unemployment?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the other day I said this report was under study by the cabinet, and that that study has not yet been completed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister if the government can given an assurance that any recommendation in this report will not be acted on until parliament has had a chance to examine and discuss it?


Michael Starr: I certainly cannot give that assurance.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Would the Minister of Trade and Commerce seek to facilitate the passage of his estimates by seeing to it that this report will be dealt with by the cabinet before parliament prorogues, so that parliament will have an opportunity of examining the report?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I trust I will have the cooperation of the hon. member for Essex East in facilitating the passage of the estimates as well, but I will do everything in my power to assist him.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the hon.
minister persists in co-operating he will receive co-operation.
(Translation):



MONTREAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschalelels (Maisonneuve-Rose-monl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Associate Minister of National
79951-0-492J
Defence (Mr. Sevigny). Is the minister aware that hundreds of workers at the Montreal ordnance depot are reported to have been advised that their services will no longer be required after September 1 and, if so, has he any comment to make on the matter?


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have
received no report to that effect. I shall inquire, and as soon as I get the required information, I shall pass it on to the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont.
(Text):



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: would like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Can the minister give the house any information as to why two Japanese students 18 years of age were refused visas to enter Canada for a cross-country tour during which they would speak on the principle of banning the atom bomb?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I must say the incident has escaped my notice, but I will inquire into the matter.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Has there been a new civil service position of supervisor established in the office of the Minister of National Defence and, if so, will this position be filled by open competition?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question, and I wish to state that no such position has been established.
7790	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



LATULIPE, QUEBEC  STATEMENT ON ALLEGED DAMAGE TO CHOPS BY RAINMAKING EQUIPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, last week the hon member for Laurier asked a question regarding what he referred to as rainmaking equipment being tested by the Department of Transport in the vicinity of Latulipe. The matter was previously brought to my attention by the hon. member for Chapleau and the Abitibi chamber of commerce, also by the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue.
Last year, in co-operation with various government agencies and the forest industrial organizations in the area, my department began a research program in the Rouyn-Noranda area to seek the causes and nature of clouds and rain. This is a scientific study of clouds and precipitation, but can in no way be compared with an attempt to increase rainfall in the area. While the rainfall this year in the general area of the experiment has been much higher than normal, this is true also of areas well beyond the seeding area, so that the variation from the normal can be assumed to be from natural causes rather than the effects of the experiment.
With regard to Mr. Leandre Brassard, who was mentioned by the hon. member, an investigation is under way to try to determine whether anything exceptional has occurred in his locality.

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



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Production and marketing branch-
576. Payment of an amount, as a higher return for wheat used for human consumption in Canada, to western grain producers to be distributed on the following basis, namely:
$1 per cultivated acre up to maximum of 200 acres per farm in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, $42,000,000.
The Deputy Chairman:: Vote No. 576, supplementary estimate of the Department of Agriculture. Shall the item carry?


Mr. Harkness:: Mr. Chairman, yesterday the Prime Minister in announcing that an acreage payment would be made to western grain producers outlined the reasons why the government felt that action of this sort was necessary and why this particular form of payment has been decided upon. I shall attempt in my remarks not to cover again the ground which the Prime Minister covered so adequately yesterday.


During the past three years a very large number of schemes and proposals for assistance to western grain producers have been made by the western members of parliament, by farm organizations, by individual farmers, and so on.


Paul Joseph James Martin: By the opposition in particular.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have not heard any from the opposition, actually, which had not first been proposed by somebody else. I think the opposition has been notably deficient in any original thinking with regard to this matter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You are deficient in mind and thinking.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The Leader of the Opposition says "deficient in mind and thinking", and I agree with him; I think they have been notably deficient in any kind of thinking, particularly in any original thinking. However, Mr. Chairman, after careful consideration of a very large number of these different schemes and proposals, the government has come to the conclusion that an acreage payment as proposed in this estimate is the fairest way to extend assistance at the present time. The difficulty, of course, is to provide that assistance in such a way that you do not create further serious problems by the very fact that the assistance is being provided. If support for any particular commodity is given in a way which provides an incentive to the production of that commodity, you inevitably have a pile-up of surpluses which in present world conditions are extremely difficult to dispose of, and you probably create problems which are just as serious in their way as the problem you are attempting to solve.
I remember reading an editorial not long ago, I think it was in the Christian Science Monitor, in which a sort of philosophical discussion was going forward as to ways in which government could assist various sectors of the economy. The editorialist stated something which I think to be true, although most people do not realize it. He said that most of the problems faced by government could be solved if you were able to raise sufficient money in taxes and apply that money to the alleviation of the situation you find. Whether it is a matter of a defence program, old age assistance, hospitalization or any of those things, if you put enough money into it, provided you can raise enough money by taxation, you can cure a particular problem. Then he went on to say that agriculture is entirely different from this point of view; agriculture is a field into which the more money you pour the more problems you create for yourself.

The man writing the article made reference to the wheat situation in the United States, where enormous sums of money ranging into the billions have been spent to support the price of wheat. The result has been a very great expansion of the wheat area of the United States. Whereas most of the wheat used to be grown in the areas climatically best suited to its production, the middle west and so on, now wheat is being grown in every state of the union and, in addition, is being produced in greatly increased quantities. Thus the amount of money which has been poured into that commodity in the United States has produced greater problems than those that existed before all this money was spent.
In providing assistance, this is one of the things you always have to keep in mind and it is one of the great problems which have to be solved; the assistance must be provided in such a way that it will not stimulate production and thus create a surplus and give rise to fresh problems.
When this sort of thing happens you also get difficulties from the strictly agricultural point of view. The economic utilization of soil resources is interfered with, and you get a general imbalance in the agricultural economy.
On that general point I think one could say that two of the essentials of any form of agricultural assistance which may be provided are, first, this matter I have been talking about, that the assistance should not serve as an incentive to pile up unsaleable surpluses; second, that the type of assistance should not be such as to serve as an impediment to the marketing or free trade of the commodity which you are supporting. The acreage payment we are proposing meets both these basic requirements.
The so-called deficiency payments which so many hon. members opposite said we should have paid, and which were requested by western farmers do not, on the other hand, meet these two basic requirements. If these deficiency payments had been made there is no question but that they would have stimulated a very great increase in the amount of wheat production. The acreage of wheat in Canada at the present time is some six or seven million acres less than it was some ten years ago, but if the scheme proposed, which was really a disguised form of the same type of price support for wheat which has been in effect in the United States for many years, had been put into effect here the inevitable result would have been the same as in the United States; that is, to cause a great deal more land to be put into wheat production, a great increase in the amount
Supply-Agriculture
of wheat produced and consequently an intensification of the serious surplus situation for wheat not only in Canada but in the world as a whole. Therefore it would have been unsound from that point of view.
In addition to that, of course, an increase in wheat production would have meant that once more the beneficial diversification of agriculture which has taken place in western Canada would have gone backward. Many people who have gone into other types of production would have dropped that and gone back into wheat because straight wheat farming involves much less work. It is an easier type of agriculture than raising livestock, where daily attention and care are required.
Well, from the other point of view, the availability of foreign markets, there is no question about it, as the Leader of the Opposition at least knows very well, that most countries in the world are not prepared to accept subsidized exports. There are very few places in which you can sell commodities at a subsidized price in competition with the commodities of the country to which you wish to export and in competition with other countries.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman, not to make it difficult for the minister to proceed but so that we may have a little clarification. The item before the committee is a specific item, and we are now having from the Minister of Agriculture what we had from the Prime Minister yesterday, a discussion of the overall policy of the government on agriculture. Personally I do not object, but this is out of order. If we are to have a wide debate on agriculture it should be clearly understood that that will be a privilege accorded not only to members of the ministry but to us as well in the opposition who sometimes find, not because of you, Mr. Chairman, but because of obstruction from hon. gentlemen opposite, great difficulty in extending our remarks beyond the particular item.
Therefore it must be clearly understood now that this general discussion on which the Minister of Agriculture is launching is a general discussion that must not be denied to other hon. members; otherwise the Chair must take the position that all we can discuss is the particular item before the committee. I know the hon. member for Greenwood, who looks so intent, fully agrees with me.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I maintain that the contention the hon. member has

Supply-Agriculture
made is completely incorrect. Everything I have said has been directed to this particular item. I am not going into a general discussion of agriculture; I am talking about assistance which is being provided to western farmers by this estimate. I am explaining why this particular type of assistance, in the opinion of the government, is much preferable to the type of assistance the western farm organizations and some members of the opposition asked us to put into effect, namely the so-called deficiency payments on western wheat, oats and barley. Everything I have said is directly related to the estimate under consideration, and in no way is a general discussion of agricultural matters. If I were on a general discussion of agricultural matters I would certainly discuss a lot of other things completely unrelated to this particular point.
That is what I have to say with regard to the point of order. It seems to me the hon. member is either attempting to interfere with my remarks by raising this particular point of order, or otherwise trying to lay the groundwork for a general speech he himself has prepared on agriculture. I would think the latter is the more likely reason for his interruption. I see the hon. member for Essex East smiles and applauds that comment. I agree with the hon. member's point of order, that this should not be a general discussion of agriculture, but certainly all the remarks I have made have been related directly to the item under discussion.
I have been emphasizing particularly the point that any form of assistance provided should meet two essential requirements; that it does not serve as an incentive to produce unsaleable surpluses, and that it is not of the type which interferes with our marketing of the product either in home or export markets. I have made the point that the so-called deficiency payments asked for would not meet either of these tests. With respect to the latter, may I point out the fact that most countries in the world will not accept subsidized exports. All the signatories to GATT object to them. Therefore if so-called deficiency payments had been put into effect on western wheat, oats and barley it would have been much more difficult for us to market these products abroad. We have to market most of our wheat abroad, and in some places where we are selling wheat at the present time, it might not have been possible to sell it at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You should not have promised it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: These are the two outstanding and compelling reasons why the request for so-called deficiency payments could

not be acceded to. On the other hand, the acreage payment has neither of these disadvantages, and it meets the two basic requirements for a type of assistance which will not get us into a lot more serious trouble.
In addition, the acreage payments which are proposed here meet another very important requirement, in that they extend proportionately the greatest aid to the farmers who need that aid the most. They extend the greatest aid to the small farmers, those farmers who have had poor crops or have lost their crops because of adverse climatic conditions, hail, drought, flooding or whatever it may be. Deficiency payments would extend no aid to these people, because if they were not able to grow a crop on account of adverse conditions they would not get any deficiency payment. Therefore, under the deficiency payment plan the people who need help the most would get no help whatever. Small farmers, who need aid far more than the larger farmers, would only get a very small proportion of the assistance.
The Prime Minister pointed out on March 4, as found on page 1769 of Hansard, that under the so-called deficiency payment proposal 35 per cent of the western farmers, the smaller farmers, would receive only 14 per cent of the payments, and that the other 65 per cent covering the larger farmers having 200 cultivated acres or more would receive 86 per cent of the money provided. Surely that is not a reasonable sort of proposition or the form in which aid should be extended. Surely it should be extended to the people who need aid the most, and not primarily to those people who are in the best financial position and therefore need it the least.
As I said a little earlier, acreage payments do give the same amount of assistance to most of the smaller farmers as to the larger farmers, and they also provide assistance to the people who have had poor crops or who have lost their crops for any reason whatever. In this connection, Mr. Chairman, I should like to place on the record a breakdown of the permit holders in western Canada for the 1959-60 crop year. It is in the form of a table and I wish to comment on it, but first I would ask the permission of the committee to have the table printed in Hansard.


Charles Edward Rea: Does the committee give unanimous consent to the minister having the table printed in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table referred to is as follows:1

Supply-Agriculture



SPECIFIED ACREAGE GROUPS AS SHOWN IN WHEAT BOARD DELIVERY PERMITS

[Stage Direction]
Specified acreage groupings	Number of permits	Average acreage per permit	Average acreage cereal crops	Wheat	Oats	Barley000- 099 acres	
20,323	66	15	14	n100- 199	" 	
55,748	144	37	24	23200- 299	" 	
48,598	248	70	37	35300- 399	
32,988	337	105	41	42400- 499	
23,820	443	146	45	48500- 599	" 	
13,495	546	181	51	56GOO- 699	
10,169	637	221	48	58700- 799	" 	
6,280	746	259	52	66800- 899	" 	
3,805	844	292	56	70900- 999	
2,882	940	331	55	761,000-1,999	
6,053	1,260	441	68	972,000-2,999	" 	
393	2,349	814	122	1653,000-3,999	" 	
87	3,391	1,011	287	3794,000-4,999	" 	
30	4,433	1,267	400	4335 000-5,999	" 	
20	5,400	1,600	350	5506,000-6,999	" 	
11	6,545	1,818	545	6367,000-7,999	" 	
9	7,444	2,444	444	4448,000-8,999	" 	8,167	2,500	833	833Grand Total	
224,717	342	108	37	39
Paul Joseph James Martin: Has the minister an extra copy of the table?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes. I will be glad to send an extra copy to the hon. member. This table is similar to one which I put on Hansard nearly three years ago when the legislation to provide cash advances on farm-stored grain was being considered by the house. It may be compared with that table. It shows not very much change in the number of permit book holders. This break-down shows the specified acreage groupings and it shows that farmers having up to 99 acres of cultivated land- that is, of specified acres-number 20,323, and they had an average acreage per permit of 66 acres. That was broken down into 15 acres of wheat-this is on the average-14 acres of oats, 11 acres of barley and the remainder in summer fallow, cultivated hay, and so on.
Those other figures have not been put in there, because we are dealing particularly with wheat, oats and barley. Permit holders having between 100 and 199 cultivated acres number 55,748 and they have an average acreage of 144 acres. This again is broken down into wheat, 37 acres, oats, 24 acres and barley, 23 acres. The third group is those permit holders having 200 to 299 acres. They number 48,598, and their average acreage is 248 acres, which is broken down into wheat, 70 acres; oats, 37 acres and barley 35 acres.
If you add together those first three groups you find they total 124,669. The total number of permit holders is 224,717. So we find that approximately 125,000 out of approximately
225,000	permit holders have a cultivated acreage of 248 acres or less. In other words they have considerably less than a half section
of land under cultivation. This is contrary to the idea that many people particularly, in eastern Canada, have, that the western farmers are all big farmers; that they have thousands of acres of land; that they go to California in the wintertime, and things along that line. These are all myths which have been perhaps, we will say, made the subject of jokes. As a result a lot of people, because these things have been repeated over and over, have come to believe them. But these figures show the fact, that 125,000 out of
225.000	farmers in western Canada have a cultivated acreage, as I say, of 248 acres or less or less than half a section.
These 125,000 farmers out of the 225,000 will receive slightly more than half the total assistance provided, more than half of the $41 million to $42 million which will be provided in this way. In other words the smaller farmers, who constitute the bulk of the farmers, will receive more than half of the assistance provided. This makes a very, very much fairer way of providing assistance than one based on the number of bushels that a man produces, which is what was asked for.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The number with 400 acres and up is quite large, is it not?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I beg your pardon?


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: The number of those with 400 acres and up is quite large, too?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It comes to about 60,000-odd
farmers with 400 acres and up.


Peter Francis Martin: Six thousand with
1.000	acres and over?

Supply-Agriculture


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes. I wanted to have this table put on the record because I think it is very interesting and very illuminating. It particularly demonstrates this point I have just been making, that the great majority of farmers in western Canada are not big farmers; they are small farmers, 125,000 out of 225,000. They are the people who particularly need assistance, and they are the people to whom this scheme provides the bulk of the assistance.
The producers of western wheat, oats and barley, as hon. members of the house know, are the only people who are not provided benefits under the Agricultural Stabilization Act. Every other agricultural product in Canada is eligible for support under the Agricultural Stabilization Act. During the past two years we have supported some 20-odd commodities under that act. As a result of that, as a result of some increased tariff protection which we have provided, and as a result of import quotas and restrictions,	particularly on dairy
products, producers of agricultural products other than western wheat, oats and barley on the whole have received prices as good as or better than have been received by farmers in any other country in the world.
I would just like to demonstrate that by a few figures, to show what the returns for farmers engaged in other branches of agriculture have been in Canada during the past two years, as compared with farmers in other countries. This will show that the support we have provided under the Agricultural Stabilization Act by import controls and some tariff protection has meant that farmers other than the western wheat, oats and barley producers have received a large measure of support and have enjoyed prices which have compared very, very favourably with those of farmers in any other country.
If we take the case of cattle, in 1959 good steers in Toronto averaged $25.10; in Australia, $11.12, less than half as much; in Denmark, $13.96; in New Zealand, $7.60; in the United Kingdom, $19.09, and in the United States, $25.48, practically the same as in Canada. We were $25.10 and they were $25.48. That is the picture on cattle. In the Antipodes the price was well under a half, in one case a third, of what our farmers were getting for cattle in 1958.
In 1958 the picture is much the same. If we take the case of hogs in 1958, in Canada the figure was $29.13; in Australia, $25.75; in Denmark, $25.75; the United Kingdom, $25.79, and the United States $27.02. Our price was higher than any of those countries. The only country which was as high or higher than ours was West Germany.


Mr. Boulanger:: Can you give us the figures for 1959?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am just coming to that. In Canada, $24.80; Australia, $30.58; Denmark, $25.69; the United Kingdom $26.37, and the United States $19.55, as compared to $24.80 in Canada. Of course the reason our price was down from 1958 was that the price during 1959 was at the floor level nearly throughout the year. The measures which we took to place hogs under deficiency payment have resulted in a decrease in production and an increase in prices, so that prices for some time now have been around $4, $5 and $6 a hundred above the support price.


Samuel Boulanger: What about eggs?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The same situation has taken place with regard to eggs. The price of eggs has gone up. The surplus situation is over, eggs are at a reasonable price, are likely to be at a better price and to remain there. Now we come to lambs.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are discussing everything; we might as well discuss the general agricultural policy of the government.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, once more I must point out that I am relating this directly to the situation of the western farmers. I am pointing out that farmers, apart from the producers of western wheat, oats and barley, have enjoyed the advantages of the Agricultural Stabilization Act and of various other support measures which have been provided by this government. As a result they have enjoyed prices much better than many other countries and as good as any in any country of the world.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No objection.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Let us take lambs as an example. The prices in 1959 were as follows: Canada, $21.15; Australia, $8.24; New Zealand, $8.59; the United Kingdom, $13.41; the United States, $20.64. The highest price for lambs in any of those countries was that paid in Canada.
If you take dairy products you find the same thing. The price paid here was the highest in any country in the world except in West Germany, where the price was slightly above ours. Butter prices in 1959 were as follows:	Canada, 63.2 cents;
Australia, 47 cents; Denmark, 41 cents; West Germany, 66 cents; New Zealand, 33 cents; New Zealand butter selling in the United Kingdom, 41 cents; the United States, 58 cents.

The same thing applies to cheese. The 1959 prices were as follows: Canada, 37.1 cents; Australia, 28 cents; Denmark, 23 cents; West Germany, 33 cents; New Zealand, 20 cents; Canadian cheese selling in the United Kingdom, 41 cents, New Zealand at 35 cents and Dutch at 33 cents; United States Cheddar cheese, 31 cents. This compares with a price of 37 cents in Canada.
The hon. member mentioned eggs a little while ago. The average price for grade A large eggs in 1959 was 43.1 cents a dozen in Canada and 32 cents in the United States, a difference of 11 cents in our favour. Prices in other countries were as follows: Denmark, 31 cents; West Germany, 42 cents; British domestic eggs in Great Britain, 48 cents. That was the highest price for eggs any place.
I could deal with potato prices and the prices of other products, but I will not take any more time in dealing with this subject. What these figures	demonstrateand this is the point I want to make -is that agriculture in this country has received a large measure of protection through the stabilization act. As a result the farmers of this country have received very good prices compared with those received in any other country in the world you wish to take, and very much higher prices than in most of those countries.
The wheat farmer and the western oats and barley grower have not had the advantage of this stabilization act; therefore some special type of assistance is required in order to balance things off. This is one of the things which is necessary in providing assistance to agriculture, that you balance the kind of assistance you give to different commodities and to different regions or areas and so forth. You have to keep the assistance in balance; otherwise you get a surplus production in one line and a reduction in production in the other, you have a shortage of one commodity and a surplus of another. I mention this in order to show that the payment of this particular form of assistance to western farmers is necessary, required and desirable in every way, in my opinion.
The Depuiy Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.


Mr, Martin (Essex East):: The minister
should continue his general discussion of farm products.


Charles Edward Rea: Does the committee give unanimous consent to let the minister continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Supply-Agriculture


Douglas Scott Harkness: I thank the committee for extending my time and wish to assure them than I will not speak at undue length.
As the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday, the western farmer has been aware that he was not under the stabilization act as far as wheat, oats and barley were concerned. Western farmers and farm organizations, and particularly western members of the Conservative party, have been pushing for many years, really, for the introduction of what is generally referred to as a two-price system for wheat. This payment will give to western farmers the equivalent of a two-price system for wheat. It will give them a sum such as they would receive if the proportion of their wheat used for human consumption in Canada were placed under a two-price system at a very considerably increased price over the general world market price.
One other point I should like to make is that the money provided by this vote will have an extremely beneficial effect on the whole Canadian economy. The farmers who receive this money are not going to put it in a sock and keep it there. This money will be going into circulation and will roll through the whole economy. It will mean that sales of all kinds will be stimulated. The result will be a considerable increase in employment, in manufacturing, merchandising, transportation and so on. From that point of view the benefits of the payment will be spread all throughout Canada.
The hon. member for Essex East made some remarks yesterday when this matter was introduced on which I should like to comment to some extent. The hon. gentleman said that the meagreness and insufficiency of this program was deplorable, or something of that nature.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said it was inadequate and not in conformity with the government's promises.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I was concerned about the hon. gentleman's reference to the meagreness and insufficiency of this program. I should like to point out to him that the demands for these payments on the part of the western farmers arose out of a period during which the government of which the hon. member for Essex East was a member was in office. The demand was for deficiency payments for the 1955-56, 1956-57 and 1957-58 crops. It was only for the latter of those three years that this government was in power. In other words, the farmers asked for a payment to make up for the losses they maintained they had suffered under the government of which the hon. member for Essex East was a distinguished member.

Supply-Agriculture
What sparked this demand for deficiency payments on the part of western farmers was the fact that the previous government gave them very little support of any kind. During that period they suffered a considerable decrease in income, and their grain was not being sold. It was being sold in constantly decreasing amounts until we came into power and stepped up the sales of western wheat in particular.
This fact is clearly shown by the net income per farm worker during those periods. In 1953, which was one of the big years, the net income per farm worker was $2,740 but in 1954 it was only $1,367, less than half as much. This is what started a great deal of the agitation in western Canada for assistance of this kind. In 1955 it was $2,071. In 1956 there was a good crop and a fair sale and it rose to $2,783, but then in 1957 it was down again to $1,617. In 1958 it was back up to $2,170 and in 1959 it was $2,410.
The hon. member for Essex East said that net farm income in 1959 was less than in 1958. I have given the net income per farm worker. The net income per farm, of course, was greater than that. I mentioned those figures to show that although the net income for all farmers in 1959 was somewhat less than in 1958, nevertheless the net income per farm worker was more in 1959 than in 1958. The statement which the hon. member for Essex East also made in speaking yesterday, along the line that the net income in 1959 was below that of 1958, is one which he is very fond of making. He never relates it to the fact that the net income in 1958 was 28 per cent higher than in 1957.


Peter Francis Martin: But take a comparable figure.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In 1958 the various measures we took resulted in a very considerable increase in the net income received by farmers. It is true that in 1959 the net income did fall, but it did not fall to anything like the level it had reached in 1957 or in 1955, when the government of which the hon. gentleman was a member was in power. This is a point which I think should be brought out more strongly in order to keep the record straight.


Samuel Boulanger: The minister mentioned net income for the farmers, but not income from the sale of farm products.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well, naturally the only way a farmer gets his net income is through the sale of his products. These are the dominion bureau of statistics figures as to farm income for various years from 1950 to 1959. I have just read oft the figures for the last five or six years. What I am doing is indicating

that with regard to these complaints by the hon. member for Essex East and his colleagues concerning what they call the meagreness of this provision and the insufficiency of that provision, if there is any meagreness or insufficiency it is due to the fact that they did nothing to assist the farmers when they were in power. The result was that the farmers in Canada felt they had a lot to make up, so they asked us for payment to make up for the last two years during which hon. gentlemen opposite were in power and the first year we were in power.
As to the assistance provided, it is quite clear from the figures of the Department of Agriculture alone how much more assistance has been provided by this government than was provided by the previous government. This is clear from the annual total expenditure. For example, in 1954-55 this amounted to $81.7 million; in 1955-56, $79.7 million; in 1956-57, $84.6 million; in 1957-58, $94.6 million; in 1958-59, $165.8 million and in 1959-60. $181.3 million or more than twice as much as those hon. gentlemen who now say this is meagre and insufficient provided during the last three years they were in office. Yet despite this they have the effrontery to get up here and say that what we are doing is meagre and insufficient.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In relation to your promises.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In addition to the figures
I have given you have to add the amount paid for storage on grain, which is paid by the Department of Trade and Commerce, and the amount provided under the Colombo plan, and these are very considerable amounts. We provided under the Colombo plan $26.5 million in 1958 for agricultural products, chiefly wheat, to the Colombo plan countries. In 1958-59 the amount was $19.8 million, and in 1959-60, $14.6 million. In the last year the government of which the hon. gentleman was a member was in power the amount provided in this way for Colombo plan countries was $2.6 million. Yet the hon. member for Essex East talks about the meagreness and insufficiency of the help being provided to farmers. We have provided so much more help to farmers, and not only to western farmers but to farmers throughout Canada, that there is absolutely no comparison with the assistance provided by the former government.
I think I have outlined, probably at as great length as is necessary at this time, some further reasons in addition to those given by the Prime Minister why this assistance should be provided and why this particular method of providing this assistance has been adopted by the government.

(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, the minister has brought down his third supplementary estimates for the year ending March 31, 1961.
Item 576 provides for an amount of $42 million to allow for the payment of a dollar an acre to wheat growers of the prairie provinces.
We might have expected the minister to stick to that item, but he went quite far afield to discuss the general conditions of agriculture. In fact, he repeated for the third or fourth time what he has been saying since January 14, 1960.
While I may not have had as much time to study the agricultural situation as the minister, I would be remiss were I not to correct certain figures which were quoted, or to offer my version of present agricultural conditions. My speech will be short.
In the "Farm and Cash Income Report" for March 1960, we find that revenue from the sale of farm products for January, February and March 1960 are down to $588,000,000, as compared with $638,864,000 for 1959, which represents a decrease in revenue of $50,000,000 over a period of three months.
The minister mentioned the prices of various agricultural products in other countries. He obviously selected the prices of the products which suited him and best served to vindicate the government's agricultural policy.
The minister made no mention of the price of wheat, but gave us the prices for beef, eggs, and hogs. He did not mention the prices western farmers are getting for their grain.
I have here a bulletin entitled "Wheat Pool Budget", July 1960 issue, showing comparative support prices for wheat in various countries. I shall only mention wheat exporting countries.
In Canadian dollars, the support price stands at 94 cents in Argentina, the wheat producing country where prices are the lowest. In Australia, the price is $1.58; in France, $2.01; in Italy, from $2.59 to $2.80; in Morocco, $2.03; in New Zealand, $1.80; in South Africa, $2.17; in Tunisia, $2.12; in Turkey, $2.58.
If I look at the list of higher support prices, I note that Yugoslavia offers $3.01; Switzerland, $4.01; Norway, $3.26.
Those are the figures the Minister of Agriculture should have mentioned.
(Text):


Mr. Brunsden:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he identify-


Samuel Boulanger: If you do not mind I will make my remarks and then answer your question.
Supply-Agriculture


Some hon. Members:: If you can.


Samuel Boulanger: All right.


Edwin William Brunsden: Would the hon. member mind identifying the countries which consume their own wheat and those which are on the world export market?
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Wheat importing countries? I think that is the question put to me by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Brunsden). Here they are:
(Text):


Mr. Kindi:: May I ask a supplementary question. How many pounds are there in a bushel of wheat?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That question from the hon. member is intended obviously to be frivolous, but the hon. gentleman who is speaking is addressing himself to this serious question and this kind of interruption is the kind-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The hon. member who has the floor did not have to recognize the hon. member who asked the question.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I would have liked to answer the hon. member, even if he did ask a nonsensical question. Before asking such questions, he should make inquiries.
Now, I said a few moments ago, that the revenue from the sale of farm products was down $50 million during the January-March period. In 1959 the income from the sale of agricultural products decreased by 11.1 per cent compared to 1958. Moreover, we shall see in a few months' time whether the farm policy of the Conservative government has any value, more particularly when we will have the figures for the two first quarters of 1960. When we come to the end of the year, that is December 1960, we shall see whether the policy applied by the Conservative government was adequate, as farmers are being led to believe.
On announcing payments to western wheat growers of $1 per cultivated acre, up to a maximum of 200 acres, the Prime Minister tried to take an attitude of satisfaction; unfortunately it is hardly a justified attitude under the circumstances; he knows very well that this was not the way he spoke during the elections of 1957 and 1958. Several times during debates in the last few sessions, we have had the disagreeable task of reminding the Prime Minister of the promises he had made. If we do so, it is simply

Supply-Agriculture
because we want to point out the irresponsibility of this government, as well as the irresponsibility of the hon. member who just asked me a question. All this is very easy if we compare those statements with the government's actions in respect of our farmers and more particularly western farmers.
I propose to quote a few more of those formal promises which the Prime Minister made in 1957 and 1958 and we shall confront them with the government's actions.
In 1957, he said in Newcastle-it was in April 1957 and more particularly April 26- as published in the Toronto Daily Star:
(Text):
To restore their fair share of the national income, he pledged, a Conservative government would launch a flexible price support program, call a commonwealth trade conference, launch an aggressive farm products selling policy, and reduce the spread between farm and consumer prices for agricultural products.
(Translation) :
And further on he said:
(Text):
Between 1951 and 1955, he said, the farmer's share of the consumer price dollar dropped from 59 to 51 cents.
And I must say that in 1960 it is 44 cents. Then at Shawville on May 6, 1957 the Prime Minister said this:
Since 1941 the Conservative party had been advocating floor prices based on a fair price-cost relationship, he said. Liberals regularly voted against it. Only at the very depth of the world depression in the 1930's and then only for a 13-month period was there worse relation than today between the prices of what the farmer sells and what he buys.
(Translation):
And on page 15 of this 150 page book of Conservative government promises, I read what the Prime Minister said at Minnedosa, Manitoba, on May 16, 1957:
(Text):
The national Conservative leader wound up a three-day tour of Manitoba last night by pledging action to reverse the continuing decline in farm income.
The farmer was the forgotten man in Canada and only a Conservative government could restore the prosperity he once enjoyed, Mr. Diefenbaker told more than 1,000 persons last night in this farming community 135 miles west of Winnipeg.
To farmers-whose average family income has dropped from $3,600 to $3,000 since 1951 while the average income across Canada has risen from $4,100 to $4,900-his message was obviously effective.
(Translation):
Unfortunately, I haven't got the figures for 1960; yet, I would have liked to take a few minutes to tell the committee what the average farm income now is, compared to 1951. If I understood him well, the Minister of Agriculture gave us the figure of $2,410 as

farm income, which would mean an increase over 1958; now the Prime Minister said, on the other hand, that the farmer's income had been $3,000 in 1957, as compared to $3,600 a few years before.
I could go on listing a great number of other promises made by the Prime Minister, but I shall recall only one, which was pointed out by the hon. member for Essex East. It was made in Toronto, on April 25, by the Prime Minister himself. Here it is:
(Text):
We will assure the farmer of his fair share of the national income by maintaining a flexible- and I underline the word "flexible"-price support program to ensure an adequate parity for agricultural producers based on a fair price-cost relationship.
(Translation):


Paul Joseph James Martin: That was in 1957,
is it not?


Samuel Boulanger: In 1957. Those were the fine promises they made when they wanted to get into office. They were out not so much to help farmers but to satisfy their ambitions.
Those are the results that followed the exaggerated statements of the Conservative government. Let us take, for instance, the increase in the cost of commodities and services purchased by farmers.
The Minister of Agriculture likes to talk about the price of farm products. Of course, he picks and chooses the prices that suit him best, and those of countries that support his case. But he never said a word about the increase in the cost of commodities and services purchased by farmers, nor about the price index of products sold by farmers.
(Text):
I hold in my hand the price index of all commodities and services used by farmers. I will take April, 1957 and compare it with April, 1960. The composite index, exclusive of living components, in April, 1957 stood at 257.5; in April, 1960 it was 276.3, an increase of 18.8 points in three years. If we take the farm machinery index we see that it increased in the same period by 30.3 points. (Translation):
If we now consider the index of prices obtained for farm products in 1957, we note that it reached-
(Text):


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not want to interrupt the hon. member but I think he is going a little far and I should like to ask him how he is relating all this material to the estimate which is under discussion. When the hon. member for Essex East raised this point of order when I was speaking I fully agreed

with him, and I pointed out how I related everything that I said to the estimate under discussion. So far, however, the hon. member has not related anything he has said to the item under discussion; he has just been giving a general speech on agriculture.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, this is a most extraordinary intervention on the part of the Minister of Agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course we have the interjection of hon. members who sit behind the ministry, who object to any remarks made from this side. If we are to be allowed to conclude our work, hon. gentlemen are going to have to allow hon. members in the opposition to speak, notwithstanding their wishes.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this is a difficulty that arises when in a short period a time there is a change in the person who occupies the chair. When the Minister of Agriculture spoke he covered a wide front. I intervened and pointed out to the chairman, as Hansard will show, that the Minister of Agriculture was not discussing the particular item but was engaging in a general discussion on agriculture. I told him I had no objection to that, but I wanted the Chair to note what the Minister of Agriculture was doing so that the same right would be afforded during the day to hon. members who wished to follow the example of the Minister of Agriculture. Now, during the speech to which we have just been listening, which is an answer point by point to the speech of the Minister of Agriculture-


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member has not been answering my speech; he has been reading a prepared speech.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister ought not to make such remarks. The hon. gentleman who has the floor is as well informed on agricultural problems as the Minister of Agriculture. This is the kind of remark we have had directed from government benches at the hon. member. One of those remarks has come from the far corner and the other from the front bench, from the Minister of Agriculture. There is no more sincere man


Douglas Scott Harkness: I rise on a question of privilege


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is not a question of privilege.


Douglas Scott Harkness: My question of privilege is that the hon. member for Essex East has said that I insulted the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska. I insulted the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska in no
Supply-Agriculture
way whatsoever, and I think the hon. member for Essex East owes me an apology for saying that I had insulted him. The hon. member for Essex East is merely trying to cause trouble where otherwise no trouble would exist.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, all I want to say is you were here when the hon. member was being asked a question that could have only one implication; that is, that the question addressed to this particular member must be regarded as one put in the form of an insult. I repeat, the observation made just a moment ago and directed to the hon. member was of the same nature, and I do not propose to withdraw because this hon. gentleman has devoted himself to the problems of agriculture. Because he does not have facility in the English language is no reason why he should be insulted; but if the hon. gentleman and others will follow what he says in French they will see that he speaks on agriculture with as great competence as does the hon. gentleman.
The point is this, Mr. Chairman. The minister has taken exception to the speech now being made. I would point out to you that the Minister of Agriculture traversed the same ground, and it is unbelievable that having been himself guilty of that offence which he urges now, he should charge another hon. gentleman with violating the rules. This is a most extraordinary performance on the part of the Minister of Agriculture.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, what is extraordinary and unbelievable about this is the outburst of the hon. member for Essex East. All I did was ask the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska how he was relating his speech to this particular item. I said at the same time that when the hon. member for Essex East had raised a point of order previously I had related everything that I said to the item under discussion and, quite contrary to what the hon. member for Essex East has said, it was not a general discussion of agriculture. I related everything I said to the item under discussion, and this statement which the hon. member for Essex East has made that members on this side of the house are attempting to insult the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska because he does not speak English very well is an unbelievable piece of perfidy on the part of the hon. member for Essex East.


Mr. Habel:: That is what you are doing.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is a piece of hypocrisy to which I take the greatest objection.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order raised by the Minister of Agriculture,

Supply-Agriculture
I could put to him the same question he put to me: What connection is there between what he said and the budget resolution now under discussion? What did the Minister of Agriculture say in his statement? He dealt with anything but the item being dealt with.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Samuel Boulanger: I have just been asked to restrict my remarks. All I am doing is to reply to the Minister of Agriculture in my mother tongue.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Hear, hear.


Samuel Boulanger: I was saying-
(Text):


The Chairman:: Order. I think I should indicate the view of the Chair on this point of order. I was not in the chair when the Minister of Agriculture spoke; I do not know what range was covered in his remarks, but I understand that the hon. member for Essex East said at the time he expected that the same latitude would be given to the opposition.
I must say that strictly speaking this would not be a good reason for giving the same latitude, but I think generally speaking one has to allow a reply to the introductory remarks made by the minister. Yet at the same time, because the minister may have been outside the scope of the debate or the item under discussion, this is no reason why all hon. members should necessarily have the same right. I do not want to restrict the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska too much, but I simply warn him that if he thinks he has to deal with everything the minister said it may be that the whole debate will become out of order. I count on his co-operation in trying to follow the rules of strict relevancy when we are discussing estimates.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your difficulty and I do not disagree with what you have said. However, I would ask you to have a look at the Hansard typescript during the lunch hour and note the discussion that took place. It is regrettable that the gentleman who was in the chair then has not continued during this period. That is something over which I have no control, but I would ask you to look at the Hansard typescript to note the discussion, the observations made by the Chair, the observations made by the Minister of Agriculture, and then say whether it would be just now to deny to any hon. member the opportunity which the Minister of Agriculture took, with the consent of the Chair, in such flagrant violation of the rules of the house.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I should like to join in the request of the hon. member for Essex East that you examine what was said, because I think it will show conclusively that everything I said was related to this item. The hon. member for Essex East has once more demonstrated his basic discourtesy in this house by making a statement about flagrant disregard of the rules of this house on my part when he knows that is incorrect, and when he himself is the greatest disregarder of the rules of the house.


Jacques Flynn: I have told the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska that I do not intend to be too strict and, if necessary, the Chair will consult the record during the lunch hour.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, the incident being closed, I shall continue with my remarks and say that between 1957 and 1959 the price index for farm products went up from 234.2 to 240.3. I am taking those figures from circular No. 62003, for the month of June 1960. This means that the price of farm products has increased by 9 points, whereas the prices of farm implements and machinery went up 30 points.
It might be interesting to take a look at farm income in the western provinces during the first three months of 1960. Circular No. 21001 points out that, for the first quarter of 1960, the income from the sale of agricultural products, was $4.7 million in Manitoba, close to $26 million in Saskatchewan and, $16.2 million in Alberta. That is why I said just now that the income from the sale of farm products in Canada had fallen by $50 million in the three first months of 1960.
There you have the relation between the promises made by the Prime Minister, by the Minister of Agriculture and the Conservative government in 1957 and 1958, and what we are getting today as a result of that policy of laisser faire. In other words, income has dropped throughout the country, except in the maritimes, where the increase is substantial.
Farmers will no doubt be glad to get a dollar per cultivated acre, up to 200 acres, in 1960, because it means $42 million to them. However, it should not be felt that their problem is solved. Next year, farmers will make the same requests. The agricultural policy of the Conservative government has no basis; it is a policy of expediency, a day-today policy. Therefore, like western farmers, we shall have to wait for the day when a Liberal government is returned, to restore the situation.


Mr. Pigeon:: You have a long wait ahead of you.


Mr. Ricard:: It will take too much time for nothing.


Samuel Boulanger: It has been said that western farmers spend the winter down south, either in California or in Florida. The Minister of Agriculture indicated a moment ago that farmers no longer go down south. That is true, because they can no longer afford it. If they did go south in past years, it was because they had an income that enabled them to take a well deserved vacation. And it was only a minority that could go to these tourist spots.


Mr. Tremblay:: Nonsense.


Samuel Boulanger: Now they can no longer afford it. So they are waiting for the day when we have a new government and when there is improvement in Canada's agricultural position.
(Text):


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with item 576, which provides for higher returns to western farmers for wheat used for human consumption in Canada. This is something that western farmers have advocated for a long time. As a new member of the house, I have noticed in reading past debates in Hansard that the Prime Minister advocated such a move in 1946, I believe it was. So this is something that has come about this year because it has been needed, because the farmers felt they had a right to it.
When the announcement was made yesterday the hon. member for Essex East got up and said this was a hand-out and that the farmers had waited a long time for it. Let me tell the committee, Mr. Chairman, that the farmers have waited approximately 11 years for it. The former government sold the farmers down the river from 1945 to 1949. The farmers of western Canada were supposed to get some compensation in 1949 for having subsidized every person in Canada by selling wheat to the British at below world prices. The farmers sold wheat to Great Britain at below world prices because of the deal which the government of which the hon. member was a member cooked up. They thought the farmers of western Canada were going to become too wealthy, and so they curtailed their income.
The farmers of western Canada have waited for something from this government for a long time, and I am pleased to see that they are now starting to get something. Therefore when the hon. member for Essex East says
Supply-Agriculture
that the farmers have waited a long time, I can agree with him. They have waited 11 years, from 1949.
With respect to the period from 1945 to 1949, the hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska started to quote the cost of commodities and services used by the farmers, and said there had been an alarming increase in the past three years. Let me deal with the increase from 1945 to 1949. I will use the same dominion bureau of statistics pamphlet, volume 16, No. 2, and the index is on the basis of the period from 1935 to 1939 equalling 100. In 1945 it was 140; in 1950 it was 200. It increased 60 points in five years, when they sold our wheat at below the world price, and he talks about them having waited a long time. Yes, they have waited a long time and I am glad to see they are getting something, now that they have changed the government.
While I am on this particular point, looking at the Financial Post of July 30, an independent magazine, there is an article headed "Where the tax money goes". It says:
Canadian farmers are getting three times the subsidy help from the taxpayer they were getting as recently as five years ago.
So at least somebody realized it; somebody realized that this government is giving some substantial help to the farmers. I am certain the farmers in my constituency will appreciate it to quite an extent.
The hon. member for Vancouver East, when he spoke about this in the house yesterday, seemed a bit worried about the small farmer who had less than 200 acres. What would happen to the small farmer under the deficiency payment program that his party advocated? I do not know what the Liberal party has advocated, because they have never yet said in this house what they do advocate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The only thing I can do is judge them by experience. Then that would be nothing, because they have done nothing. The hon. member for Vancouver East seemed worried about the small farmer. What would happen, under the deficiency payment idea to the farmer who was hailed out or dried out in the past year or this year, or had his crops snowed under last year and because of late harvesting last fall it was frozen and damp and he decided to feed it to cattle during the winter? What would happen to him under the deficiency payment idea? He would get nothing at all. There were a great many farmers in western Canada who did harvest their crops as late as November and part of December last year and, finding their grain a bit damp and too hard to move, fed it to cattle and hogs.

Supply-Agriculture
So the hon. member tor Vancouver East seems a bit worried about the small farmer. Under this type of program the small farmer is getting something. Under the other it is questionable whether he would have got anything. Of course, when you consider that the money is coming out of the federal treasury, then it must go to as many farmers as possible. Whether the farmer is a big farmer or not, he is still entitled to as much money as the next fellow, when the* money is coming out of the federal treasury. That is something that should be realized by a great many big wheat farmers, who may feel they are due for greater assistance because of the greater volume of wheat they have to sell. They have no more right to more money from the federal treasury than the small farmer who perhaps feeds all his crop, or sells a small amount of grain.
The last time this payment was made, in 1958, the hon. member for Assiniboia called it peanuts, nothing but peanuts. Well, this will mean a great deal in my constituency. It will mean perhaps $1,400,000 spent in the constituency of Acadia this fall. It will mean about 11J cents a bushel for every bushel of wheat sold by western farmers through the Canadian wheat board. Figure it out for yourself. There are approximately 360 million bushels delivered. Divide that into $42 million, and it comes to about 11J cents a bushel. Certainly that is not peanuts to my farmers, and they certainly will appreciate it.
I noticed that the hon. member for Drum-mond-Arthabaska was worried about the price of wheat. He read off a great number of countries which were selling wheat, some at lower prices than Canada and some at higher prices. He did not say, when asked, what countries exported and what countries imported. He went on to Rumania, Yugoslavia, and a bunch more countries. Even Switzerland was a net exporter, according to his figures. I never knew of Switzerland gobbling up too much of the export market. On his figures we will agree that perhaps the Canadian farmer is a little lower than the United States farmer. He is higher than the Argentine farmer, and about the same as the Australian farmer. Those are the three big exporting countries. France is now coming into the export picture, and has a considerably higher price.
I know that if the hon. member for Bon-avista-Twillingate were here he would be on his feet speaking about cod and wanting this assistance for his cod fishermen in Newfoundland. To be fair to the eastern members, looking at the dominion bureau of statistics index of farm prices and agricultural products, 1960, No. 6, it lists for June, 1960 the monthly index for the provinces of Canada,

and it is evident that the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta are lower than the eastern provinces, and lower than British Columbia.
This is a step that we western members have advocated. We have stated time and again that the farmers need an acreage payment and will appreciate an acreage payment; and because of the subsidization that they gave for Canada to Great Britain during the war and after the war, they felt they had a just claim to it.
It is evident in this same article in the Financial Post of July 30 the way farm subsidies have increased. The hon. member for Essex East said we had done nothing, and the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska said the farmers are just itching for a return to their type of payment. It is obvious that since the year 1957, when there was a change of government, farm subsidies increased from $50 million in 1956-57 to about $116 million the next year, and the following year to $130 million. This year it is estimated that with this $42 million there will be about $122 million directed into farm subsidies in order to bring about better and greater income returns for the farmers.
I am certainly convinced that the farmers wanted this, and they will appreciate it. The minister stated that payments-and I am not going to rehearse what he has already stated- under this type of program will not tend to build up surpluses and will not interfere with marketing. I think that is a point that should be stressed when considering this type of payment over any other type that may be devised.
The hon. member for Essex East said this is a hand-out, but I want to point out quite clearly that it is certainly not a hand-out. It is a payment to the farmers, as suggested in the item which I read out when I started; it is a payment to give higher returns for wheat used for human consumption, and as long as that is coming out of the federal treasury it should go to all farmers as equally as possible.
The hon. member for Essex East said that the government should have called upon the liaison committee of the western farm unions and had a full discussion with them. The government, as the Prime Minister stated yesterday, was only right in contacting the liaison committee after they turned down deficiency payments, wanting some suggestion from them. They were only right in stating, "Please put it in writing so that we can study it before you come down here".
That was one of the objections I had to the farmers' action when they marched down here in February of 1959. If they had sent

their brief down ahead of time the government could have undertaken a thorough study of it. I can well remember the Prime Minister telling the farmers in the Chateau Laurier that if he had had a copy of their brief even the day before they presented it, he could have perhaps presented a better answer to it. That was the very thing he had in mind when he asked the liaison committee to put their views in writing so they could be studied. He said, "We will be able to discuss your problems, if we get it". But they would not. Mr. Wesson got stubborn, or something like that. There was a big press article in the Western Producer, "Why should we devise a policy for you?" They were certainly not asked to devise a policy; they were asked to put their views in writing, which was only a legitimate request, and I wish they had done it. It would have given the government a chance to study it, and I certainly would like to have seen it. But seeing that they never did it I am certainly proud of the fact that we western members continued to press for some sort of assistance to western farmers and were to some extent successful in this.
We could not wait for the liaison committee to send their views. They never contacted me at any time, nor did the farm union president. I had numerous letters from farm union locals. I can honestly say I never received one that came out for deficiency payments. I received a number that suggested we make a payment similar to that made in 1958. They were not too firm in their suggestions. They endorsed our 1958 payment, and suggested that we do everything in our power to attempt to persuade the government to make another one.
That is the sort of thing the farm union locals wanted, but for some reason or other the liaison committee under the direction of Mr. Wesson wanted something larger, something practically impossible to get, so it could be used for propaganda purposes against the present government. There is no denying the fact that they have engaged in a lot of propaganda against this government. Anything they could find to use they were certainly prepared to use. That is the way it appeared to me. I believe they attempted to embarrass the government rather than present a sound argument for additional payments.
The hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska placed figures on the record indicating that farm income was down for the first quarter of this year. The figures indicated, I believe, that it was down so much more in western Canada, $26 million I think it was in Saskatchewan, $4 million in Manitoba and $16 million in Alberta. That only supports the argument that this payment should
Supply-Agriculture
be made. I wish to thank the hon. gentleman for putting those figures on the record. They will no doubt be of considerable assistance to him in explaining to the farmers in his eastern constituency why this went out to western Canada. I am certain it will be of benefit to him.
I believe I mentioned that in my own constituency there are over 7,000 permit holders. Mine is a fairly large constituency in the east central part of Alberta. Part of it is in perhaps the driest region of Alberta. My constituency is half dry and half wet, and I am not referring to spirits.
In the northwestern part of my constituency there is a heavy concentration of farming, part of which is made up of small farms where there is a heavy concentration of livestock. In the south there are perhaps larger farms and ranching on a bigger scale. In the east and west there are many straight grain farms. My constituency is subject to drought to a considerable extent, and to hail. While I was home in July of this year a terrific hailstorm swept through part of my constituency. By a freak coincidence the hailstorm followed the same pattern it followed a year ago. By and large the same persons who were hailed out a year ago were hailed out this year, with a few additions. What would they get under deficiency payments? Not very much.
I was talking to a farmer about hail and asked if he were insured. He explained that he collected insurance last year, and because he did so his insurance rate jumped from about 10 per cent to 16 per cent. So he did not insure this year, because he never dreamed he would be hailed out again.


Edwin William Brunsden: That was the Alberta hail board.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That may have been so, but he did not have insurance this year. He is a young fellow who just bought his farm. How -would he maintain a living under deficiency payments? He would not have any grain to sell. In the northeastern part of my constituency the storm split up in two parts-*


Harold Edward Winch: Would the hon. member permit a question? How could he make a living out of this payment with a maximum of $200?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member asks how he would make a living out of this. It will not be a living, but it will be a great assistance. The hon. member should worry about the fellow who would get less than $200. He would not get anything under deficiency payments. That is the point I want to make. He will finally get some assistance

Supply-Agriculture
from the federal treasury to which he is entitled whether he got hailed out or he got a crop.


Harold Edward Winch: How much did he get under the hail insurance?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The person I referred to was hailed out last year. Because he collected under his insurance last year his rates jumped so much that he did not insure this year.


Harold Edward Winch: How much did he get last year?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I did not delve into his financial problems to the extent of asking how much money he had in his pocket or how much he got from the insurance. I felt that it was his business, not mine. The point is that my constituency is subject to many weather hazards and to drought. In some parts of the constituency we get too much rain. Last fall the best wheat growing country in western Canada around Munson and Mor-rin got altogether too much rain. Crops were frozen down with ice because they were so heavily laden with water.
Before I was interrupted I was saying that the northeastern part of my constituency was hailed out. The hailstones were reported to be six or seven inches in diameter, about the size and shape of saucers, if that is of any interest to the hon. member. They broke right through the roofs of buildings. If this sort of thing continues these people will perhaps impress upon the Alberta government the need of that government accepting the federal government's offer of crop insurance, and I can tell the committee that in this part of my riding there is a great deal of interest in that subject at this time.
Because of the number of farmers in my constituency who will receive this assistance, because of the amount of money that will come into my constituency and because of the number of times this money will turn over before going out of circulation, much benefit will flow to persons engaged in business other than farming. A maximum amount of good will flow to the benefit of the entire economy of western Canada. It was suggested to me by an hon. member from British Columbia that if western Canada receives financial assistance, eventually some of it will drift into British Columbia, and eventually some will drift into eastern Canada for the purchase of machinery, paint and other things. It is good that this assistance will be of benefit to the entire Canadian economy, and certainly the farmers in my constituency will appreciate it. They have waited for 11 years for some assistance in this form

from the federal government. This is certainly not a hand-out, and the farmers have it coming to them. On their behalf I express appreciation for this well-deserved assistance.


Mr. Ormision:: Mr. Chairman, I am prompted to take part in this discussion on the supplementary agricultural estimates for two reasons. Primarily, of course, it has always been my personal conviction and contention that acreage payments was one of the most equitable forms of agricultural assistance to western farmers. I certainly feel I can support this action by the government with impunity, since I have received from my own constituency representations from village and municipal councils, from organizations and individuals, who were all united in their appeal for consideration of the principle of acreage payments.
Second, I feel it necessary to say something on the inconsistency of the Liberal arguments which, I think, warrants some comment. Yesterday the hon. member for Essex East made an impassioned contribution regarding deficiency payments. This, of course, is not the first time he has indulged in this type of performance-


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, would the hon. member show me where I said anything yesterday about deficiency payments?


James Norris Ormiston: I will continue, and then-


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member stated I made an impassioned statement on deficiency payments. I am not denying that in another context, but I never said anything about deficiency payments yesterday. I will today.


James Norris Ormiston: The hon. member made reference to them on September 25, at a leadership convention in Regina.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That was not
yesterday.


James Norris Ormiston: The remarks of the hon. gentleman were reported in the Regina Leader-Post of that date, and he said on that occasion that the federal Liberal party favours the principle of deficiency payments.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Are you against them?


James Norris Ormiston: This statement was in direct contradiction to what had been said previously by the retiring provincial leader, Mr. A. H. McDonald, because I have here some excerpts from the speech made by Mr. McDonald as reported in the Leader-Post of September 24. I should like to quote the Leader-Post of that date:

The retiring leader, A. H. McDonald, covered the entire political waterfront. He blasted provincial and federal government policies, opposed any subsidies or protection for agriculture, and urged a nation-wide return to the principles of Liberalism.
Furthermore Mr. McDonald, who is still the Liberal leader in Saskatchewan, said that some of the farm organizations had asked for subsidies. Then he added "Being a Liberal, I do not believe in tariff protection or subsidies." The article goes on to say that when his address was over Mr. McDonald was given a standing ovation. I think that indicates some of the inconsistencies in the Liberal position.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Freedom of speech.


James Norris Ormiston: Well, it it would appear from the remarks of those two prominent Liberals that the philosophy of one does not entirely appeal to the other. Possibly Mr. McDonald's approach is nearer that of the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska who indicated, as reported on page 2464 of Hansard, that the performance of the Liberals in dispensing $25 million in 12 years was much to be preferred to that of the Conservatives in dispensing $70 million in three years.
However, the topic has been discussed very fully by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, and I think it only remains for me to say that in my own constituency this acreage payment will be accepted very gladly. Ours is an area in which small farms predominate, an area which has suffered from drought and hail, and it is to such farmers as these, in particular, that this payment will be most acceptable. I certainly feel that the government is to be commended for its action in this matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think the hon. member who has just resumed his seat ought to be allowed to finish his speech, because I notice that the Postmaster General, who is an authority on agriculture, has just hurried across the chamber to tell the hon. member "Use this; this is what Paul Martin said". I am sure that what I said is deserving of repetition.


Harold Edward Winch: Now he has passed to the hon. member sitting behind. I presume that hon. member ought to be allowed to give the committee the information.


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: was merely drawing the hon. member's attention to a favourite action of the hon. member for Essex East, in which he says something one day and denies having said it the next. A moment ago the committee heard the hon. member for Essex East say that he had made no reference yesterday to
Supply-Agriculture
deficiency payments. I find in Hansard for August 8 at page 7743 that he did make a specific reference to deficiency payments.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Read it out.


Mr. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace):: will. The hon. member said:
The announcement of today had its genesis in that mass movement of western farmers who were met with the refusal by the government to accept their proposal for deficiency payments.
I am not concerned with the remarks themselves. I am referring to the hon. member's action in making reference to deficiency payments yesterday, while today, because it served his purpose, denying he had said anything about them.


Peter Francis Martin: I think you will agree, Mr. Chairman, that it would be better for the Postmaster General to go back to his seat and look after his responsibilities as Postmaster General, because obviously he has not the slightest idea of what we are talking about.


Harold Edward Winch: However, it is good to see the Postmaster General back where he belongs- with the opposition and not with the government.


Peter Francis Martin: May I suggest, in the interest of finishing the business before us, that we sit through the lunch hour?


An hon. Member:: One o'clock.


Peter Francis Martin: Hon. gentlemen opposite are always asking for co-operation-
Mr. Pallet!: The hon. member looks so tired that I think he should be given some time off.


Harold Edward Winch: One o'clock.


Jacques Flynn: An hon. member has called it one o'clock; therefore I leave the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Jorgenson:: Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time to support the measure announced by the Prime Minister yesterday providing assistance for western grain producers. In doing so there are several points I want to mention without trespassing on the ground that has already been covered, and I would also like to reply to some of the comments made from the opposition benches.
The hon. member for Essex East as usual entertained us yesterday when he replied to the announcement by flailing away in all

Supply-Agricu Iture
directions in the jungle of his thoughts. He then proceeded out into the cow pasture where, blissfully ignorant of where he was placing his feet, he proceeded to plod in all directions. He did indicate, however, that he knew something about cow pastures because he did not forget the bull.
I want to say that this measure providing assistance to western farmers is going to materially assist the transformation that today is taking place. The development of agriculture within the past ten years, the changing over from the old type of agriculture into the "agri-business" has required a tremendous amount of capitalization, and before this government came into office very little assistance in this direction had been received from the previous government.
The hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska in many of the speeches he has made in this house, as well as again today, has referred to the Prime Minister's policies in the two election campaigns. I am glad he did that, because if he were to look at the program that was outlined by the Prime Minister in the 1956 and 1957 campaigns he would discover that the policies outlined at that time have, with the exception of a national rural development and soil conservation program, being largely implemented.
The hon. member for Essex East chided the Prime Minister for bringing in these measures, for talking about crop insurance and farm credit and things of that nature. I think it was necessary that this be done in order to indicate the place this particular program fills in the over-all agricultural policy of this country. I do not think it is possible for anyone to point to any particular measure and say that is the cure-all. We have never attempted to do that, but almost invariably when a measure of this nature is brought into this house the criticism which comes from the opposition benches tends to indicate that they believe, regardless of what measure is brought in, that that measure by itself could cure all the problems of agriculture. Each specific measure that is introduced, and there have been many since this government took power, is designed to take care of a particular situation, and when the entire program has been implemented then we will have that degree of parity that the Prime Minister has spoken of during two election campaigns and indeed on many occasions in the past.
I want to thank the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska for assisting us in our argument supporting this assistance to western grain farmers. One thing which I think we must all recognize is that the western grain producer occupies an unique position in the agricultural economy today, in that the greater percentage of his products find their
[Mr. Jorgenson.1
way into the export market. This makes it extremely difficult to apply measures which we have applied to other products largely consumed in the domestic market. This makes it necessary to develop a policy that is unique in attempting to solve the problems of the western grain farmer.
The hon. member pointed out that during the 1959 crop year the income of the farmers in Canada had dropped by $27 million. He strengthened our argument for an acreage payment when he said this, although he neglected to point out that $20 million of that $27 million was in western Canada. In addition, when he referred to the drop in income in the first quarter of this year and the drop of $50 million, $47 million of that amount was again in western Canada. I might also add here that when he referred to that period he was referring in 1959 to the highest quarter in Canadian agricultural history.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there has been a tendency on the part of a good many people to attempt to relate the price stabilization legislation to a means whereby the problem of the cost-price squeeze-and this is the big problem in western Canada today-can be solved. I submit that this is manifestly wrong. Price stabilization was introduced for a specific purpose, to prevent the uncertainties as to income of the farmers of this country. At the time the bill was introduced the prairie producers of wheat, oats and barley were not included under the jurisdiction of the board, and there was a specific reason for that. Price stabilization by itself is designed to level off violent fluctuations in price and to ensure to the farmer that prices will not drop below certain specified levels. The farmers themselves have an opportunity of discussing price levels with the stabilization board.
To attempt to solve the problem of the cost-price squeeze by the use of the price stabilization board could lead us into serious difficulties. First of all, if it is applied to wheat, oats and barley, as I mentioned earlier a large percentage of these products goes into the export market and we would be using money to subsidize exports. As the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday, that would weaken our argument against those countries which are using that type of sales policy today.
In my opinion the problem of the cost-price squeeze can only be dealt with if you base your calculations on the fact that whatever product is produced must be sold. There are those who conveniently ignore this fact, but assuming that whatever is produced in this country must ultimately be sold, then the problem of the cost-price squeeze can only be met with measures designed to reduce the cost of production-and we have taken

many steps in that direction, and to increase our export markets-or, and I hesitate to suggest this last alternative because it is one that I know will be unacceptable to the farmers themselves, through the imposition of production controls. The United States attempted to use this type of rigid price support in order to assure to farmers their fair share of the national income. Subsequently they had to introduce acreage controls, and rather than getting out of their difficulties they increased them. The government are wise in that they have not followed this course in Canada.
Our product, wheat, finds a ready market in the countries of the world because of its superior quality. It is essential-and I think this is where the government does render a great service-to maintain the quality of our grain and make every possible effort to find more markets for it.
Some time ago the Prime Minister announced that our agricultural policy would follow two parallel but separate lines. There was the over-all policy which was designed to take care of the national situation, and then there were policies which would have to be implemented on a regional basis in order to take care of difficulties that arise within various regions of the country. Obviously a program designed to take care of a regional problem cannot possibly help people in another area; therefore our policy has been designed with that object in view, and we have constantly tried to make the policies complementary.
It is useless to have a program of price supports if crop insurance is not implemented along with it, because no amount of price support can be of any possible value to a farmer who has suffered a crop loss. This is true in this particular instance as well, because during the years when farmers were asking for price support and for some assistance in agriculture they did not have the benefit of crop insurance. I am glad to say that the province of Manitoba has taken the lead in this regard, and in my area a trial program has been put into effect. I might also add here that contrary to the predictions of the opposition, who maintained that farmers would not take out insurance policies, in my own municipality 75 per cent of the farmers have taken out crop insurance. This is an indication of how the farmers themselves support the policies of this government, and it must serve as a reminder to the opposition members that when they were on this side of the house and those policies were asked for they would have been wise to implement them at that time-
Supply-Agriculture
Many arguments have been presented with regard to the specific program now before us, and I do not intend to cover the ground again. There is one particular point in regard to the acreage payment that I wish to raise. I hold in my hand a card issued by the Canadian wheat board which represents the interim payment on the 1957 crop, which amounted at that time to 10 cents a bushel. This card was given to me by a farmer when he came to me and pressed for acreage payments. He said "I have no use for this. It will give you a clear indication, however, of how useless deficiency payments would have been to me". This card is from a farmer who farms a section of land near Arnaud, Manitoba. The total amount of his interim payment on a section of land at that time was $1.33. If he had received a deficiency payment of 30 cents a bushel he would have obtained $3.99. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the $200 which each farmer will receive under this program is by far the better method of distributing this amount of money.
I have received many letters from reeves, councillors, farmers and businessmen in my own constituency, and of all the letters I received from individuals not one advocated a system of deficiency payments. I am not suggesting for a moment that the hon. member for Essex East is supporting a program of deficiency payments on western grain, because he studiously avoided making any mention of it yesterday. We shall be waiting with interest to hear what policy, as an alternative to the one the government has now proposed, he would implement.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the government for providing this measure of assistance to the farmers in western Canada and in particular to the farmers in Provencher who, like many farmers across this country, at the present time are using the facilities of the Farm Credit Corporation, crop insurance, cash advances on farm-stored grain, and many of those other programs the government has implemented since it came into power in an attempt to establish more economical units and reduce the cost of production in an effort to meet the cost-price squeeze and to produce for the benefit of the people of this world. I support this measure, Mr. Chairman.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the government has arranged for a large number of its supporters to participate in this debate. That, of course, is a right which must not be denied to any party in this house or to any hon. member; but since this is the decision, hon. members will appreciate, of course, that we in the

Supply-Agriculture
Liberal party are also entitled to put forward some views, which will be done during the course of the day, as we are in committee, and as I say since the government has decided to put up such a large number of speakers.
I should like to put on the record now, so that we shall not forget the circumstances which have led to this particular declaration of policy, those events which over the course of a year and a half have agitated the farmers of western Canada in particular, and the members of this house, who have been anxious to ascertain the policy of the government, based on representations which were first made by some 1,000 farmers who descended on Ottawa on May 10, 1959. It is doubtful whether in Canadian political history any policy of a government had its genesis in an event so long removed from the particular situation at the moment as the circumstances which surround this particular policy.
It will be recalled that 1,000 farmers came to Ottawa seeking to elicit from the government some declaration of policy based on promises which the government had made in 1957 and 1958. In 1958 the government announced the same policy we are now discussing. The farmers were going to receive something not consistent with the declaration of "parity, not charity". They were not going to be given deficiency payments as they had been led to believe from speeches made by members of the government and by supporters of the government. Instead, they were to be-


Douglas Scott Harkness: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question. What members of the government ever made speeches along that line?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Every member of the government who spoke in the election campaign of 1957 and in the election campaign of 1958, including the Minister of Agriculture, gave to the farmers of Canada the impression that they were going to-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. gentlemen, of course, do not like us to take part in debate so they interrupt. They gave the impression that if they were given a chance to form a government they would embark on policies embracing deficiency payments; parity, not charity. They said they were going to give the farmers of western Canada and the farmers of Canada generally a new deal. That was undoubtedly the implication of assurances given by hon. members opposite.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Absolutely incorrect. Neither I nor anybody else ever made any such statement about deficiency payments.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, if you want to detect whether or not a point you are making is effective, all you have to do is listen to the Minister of Agriculture who will continually interrupt, clearly indicating that he recognizes the merit of the proposition made and which offends him.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I only interrupt when something absolutely incorrect is being said.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In 1958 the government came forward with a proposal precisely like the present one. That was its answer to the farmers of western Canada, an answer that was inadequate from their point of view. Because the farmers recognized that the acreage assistance program of 1958 was not in fulfilment of assurances given during the election campaign they organized this mass meeting, which represented not only one farm organization but the other great national farm organizations. They came here and made their submissions in a manner that impressed everyone, because the Prime Minister observed how orderly and constructive they had been. I hold in my hand a booklet entitled "Souvenir, On to Ottawa", issued by the western farm delegation under date of March 10, 1959, a delegation that came to Ottawa in protest over the failure of the government to implement its election promises and to express dissatisfaction with the inadequacy of the government's program as represented by the acreage assistance program of 1958.


Edwin William Brunsden: Will the hon. member permit a question? Does he recall the march to Ottawa in the thirties, when 2,500 western farmers came here to wait on a government of which the hon. member later became a minister? Does he remember the reception that was accorded to that delegation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: All I can say is
that any delegation of farmers that came to see a Liberal government did not have to wait for a year and a half before that Liberal government announced its policy.


Douglas Scott Harkness: They had to wait 22 years and still did not get anything.


Peter Francis Martin: This delegation came to Ottawa and presented its program to the government. It was a four-point program, and the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, in any comment they have made about the representations put forward on March 10, have only referred to one of those requests. It is well that we should put them on the record now, particularly when it would appear that we are going to have an all day debate and so many members from western Canada, as is their right, are going to speak. It is well that we should

have a clear statement of the problem before us. I refer now to page 31 of the booklet, which undoubtedly will some day receive an honoured place in the archives of Canada. The four point program they put forward was as follows:
1.	The first of these is the two-price system for wheat. Under this proposal, wheat sold for human consumption on the domestic market will be priced in relation to the level of the domestic economy ...
2.	We would recommend also that consideration be given to an adjustment payment from the treasury to compensate for the exchange premium of Canadian currency over that of the United States. . .
3.	Farm organizations consider that the cost of carrying grain in commercial storage facilities should be a public responsibility, and not a charge against the farm industry . . .
4.	It has been noted previously that the Canadian farmer is under a severe handicap in the export marketing of wheat as a result of United States subsidized exports policy.
With respect to the last point they conclude with this statement:
Wheat producers recognize the need for the establishment of this policy to hold export flour markets, but they feel it is the responsibility of the Canadian treasury and not of the wheat producer to meet the competition of the United States government.
Hon. gentlemen who have spoken thus far have not referred to any of these requests made by their constituents in western Canada. All they have sought to do today is to indicate that the policy announced by the Prime Minister yesterday is one that attends to the requests and the problems of western agriculture. What they will say to their constituents when they return is, of course, a matter for them to decide, but I suggest that in telling western farmers of this particular policy, now under discussion, they will not be meeting the requests of the farmers of western Canada as submitted to the government in this city on March 10, 1959.
The criticism that we level against the government is not only because of the inadequacy of this present program, but as well because of the way the government of Canada has treated the farmers of western Canada. For over a year and a half it has not been possible to elicit from the government any indication of its reaction to the representations made by the western farmers. The farmers themselves recognized this when shortly after that meeting with the government-I think it was in the month of June-they formed a liaison committee to come to Ottawa to discuss the matter with the government again to see whether a smaller group could prompt the administration into a declaration of policy.
We will remember, that all during the remaining part of the 1959 session, questions were put not by members of the Conservative party but by members of the Liberal
Supply-Agriculture
party and of the group that sits immediately to Mr. Speaker's left. We wanted to know when the government was going to announce its policy or give its reaction to the representations made by the farmers, who came in such large numbers from western Canada. It was not possible to elicit any definite reply, although the Prime Minister did say three or four days before the end of the session of 1959 that the government was giving careful consideration to the matter. He created the impression that some announcement of policy would be made before prorogation. But there was no announcement of policy. So in 1959 there was a denial even of what was done in 1958. No deficiency payments; none of the four points that I have enumerated were recognized; not even this acreage assistance plan was put forward in 1959.
Parliament was reconvened in the month of January, 1960, and it is interesting to look over the record of the attempts that were made by members of the Liberal party to try to ascertain from the government, after eight months, what its policy was in regard to demands made by the western farmers. On the 1st February the hon. member for Moose Mountain, who I believe had to leave the house because of illness in his family, asked a question of the Prime Minister pointing out that a group of representatives of western agriculture met with the cabinet on the previous Saturday, and wanting to know from the government what its reactions were to their proposals. That delegation, headed by Mr. Wesson, asked for the very same things that had been asked in the brief presented on May 10. The Prime Minister's answer to the hon. member for Moose Mountain was that the delegation was advised that a final decision would be announced in parliament within a period of 30 days. The Prime Minister said:
That announcement, of course, will cover not only the whole problem of deficiency payments but as well the several alternatives to which I have made reference.
Then on April 5, 1960 I asked the Prime Minister a question based on an interview given to the Regina Leader-Post on March 5 by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, in which the latter suggested that farm leaders should sit down with the government and discuss alternatives to deficiency payments, such as acreage payments. I asked specifically:
Is it the intention of the government to provide acreage payments this year to farmers in western Canada?
That was on April 5. The Prime Minister's reply, in effect, was this. He referred first of

Supply-Agriculture
all-and I was grateful to him for this reference-to my wide experience in these matters and observed that I would realize that the only appropriate answer would be that this was a matter of government policy to be announced in due course.
Then on April 8 the hon. member for Assiniboia asked:
Can the Prime Minister say why he has refused to see the western farm leaders, and whether an appointment has been made for some later date?
The Prime Minister replied in effect that the only denial of a meeting was that a meeting could not be arranged before the Easter recess. Yet since that time and in spite of this reply by the head of the government of Canada, no meeting was arranged with the western liaison committee.
Then on May 6, I asked the Minister of Agriculture if he was not going to give some reply to some of the questions put to him, particularly as to the government's intention respecting an alternative program such as acreage assistance. The Minister of Agriculture replied that the western farm organizations were asked-and listen to this-to put in writing any alternative to deficiency payments which they wished to discuss with the Prime Minister and the cabinet. Up to date, he said-


Douglas Scott Harkness: So that we would have an opportunity of studying them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And up to date my hon. friend said they had not yet put in any alternative. My comment about that is this. When this government in 1957 and 1958 urged the western farmers to vote for them, they did not say, "We will embark on policies only providing you propose them and only providing, in that event, that we accept them". They said, "Here is what we are going to do; parity, not charity. Give us an opportunity and we will devise policies to assist western agriculture." Yet I asked the Minister of Agriculture on May 18, in effect, if something could be done, although the farmers had not written a letter, had not put in a proposal, and I made the observation, not too many days after that, this represented on the part of the government of Canada a complete abdication of its responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I made the observation that it was not the responsibility of farm organizations to create policy; it was the responsibility of the government of Canada.


Mr. Aiken:: And they did.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We did.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Particularly having given assurances that they would formulate policies. My hon. friend now so weakly says, "We did". He did, in the dying days of this session, only after pressure was put on him day by day by Liberal members of this House of Commons.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Tommyrot.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On May 19 the
hon. member for Assiniboia, whose help in these matters I must acknowledge, put a question to the Minister of Agriculture. He said that the Prime Minister was in error in refusing to readily grant to the farm delegation an interview so they could present these proposals to the government at that time. The Minister of Agriculture said they had not refused to meet the farm organizations; they had not yet sent down the alternative. If that does not represent an abdication of the responsibilities of government, I do not know what words constitute abdication. And to think that it was not possible all during this time for the government to meet with the western liaison committee. The government, of course, in not arranging for this meeting with the western liaison committee gave them and this house, and the people of Canada, the impression that it did not want to meet with the western farmers. But the Minister of Agriculture clearly stated, "They must write us a letter. They must make a proposal, and if they make a proposal we will see them".
Yet what have they done now? They have reversed that process. They themselves have come forward with a proposal and now, after the session is almost through, they are going to meet the farmers. Then on May 24 the member for Laurier put a question to the. Minister of Agriculture:
In view of the denials by some leaders of farm organizations, does the minister wish to modify his statement made in the house last week that the federal cabinet had not received any alternative proposals to deficiency payments from farm groups?
The Minister of Agriculture replied that the liaison committee as a whole did not put in any definite alternative as requested in the reply to them by the Prime Minister of Canada.
Then on June 9 the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River addressed a question to the Prime Minister:
In view of the advanced stage of the session, is he able to report any progress in working out some scheme to provide assistance to the western grain growers in accord with their request?
Little did he anticipate at that time the many weeks that were yet to pass, weeks of inactivity on the part of this government. Here is what the Prime Minister said:

*-a request has come from the liaison committee of the western farm organizations for a meeting with members of the cabinet. Arrangements will be proceeded with at once for the convening of such a meeting at an appropriate time.
That was on June 9. The Prime Minister said that arrangements would be made at once. No arrangements were made; no conference was held with the western farmers. It was only because of the pressure in the last few days that we have had a reversal of the procedures outlined by the Minister of Agriculture and now, in the dying days of this session, we have this declaration of policy, the same as the policy embarked on in 1958.
Then on June 14 the hon. member for As-siniboia addressed a question to the Prime Minister:
Can the Prime Minister inform the house what progress has been made in arranging a meeting between the government and the liaison committee of western farm organizations to discuss western farm income deficiency?
The Prime Minister said:
I think the question would be more appropriately answered by the Minister of Agriculture.
The Minister of Agriculture said:
I have nothing definite I can tell the house at the present moment on that matter.
I do not know that the Prime Minister's suggestion that we could get a definite reply from the Minister of Agriculture proved to be very helpful, but the Prime Minister did succeed that day in having himself relieved of any responsibility for answering a question the reply to which would have been carefully scrutinized by the farmers of western Canada.
On June 24, 10 days later, the hon. member for Assiniboia again put a question to the Prime Minister:
Can the Prime Minister or the Minister of Agriculture inform the house whether the date has now been set for a meeting between the government and the liaison committee of the western farm organizations to discuss deficiency payments, or the government's alternative to that program?
The Minister of Agriculture replied:
The date has not yet been set.
That was the reply of the minister, even though we had been told by the Prime Minister on June 9, that arrangements were going to be proceeded with at once for the convening of such a meeting at an appropriate time. I asked the Minister of Agriculture a question on the same day, June 24:
Does the minister still take the view that before he will arrange to see this delegation the farmers of western Canada must place an alternative proposal in writing before the government?
This is the reply of the Minister of Agriculture:
Mr. Speaker, this has been one of the causes of delay. We asked the western farm organizations
79951-0-493
Supply-Agriculture
to make a definite proposal in writing, but instead they sent a brief which, as I indicated before, reiterated three of the proposals they had made when they attended here in numbers somewhat over a year ago. They also made some reference to acreage payments. Subsequent to that time we have had representations from some of the organizations who are members of the liaison committee indicating that they would like to discuss acreage payments.
Now the government is strengthening its policy of resistance. Up to now, it was only necessary for a proposal to be made in writing by the liaison committee. Now the Minister of Agriculture is suggesting that it should be made by the 10 western farm organizations, forgetting, of course, that in that very reply once again the hon. gentleman was abdicating a responsibility placed on his shoulders when this government was given a mandate on March 31 last.


Douglas Scott Harkness: : This action indicates there has been no abdication at any time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister keeps harping on that. If I were in his place I would not discredit myself in that way, because these interrogations and the responses clearly do not put the minister in the light in which I saw him characterized in a cartoon, as the strong, vigorous, dynamic man from Calgary.
On June 29 I asked leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the necessity of an early meeting between the government and the western farm liaison committee. Hon. members will recall that discussion. This had the advantage of again focusing the public mind on the refusal -the reluctance, at any rate-of this government even to sit down and discuss with the farmers of Canada, whose problems they were going to resolve, matters which were their minds.
On July 7 the hon. member for Assiniboia put a question to the Prime Minister in these words:
Can the Prime Minister say whether a firm announcement of government policy will be made before the conclusion of this session so that in the event of an affirmative decision parliament will be able to vote the required moneys for immediate payment to producers?
The Prime Minister replied:
-I think an announcement-can be expected before the end of the session.
That was the first bit of definiteness in the government's attitude that we were able to see from May 10, 1959. Then I asked the Minister of Agriculture:
Is the minister making arrangements for himself and his colleagues to meet with the liaison committee of western farmers before the end of this session?

S apply-Agriculture
The minister replied:
This matter certainly will be looked after in due course.
That conference still has not taken place. On July 8 the Leader of the Opposition addressed a question to the Prime Minister arising out of a statement made on June 29 by the president of the Saskatchewan farmers' union and the chairman of the liaison committee, who stated that the Prime Minister had said that arrangements would be proceeded with at once for convening a meeting with the western liaison committee. The Leader of the Opposition asked:
May I ask the right hon. gentleman how these arrangements are coming along?
The Prime Minister replied:
-I expect to be in a position early next week to give a full answer to that question.
That was on July 8. Only now, a month later, we were confronted with something definite in the government's policy. Since that time, three different series of questions have been put, one to the Prime Minister and two to the Minister of Agriculture. Last Thursday, I asked the Minister of Agriculture if he was in a position to comment on a story in the Financial Post of last week, to the effect that the government was going to bring forward a program of acreage assistance that would cost approximately $40 million, and that would provide assistance of $1 per acre up to a maximum per individual farmer of $200, and the minister said that an announcement of government policy would be made in due course.


Mr, Harkness:: Surely the hon. member's memory fails him. That is not what I said. I said it was not and never had been customary in this house to comment on newspaper reports.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend corrects that, and I am sure the correction will greatly help the farmers of western Canada.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am just pointing out the hon. member's usual inaccuracy.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend may say I am inaccurate, but one thing I can say about the hon. gentleman is that he is not the kind of man, on the basis of his record over the last year and a half, who displays any regard for an undertaking solemnly accepted by this government. A whole year and a half went by during which parliament and the farmers of western Canada were ignored and treated contemptuously. Parliament was held in contempt in a manner that does not warrant any reference other than to say that this government, until pressed into a policy during the course of the

last few days, had abdicated its responsibility toward the farmers of this country and in this instance particularly the farmers of western Canada.
Hon. gentlemen soon will be returning to their homes. We all know what has happened here in the last few days. Conservative members from western Canada have been complaining to the minister, pointing out that after what had been put forward by hon. members of the Liberal party particularly-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: That is the biggest laugh yet.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and by hon. members in the group to my right, they would be greatly embarrassed in going back to western Canada, unless the government took some definite step one way or another toward meeting the problems that had been projected by the farmers who came here on May 10, 1959. One has only to pick up our newspapers, to note observations made by farm leaders and farmers in Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, complaining about the way this government has treated the representatives of farm organizations.


Mr. Speakman:: Would the hon. member be a little more accurate in his references to newspaper articles.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does my hon. friend want me to refer to them? I have here the Regina Leader-Post of July 14 and the Winnipeg Free Press of June 30.


Mr. Fulton:: Oh, yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of July 20.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh, yes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: All the Liberal press.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have the Edmonton Journal-


Edmund Davie Fulton: What does it say?


Douglas Scott Harkness: What does the Edmonton Journal say?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend the Minister of Justice now comes into the house-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Oh, I have been here for some time listening to the hon. member.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and displays an interest in this question. I will be glad to read what the Edmonton Journal of July 8, says in an article entitled "Cites Farm Unrest Despite Crop Outlook". It reads:
Alberta farmers have prospects of one of the best grain crops in years, but there is little jubilation among them, Ed Nelson, president of the farmers' union of Alberta said Thursday.

"Usually, farmers when they have a nice crop coming on, are jubilant. I didn't see any of this. There is a sense of insecurity and it is an unusual thing."
Mr. Nelson said rejection of the farmers' plan for deficiency payments was the first letdown. Payments would have helped them over the present "adjustment period" when grain is in limited demand.
I thank the Minister of Justice for placing this editorial-


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is Ed Nelson, not the Edmonton Journal.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It continues:
Now the federal cabinet is acting like "petulant children" in delaying a meeting with representatives of the farm groups' liaison committee to discuss acreage payments as an alternative to deficiency payments, he said.
He said he had written a personal letter-


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


James Stanley Speakman: Before the hon. member resumes his seat I hope that in the interests of accuracy-and I am sure the hon. member wishes to be accurate-he would like to change his statement that this was an editorial, or that this was newspaper comment, because what he just quoted represented the comments of an individual.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the hon. gentleman for his statement, and I will now refer to an article which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press, as follows:
The Liberal opposition at Ottawa lost out on Wednesday in its demand to have the question of a meeting between the government and western farm representatives debated in parliament as a matter of urgency. Perhaps the question is not a particularly urgent one for debate. But to prairie farmers it is urgent, none the less; and the federal government's continued and deliberate evasion of the meeting is impossible to justify.


Charles Edward Rea: I remind the hon. member again that his time has expired.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was answering a question, Mr. Chairman. I would want you to know that I was simply seeking to satisfy the hon. member for Wetaskiwin, who wanted an editorial opinion, and I am sure that if I had gone on even you would have found it increasingly interesting.


Edwin William Brunsden: My major object in participating in this debate is to assure all comers of this house-although I know one corner is not very well occupied-that this measure which the government is now putting forward arises from the thinking of western members of parliament representing agrarian areas.
The hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat used one word very prolifically. That word was "liaison". I began to count the
79951-0-493J
Supply-Agriculture
number of times the hon. member used it but I lost count. He used it several dozen times and I would like to say to him through you, Mr. Chairman, that there is a form of liaison with respect to western agriculture of which he is probably unaware, and that is the liaison that exists between a western Conservative member and the farmers he represents. That, to me, is the highest quality of liaison because it dismisses the political football; you get away from the record and you are not speaking for the record, but sounding the minds of the individual farmers. Those of us who have been here since the beginning of this parliament have had the opportunity-* it is lessened this year-of returning home and talking to our own people, and as we talk to our own people we find that their thinking is reflected in our actions, or perhaps I should put that in reverse, and say that our actions are reflections of their thinking.
This question of a solution to the western wheat problem is not an easy one. This government did not create the problem, and in all fairness let me say the preceding government did not create it. Our problem in the three prairie provinces is one that arises from world conditions. We faced a situation during two world wars when every possible acre in western Canada was seeded to wheat at the behest of the government of the day, and properly so, because after all wheat did play an important part in winning two world wars. Nevertheless, after the last war ended we found ourselves in the very difficult position of having an expanded acreage capable of tremendous production still producing in the face of entirely new conditions throughout the world.
Someone said here the other day that last year the Russians exported into markets formerly shared by Canada some 40 million bushels of wheat. There is our problem. The hon. member for Drummond-Artbabaska today cited certain countries which have developed their wheat production to a greater extent each year. There again is part of our problem. Today we are in a state of flux with respect to wheat and perhaps with respect to agriculture generally. We are still suffering from the economic aftermath of wartime production.
Let me say to you, sir, that the position of a prairie member of parliament with regard to this problem, as with regard to other problems, is not an easy one. Our colleague from Vancouver East, who may have taken the train for the west early this afternoon, said yesterday, that he found himself in the position of speaking not necessarily as the hon. member for Vancouver East but as a member for all Canada. Those of us

Supply-Agriculture
who are discussing wheat here today are in a very similar position; we must think in terms of the Canadian economy and we do so. Though we have all the sympathy in the world for our own people, we come to the realization that perhaps the easy solution, the solution which the hon. member for Essex East has stressed this afternoon, is not possible. We are accused sometimes, as western members of parliament, of lacking sympathy for the western farmer. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our thoughts and our words are continuously directed toward the problems of our own people, and I should like to put on the record-that is a favourite term in this house-the statement that, since the days of the Ginger group headed by my highly respected friend Bob Gardiner, this House of Commons with respect to western problems, has never had a more devoted body of servants than the members of the Conservative party sitting in this chamber today.
Yesterday the Prime Minister in his introductory remarks with respect to this estimate said there was a need to recognize our Canadian regional problems. We do recognize them, and they are many. The coal miner in Nova Scotia has a problem; the hard rock miner in Ontario has a problem; the fisherman in Newfoundland has a problem, and so has the lumberman in British Columbia. Today we are discussing a regional problem in connection with wheat. So far the debate seems to have evolved around the question of deficiency payments versus wheat acreage payments.
Let me say that all of us from western Canada would appreciate the injection into the western economy of $320 million in the form of deficiency payments if this were possible. Unfortunately the Canadian economy does not permit this. Some of us have been here only a very short time, but we have learned some lessons, and one of the lessons I have learned is that there is nothing easier in the House of Commons than to spend the national revenue if you have no responsibility for the spending.
I should like to see deficiency payments paid, but I am firmly convinced it is not in the best interest of all Canadians to pay them on the basis of the representations made by the western committee, however much that committee may be supported by the hon. member for Essex East.
It is idle to say that the march to Ottawa in May of 1959 had no effect. It had a great effect. It had an effect on the thinking of all of us here. I would say as an observer that the birth of the wheat acreage payment

policy, which I uphold, was in part consequent upon the representations made by the western farmers.
We heard yesterday and to some extent today the trade mark "hand-outs". The deficiency payment on the scale advocated would have been a hand-out. This wheat acreage payment in my opinion is not in the same category. We have heard a great deal about the fair share of the national income, and this government has been criticized for its failure to give to the farmers their fair share which, it was claimed, was promised. Let me say to the hon. member for Essex East, with regard to his very pointed barbs concerning the last election, that so far as I am concerned representing a rural riding I made no promises of a fair share of the national income. I made no promises concerning deficiency payments, and I am prepared to go back to my constituents and stand on the record I stood on in 1958, which was that I would represent them, having some knowledge of their problems, to the best of my ability.
I have the feeling that most of us here from the prairies were elected on the same basis. When you pour into the western economy the sum of $80 million, $40 million under the preceding policy and $40 million under this, you are going a long way toward closing the gap between cost and selling price. I would say that this government is to be applauded for the policy it has adopted and for the extent to which this expenditure has been extended.
The hon. member for Essex East-I of course bow to his tremendous fund of knowledge with respect to agriculture; I think it is akin to my knowledge of the automotive industry-took advantage of the opportunity today to criticize the government for the lateness of this approach to this problem. Those of us who reside in western Canada know that some time around April or May you seed the crop and some time around September or October, if you are fortunate, you reap a harvest. The crop at this season of the year is fairly well indicated.
There are tremendous areas in the prairie provinces which have been ravaged by drought. There are others which have been hit by hail. Mr. Chairman, I say that the appropriate time for the announcement of this policy was not last month or the month before, or next month or the month after, but now. Now is the time the western farmer would like to know what measure of support he is going to get from his government, and I am very grateful to the Prime Minister for making it possible for him to know that
now.

I regret the absence today of the hon. member for Assiniboia. In previous debates he has characterized this policy as peanuts. I would be very interested in hearing his comments with respect to this measure, but of course he is advancing his own personal political fortunes elsewhere. Let me relate this policy to my own particular area. I am not now referring to my constituency of Medicine Hat but to my home territory in the eastern irrigation district. We have some 1,400 farmers. They are all farmers with 200 acres or a little better. This policy means pouring into my home locality upwards of a quarter of a million dollars.
Mr. Chairman, that is not peanuts. That is not peanuts for the reason that at the time we did this in 1958 I had merchant after merchant, tradesman after tradesman and municipal authorities tell me how much the entire community had benefited because the farmer had some money to spend. The sum of half a million dollars among 1,400 farmers pays a lot of taxes and a lot of store bills, and I am sure this measure, in my area at least-and 1 am sure this is the general situation-will be greatly appreciated.
We have heard a lot from the Liberal opposition concerning the meagreness of the policy and the delay of the policy. I ask myself sometimes what was the comparable situation when they were in power. I cannot recall any direct assistance to the western farmers by the former government. I can recall a very famous statement made by the prime minister of that government at one time, when he said there was not one five-cent piece for certain sections of the farmers of western Canada, and they did not get that five-cent piece.
We have a situation today where more money has been devoted to agriculture in Canada than ever before in our history. We have a situation today where the position of the western farmers is closely studied day by day by men who live in that area and who know something of it. So I say in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture, and the members of the treasury benches certainly have my wholehearted support and applause with respect to this policy.


Mr. Rapp:: Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to rise and speak on behalf of the farmers I represent, and to express my gratitude to the Prime Minister for introducing this measure which will provide $42 million in acreage payments. The opposition has tried very hard to minimize and belittle this sum of money, but I can say to you, Mr. Chairman, that to my constituency and to the locality where I live this will mean that
Supply-Agriculture
approximately $40,000 to $50,000 will be paid to the farmers. In my locality $40,000 or $50,000 means very much to many farmers, and more farmers will be able to pay their taxes and put money into the economy of this district.
The hon. member for Essex East has tried to belittle this payment and say that our government has failed to consult with the liaison committee. May I draw his attention to another time in 1946, when the government of that day failed to consult the farm organizations when they made the deal with Britain whereby western Canada-and I stress western Canada-lost $500 million. At that time the wheat pools and the federation of agriculture insisted that they be heard on the matter, but as the records of 1946 indicate the then minister of trade and commerce stated that the pools were not consulted as to the price and the quantity of wheat which was sold to Britain at 50 cents cheaper than the world market price at that time.
I know the farmers did not say very much at that time because they knew they had to help Britain after the war, but the government in charge should have taken upon themselves the responsibility of making these payments on behalf of Canada, not on behalf of the western farmers. It was at that time that the farmers should have marched to Ottawa and demanded the payment of that $500 million.
The hon. member for Essex East said that the acreage payment was a direct relief measure. It is far from a relief measure. As the Prime Minister said when he introduced this measure, it is to be the payment to western grain producers of an amount on wheat used for human consumption in Canada distributed on the basis of $1 per acre to the amount of $42 million. In other words it is the inauguration of the two-price system that we have advocated over the years. Every western member in the house has advocated the two-price system. In my first speech I said that the two-price system is the only remedy that is satisfactory to the western farmers. We know that because of world conditions and trade conditions that exist at the present time we cannot tell our customers overseas what they will pay for our wheat, but we should have the privilege of establishing the selling price of wheat used domestically. Therefore in this regard I would say that this is not a relief measure, it is not a handout, it is a just payment to the western wheat producers.
Just two or three days ago the hon. member for Essex East said that he would support me in every measure I put forward having to do with another grain. I should like to ask him to support me in this measure also.

Supply-Agriculture


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think I would support the hon. gentleman in almost anything, because he is the kind of man who sometimes deserves support.


Reynold Rapp: I know he is going to refer to a speech I made when I talked about rape-seed. I do not think the hon. member knew anything about rapeseed until I came here. From the remarks he made I would judge that he thought I was talking about an item that should come under the Criminal Code. However, 1 would like to thank the hon. member for his support.
I welcome this opportunity to speak on behalf of my farmers and in support of the measure that has been introduced by the Prime Minister to alleviate some of the hardship the farmer is going through. This would have been a very good measure four or five years ago before we even had the cash advances because, as I said before, $200 would have helped to pay for the gas, the oil and sometimes even the taxes. Now that we have another measure, namely cash advances, we are able to get some money on the grain that we are unable to deliver to the elevator.
In conclusion I would express the hope that as time goes on this payment of $42 million on an acreage basis will be something that we shall see year after year.


Mr. Simpson:: Mr. Chairman, with reference to this very welcome announcement by the Prime Minister in regard to acreage payments I should like to say it is my belief that a payment of this nature is not only quite justified at this time but will be greatly appreciated. I say this because I am very well aware of the fact that the farmers appreciated the measure in 1958, and I am quite sure they will feel the same way about it this time.
I am well aware of the difficulties facing the people of the agricultural areas of western Canada, and of the fact that the problems which are facing them certainly are not of recent origin. Those problems have prevailed for a number of years, and it is my belief that it is only in the past three years that constructive efforts have been made to arrive at satisfactory solutions.
It is my opinion, as I said before, that the payments which were made in 1958 on an acreage basis were generally very well received in the area which I represent, namely the area of Swan River in Manitoba, which contains around 2,500 farmers. I think myself that the opposition parties must be of the same belief, because we have had a tremendous amount of criticism in the house over the fact that the payments were not made last year. Worthy assistance of this

nature, I believe, is in the category of an extensive regional interest. Therefore it is somewhat improper, probably, for a representative to look on it merely in the light of how it might affect his particular area. I think representatives, therefore, must evaluate this measure in relation to the extent of the aid which will result in the agricultural areas all across western Canada. The sum of $42 million being put into the economy of western Canada, particularly at this time, will be of tremendous assistance. The results of this $42 million, as other members have said, will be apparent not only in the west but will fan out into all parts of Canada.
During the past year I had the opportunity to speak to a number of people from many parts of the west, and I must say that I found them particularly pleased with the acreage payments of 1958. Many problems have confronted the western grain growers over the past number of years, and one of the solutions to the cost-price squeeze which they are faced with is a greater return to the farmer for his produce, as well, of course, as concentrated efforts to increase our export trade. The measure we are discussing today is very closely associated with higher returns to the grain growers for the grain which they produce.
As far as the Department of Trade and Commerce is concerned, it is quite evident to me that the record of the past three years greatly overshadows the export figures of the three previous years as far as the export of wheat is concerned. I am convinced that the Department of Trade and Commerce is not only vitally interested in the job of increasing Canada's wheat sales, but is also doing something about it.
The hon. member for Essex East spent the better part of half an hour presenting one complaint and one complaint only. He complained about the delay in bringing this measure forward. There again I would say that he must be in favour of it when he criticizes the government for delaying its introduction. I did not hear him give his opinions in this regard.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not through yet.


Robert Simpson: I take it that he, along with other hon. members, is in favour of this measure. Whatever this government has done in the past for western agriculture has been met with howls of criticism from the opposition that it was inadequate and not enough. I should like briefly to mention one or two of the things this government has done since taking office in Ottawa. I should like to mention some of the legislation that has been

passed in support of agriculture. The list includes the Agricultural Stabilization Act, cash advances on grain, the Farm Credit Act, the Crop Insurance Act, amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, increased payments under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, amendments to the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the implementation of some of the recommendations made by the commission which inquired into the distribution of railway box cars, sharing in the cost of freight for the movement of fodder and livestock, acreage payments in 1958 and again this year, and contributions to the provinces for unharvested grain in the crop year of 1959-60. Expenditures under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act have also been increased under this administration.
I should like to put a few figures on the record in relation to the measures I have just mentioned. I do not want to clutter up the record with a lot of figures, so I will simply give the total expenditure by the previous government with respect to agriculture in the years 1954 to 1956 inclusive. Money provided by the previous government to support agriculture during that period totalled $272,200,350. Money provided by the present administration during the past three years in support of agriculture totals $556,909,734. If we take a close look at these figures we will see the amount for the last three years is more than double that spent by the previous government in the preceding three years.
To come back to the subject now before the house, acreage payments, it is my firm belief that this measure can in no way be construed as a hand-out. I am certain that the farmers will not look upon it as such, and will make very good use of this most necessary assistance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Wetaskiwin asked me to refer to editorial opinion, and I had been reading an editorial from the Winnipeg Free Press of June 30 when the chairman properly reminded me that my time had expired. I now wish to continue so the record will be complete and the hon. gentleman's question will have been fully met. The editorial continues:
It is equally Impossible to justify the silly excuse that the government offers for failing to meet the western farm committee. Having refused to grant the committee's demands for deficiency payments, the government asked the western farm organizations to submit alternative ways in which they believed the government could effectively help farmers. The farm groups replied by forwarding four alternative proposals to deficiency payments; three of these had been contained in the original submission to Ottawa but had not been commented upon by the government. The fourth was the suggestion that acreage payments, similar to those
Supply-Agriculture
made by Ottawa in 1958 up to a maximum of $200 per farmer, be made. In making the latter proposal, the brief noted that the idea of acreage payments was the government's own and that the farm committee would be willing to discuss them as an alternative.
Apparently in Mr. Diefenbaker's eyes the fact that acreage payments originally were suggested by the government disqualifies them as an alternative proposal to deficiency payments. Nothing at all has been said about the three other proposals. Instead, Mr. Diefenbaker has stoutly maintained, as he did on Wednesday, that the farm committee has failed to submit alternative proposals, and as soon as this is done the government will meet the committee "without a moment's delay".
This is the final paragraph, Mr. Chairman:
This doubletalk and shilly-shallying is netting the Conservative government no good will on the prairies.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Is that the Free Press?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a purely objective statement, of course.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thought the Prime Minister would be interested in it, since the hon. member who asked the question has left the chamber.
Perhaps after the Conservative debacle in Saskatchewan on June 8 he has already written off western Canada and does not care how much he antagonizes prairie farmers. What they should do now is redraft their alternative proposals in clear and unmistakable language-and wait to see what Mr. Diefenbaker does then.
I gather from the Prime Minister's reaction that he saw this editorial, when it came out, and so was familiar with it, but I was putting it on the record not in answer to a question by him but in answer to a question by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin.
Several hon. members have spoken, Mr. Chairman, and have commented in their good-natured way on my interest in these problems. I frankly say that I naturally do not have the knowledge that hon. gentlemen opposite have, because this is something that vitally concerns them. However, as a member of the house, I will say that I believe it is the duty of every member to be concerned not only about problems that affect his own constituency and his own area but problems that affect Canadians generally. I should have thought it was in that spirit that hon. gentlemen would have welcomed me as one of the participants in a discussion which they regard as so important.
I must exclude from this implied criticism the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort, who has recognized my participation in a manner that causes me to be very grateful to him, in return for which I give my assurance that I will continue to join with him in representations to the Minister of Agriculture hoping that as a result we may get the minister to

Supply-Agriculture
appreciate the problem of rapeseed more pointedly than he apparently has.
It is not a question, Mr. Chairman, whether or not we are in favour of the particular proposal now before us. The complaint I have registered thus far is over the government's handling of this problem, since it was first presented by the farmers on the 10th March, 1959. I have made my points in that connection. I have indicated how, following persistent inquiries of the ministry, we were not able until very recently to get any definite statement of policy. We now have had a reversal of procedure. The government has no longer insisted on the western farmers submitting written proposals before the government would take action. That was the position taken by the Minister of Agriculture. He said that only when the farmers had proposed something in writing would it be possible for the government to formulate a policy.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I never took any such position. There is no use in making such a statement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, I have repeated the minister's own words from Hansard.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You have put an interpretation on them that is not justified.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We will come back to that in the next speech I make in the committee stage, but now I propose to deal with something else. However, we will be able to establish once again precisely what the minister said. The Prime Minister has clearly indicated that the government has not announced a policy as the result of written submissions by the farmers of Canada. Rather, he has said that this policy has been arrived at by the government itself, and that now that the policy has been decided upon what the farmers of Canada have been denied up to now will be accorded them after the session, when the government will meet representatives of the western farmers.
What we are saying about this program is that it falls short of what the government said it would do for the farmers of western Canada. I may say that in agreeing to and supporting assistance for the farmers of western Canada, those of us who come from eastern Canada are not thereby suggesting that the farmers of eastern Canada do not have problems. We have brought this to the attention of the house and to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture from time to time. These problems await attention. I suspect that I can count on the support of western members with regard to problems in my own area, for instance, and in so far

as these affect agriculture in eastern Canada, just as they have been able to count on us in helping them to finally extricate from the government a policy that will be of some assistance-


John George Diefenbaker: Extricate from the government?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, extricate; to pull out, to prod, to urge. The government has required that kind of prodding. It is like pulling a tooth that is carefully embedded in the jawbone.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is extract, not extricate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Extricate is the word I used.


Mr. Jones:: Extricate is the word you use for trying to get out of your own difficulty.


Peter Francis Martin: The hon. member for Saskatoon would perhaps warrant and justify his presence here if, instead of an interjection like that, he were to join with me in urging the government to implement the promises it made to the farmers of western Canada.
I say that this program is inadequate. A dollar an acre means very little in relation to the farmer's budget and to the costs that he has to pay. Yesterday the Prime Minister acknowledged in a statement that there was a rise in production costs. The minister may say all that he wants to say about the comparative position of the net income of farmers over the years; but he neglects continually to point out, as the Prime Minister frankly acknowledged yesterday, that farm costs have gone up. The minister, I think, still persists in the dream he had last year, that he had resolved, as a result of his policies, the problems involved in the cost-price squeeze in which the farmer finds himself.
I say that this policy of one dollar per acre for one year is inadequate to meet the problems facing certain groups of farmers in western Canada. I propose to show that, on the basis of the table which the Minister of Agriculture laid before us this morning. As a matter of fact, the dollar an acre related to the average yield is, I am sure the Minister of Agriculture will admit, a relatively small sum of money. If it is related to the crop yield per acre it would be about five cents a bushel. If it is related to the fact that it is paid on all the acres that are cultivated it could mean between 10 and 15 cents per bushel. That is what it means.
It is a temporary measure. We do not know that it is going to be embarked on next year. It was dropped in 1959. It was put forward in 1958. We do not know from the

government whether or not there is any permanency in this program. We do not know that the farmers came to Ottawa in May of 1959 in protest-


James Stanley Speakman: March of 1959.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -against this very program. What did I say?


James Stanley Speakman: "May".


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank my hon. friend for correcting me on this inconsequential. It is doubtful if this will help the small farmer. Anyone who has a medium sized farm or a big farm will get the maximum payment, but the small farmer will get less than $200, as this table shows that I propose to analyse. No wonder, then, that the president of the Manitoba farmers union said in 1959 that this was an inadequate measure.
The minister tabled this morning a document, or two pages entitled, "Specified acreage groups as shown in wheat board delivery permits", and he was kind enough to send a copy over for our scrutiny. In this table these are six columns. The first column indicates the specified acreage groupings; the second, the number of permits; the third, the average acreage per permit; and the last three columns the average acreage of cereal crops, wheat, oats and barley.
The minister pointed out that the number of permits in the specified acreage groupings from zero to 299 acres represented roughly, I think he said, half-


Douglas Scott Harkness: No; 125,000 out of 225,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: One hundred and twenty five thousand out of 225,000. In the case of those with from zero to 99 acres there were 20,323 permits. In the case of those of 100 to 199 acres, 55,745 permits. In the specified acreage grouping 200 to 299 acres, 48,598. Then in addition to that, those in the 300 to 399 acres total 32,988. Those with 400 to 499 acres, 23,820. Those with 500 to 599 acres, some 13,495. So there is no doubt that those people in the acreage from zero to 599 do represent the substantial portion of the number of permits. It is interesting to note that when you get to those with 1,000 to 1,999 acres the number of permits are 6,053. Then when you get over 1,999, the number of permits drops.
The last figure that the minister gives is for those with a specified acreage grouping of 8,000 to 8,999 acres, where the number of permits is six. This makes a total of 224,717 permits. But the interesting fact is in the last three columns, and those are figures that the minister did not comment on at all. They tell the story of inadequacy. They point out the inadequacy, the insufficiency and inequity of this whole program.
79951-0-494
Supply-Agriculture
There is no doubt that those with a large acreage will benefit, because their average acreage wheat crop will take them over the 200-acre mark. There is no doubt that they will get the $200. But it is significant that the number of permit holders in the specified acreage groupings from zero to 599 acres- the six groups mentioned in the first column -will not get as much as $200. This is worth analysing.
Let us first of all look at the zero to 99 acres category. The average acreage permit is 66; the average acreage of cereal crops is, for wheat, 15. That means those gentlemen, whoever are in that class, will get $15.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member will permit me, I think I had perhaps better set him straight, because evidently he has not understood this program in spite of the fact that we have been talking about it all day so far.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Do not make a speech.


Douglas Scott Harkness: And he did not understand-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. gentleman wants to ask a question, let him do so. I do not want him to make a speech in my speech.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I want to prevent you making a terrible mistake.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, ask me a question.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is not a matter of asking a question. The payment is made for every cultivated acre.


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That will be for every cultivated acre. That makes it even worse. Look at the number in oats. Does the minister mean a farmer will get assistance for wheat, oats and barley and not just for wheat?


Douglas Scott Harkness: For summer fallow, too.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the case of oats, a farmer with 0.99 acres, 15 wheat, 14 oats, 11 barley-


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member just does not understand.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister says I do not understand. I understand it only too well, and I have caught the minister out on his own table. It is because of that the minister understandably is embarrassed in the presence of three of his colleagues and particularly the Prime Minister.
Then, we take the second one, 100 to 199 acres, 37 wheat, 24 oats and 23 barley, and so on down the line. It is clear that a large

Supply-Agriculture
percentage of farmers will not get the maximum amount. That is something the minister did not mention this morning, something I think shows that this program is designed to assist not only those who need it, and those in a limited way, but those who do not need it and who are nevertheless going to get the maximum amount. That is undeniable in any examination of these figures. I ask the minister when I have finished to say that that is wrong.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Ask him a question now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will let my hon. friend ask me a question now but I do not want him to make a speech. That is a habit of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and I do not want the Minister of Agriculture to get into that habit. I hope he will examine this problem.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: May I ask the
hon. gentleman a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will be glad to accept a question from the hon. member.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Has my hon. friend ever carefully examined a farmer's permit book?


Paul Joseph James Martin: A farmer's what?


An hon. Member:: He does not know what one is.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have not examined a western farmer's permit book.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not know what is so special about that. I have indicated that I cannot pit my knowledge against that of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. He is one of those men who has not only a specialized knowledge of the problems of his particular area but he knows the world including the Arctic. I am just one of those ordinary men-


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: Very ordinary.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -who has a
limited knowledge but a great zeal to try and understand the problems of all my fellow Canadians.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Would the hon. member permit another question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would inform the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, if he would take his seat and be patient, that one reason why the farmers of western Canada are so exercised over the conduct of this government is because of the series of speeches made by the hon. gentleman during Easter week when he led them

to believe two things: first, that there would be a meeting with the western liaison committee and the government almost forthwith-[DOT] as soon as he returned to Ottawa he would arrange that-and, second, that there would be some policy, likely one of acreage assistance, rapidly brought into being. That was in April or whenever Easter was this year.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Would the hon. member answer this question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the minister mind just allowing me to finish this observation which is in the nature of a castigation of the hon. gentleman?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Has the hon.
member ever seen an eastern farmer's permit book?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If my hon. friend had my knowledge of eastern agriculture he would not ask a question like that.


John George Diefenbaker: He certainly would not.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely I have satisfied my hon. friend on that point. May I say this. The hon. member for Provencher mentioned this and he is the only one other than the Prime Minister who did. The hon. member for Provencher referred to the progress that was being made in the matter of crop insurance in the province of Manitoba. The Prime Minister yesterday, realizing the inadequacy of this program, realizing that it was a bagatelle, realizing that the government had been forced into a situation, I am sure much to the horror of the Minister of Finance, in which it had to put forward its best step-and in order to do that it could not have got out to western Canada at this time the suggestion that its policy in answer to the western farmers who came here 1,000 strong was merely this acreage assistance plan-the Prime Minister mentioned a number of things that the government had done and a number of things it was going to do. One of the things it had done was to introduce crop insurance.
I say that the inclusion of that, in the Prime Minister's statement yesterday and its endorsation by the hon. member for Provencher, shows the weakness of the government's policy because as we pointed out to the government last year, the extent of federal contributions in that federal crop insurance plan was of such a level as not to warrant one province agreeing to participate in the scheme, yet the Prime Minister referred to it yesterday as part of a grand program of attack by this government to try to improve conditions confronting the western farmer.
If it was proper to mention that and other things in the Prime Minister's statement and

if there was justification for the hon. member for Provencher referring to crop insurance today, there is an obligation on the part of this government to explain why, after a year, not one province has wholly gone into the scheme. When the crop insurance plan was announced by the Minister of Agriculture it was announced with all the fanfare that attends great and small declarations of policy by this government.
It was indicated at that time that the crop insurance scheme would not encourage provincial participation because of the limited character of the federal contribution and the widespread opportunity given to provincial governments to impose on individual farmers a greater share than they can economically bear in support of the crop insurance scheme. Let the government tell the committee now what progress it has made with British Columbia, with Alberta, with Saskatchewan, with Ontario, with Quebec-


Mr. Valade:: Ask Mr. Lesage.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There may be some hope now with a new government there. Let the government tell the committee now what progress it has made with New Brunswick, with Nova Scotia, with Prince Edward Island. The minister has said not a word about this all session. In fact this government has not brought forward any new policy this session, although we have had repeated indications from hon. members who come from western Canada in the throne speech debate, in the budget debate, in written and in oral questions as to the state of agriculture in western Canada and in Canada generally.
The government has brought forward no new policy. It has not even given a report on old policy. We would like to know from the Minister of Agriculture now-and this would be something that would really assist the western farmer and farmers in all parts of Canada-what progress has been made. Is Ontario likely to come into the scheme? Is Saskatchewan? Is Alberta, my hon. friend's own province?
These are answers that will give some substance to the suggestion that this government has a policy with regard to assisting the farmers of Canada. The fact is this. Like on so many other fronts this government, having promised more than any reasonable human being has a right to promise, having been confronted with the reaction to those promises, face to face with the economic problems of the country, just does not know where to turn. For that reason for over a year and a half the Minister of Agriculture and his colleagues have been resourceful in finding ways and means of postponing any definite 79951-0-494i
Supply-Agriculture
reply to the farmers of Canada. Not only is that true of western farmers but it is true of promises made to other groups.
The Minister of Agriculture may rise after I have finished and point out that I have made a mistake on some point, and if I have -and I suspect that I may have-I will be the first to admit it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am sure of it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But I will say this. I will pit my zeal and my desire to do something to assist the western farmer against what my hon. friend promised and has failed to do. In this policy before the committee now, a policy involving a total expenditure of $40 million-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Of $42 million.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Prime
Minister said $41 million yesterday. The cost of the program in 1958 was $40 million. Undoubtedly the expenditure of that sum of money is bound to be of value. We all welcome any assistance that will be given to those farmers in western Canada who need assistance.
But let there be no mistake about this: this program is not going to help all the farmers in western Canada. It is going to be of some assistance to some of them, perhaps to a great number of them, but it is also going to be of assistance to farmers with large acreages who do not need this kind of assistance. I ask the Minister of Agriculture, now that we are soon to prorogue, to take a good holiday; to examine his record to date and to place alongside that record the promises of his government; to prepare a balance sheet and, next session, to act forthwith without waiting for prodding by members of the opposition, without waiting to be compelled to give answers, in a way which will reflect a dynamic approach, consistent with an effort of the kind which the Prime Minister in particular and other members on the government side said they were going to make to solve the problems facing agriculture at this its most critical period.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think I should attempt at once to save from himself my honourable, learned, but non-agricultural friend from Essex East. The hon. member for Essex East quite evidently, in spite of the fact that we had a program of this kind in 1958 which was debated here for a long time, both at the time it was going through and afterwards, and the fact that we have been discussing this particular matter all day and that it was explained by the Prime Minister yesterday and explained by myself and by several other members of this party today, still has no conception whatever of what the estimate

Supply-A griculture
calls lor and what the program is. He took this break-down and the number of permit holders and looked at it and said that the people who were in the first bracket amounted to 20,323 with 99 acres of cultivated land with on the average 15 acres of wheat, so they would only get $15.
This indicates no understanding of the program at all. The program provides, as indicated in the printed estimates which I think the hon. gentleman has before him, that payments would be made on a basis of $1 per cultivated acre up to a maximum of 200 acres per farmer. The specified acreage of crop, that is the cultivated acreage, is laid down in the wheat board act and is as appears in the farmer's permit book. That is why the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources asked the hon. member for Essex East whether he had ever seen one of these permit books.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Have you ever seen one?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have one. As a matter of fact, I deliver grain on it every year.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thought you were a hog producer.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I also have a permit book and I deliver wheat from time to time. There are several of our farmers in the west who do not concentrate all their efforts on wheat or on hogs. We have a somewhat diversified operation.
At all events, the hon. member for Essex East seems to have missed the whole point of the program, that these payments would be made of $1 up to a maximum of 200 acres, so then these 20,323 people will receive an average of $66 each because that is the average acreage they have.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Did you say $66?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes. Then the next group would receive an average of $144.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That's not $200 either.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No. The payment is $1 an acre up to a maximum of $200. As I said earlier, you take the first three of these groups which constitutes 125,000 people out of 250,000 and they will receive over half of all the money paid out and they constitute the smaller farmers in western Canada. The program which the hon. member has been advocating all along, that of deficiency payments so-called, would have meant that these two groups would have received less than 15 per cent of the total amount of the money paid, and with the third group added around

22 to 26 per cent, the bigger farmers getting the remainder. That is what the hon. gentleman has been advocating.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Now that the minister has been good enough to make this correction, I put it to him right now that on those figures 76,071 holders of permits will receive less than $200.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh well, is that not a complete vindication of the argument
I made?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, it has nothing to do with it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You did not know what argument you were making. Through you, Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. member that he did not know what argument he was making and that he did not understand the scheme. This is a scheme designed to give the maximum amount of assistance we can without giving an outright flat grant of the same amount to everybody in the country of a sum of $200. There is a good reason for this. There are a lot of these smaller farms on which the farming operation is a part-time operation. There has to be some regard paid to the amount of land under cultivation. Some of these small farmers are people who have perhaps only five or six acres under cultivation. But the hon. member apparently thinks there should be just a flat payment made to everybody who holds a permit book or something along those lines.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not so.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Now usually when the hon. member for Essex East is speaking, if anybody interrupts him or asks leave to ask a question he immediately goes into a tirade about an attempt being made to stop him speaking, but now when someone else speaks the hon. member keeps muttering continually.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am very sorry, it is only my enthusiasm.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. gentleman's enthusiasm seems to run away with him continually.
Then the hon. member went on to accuse me of not having said that all farmers would not get the maximum amount. I certainly stated it. I indicated it in the table which I placed on record in Hansard. I said the majority of the smaller farmers would get the maximum amount, but not all of them. There was never any question about that.

The hon. member went on to talk about crop insurance. Crop insurance has nothing whatever to do with this matter but he did ask several questions on the subject, so I would inform him that Saskatchewan last year passed legislation providing for crop insurance and set up a crop commission or an organization along those lines to put a scheme into operation. Then if the hon. member has been reading his local newspapers he would have seen that the Ontario government has been holding public hearings on crop insurance in his own part of the country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Just a while ago he was saying that Ontario is having nothing to do with it. Yet right in his own part of the country they are holding these hearings to investigate the need for crop insurance. Alberta has shown an interest in it and British Columbia has also shown an interest. Certainly there is a good deal of interest in crop insurance. When I introduced the bill in the house the hon. member may recall I said that although interest at that time in some parts of Canada might be limited I was sure it would grow, and it is growing, as I indicated at that time.
The hon. member went on to talk about Conservative promises in relation to agriculture. I defy him to produce any piece of campaign literature which we put out in 1957 or 1958 dealing with agriculture and containing a definite promise with regard to agriculture which has not been carried out.
In 1957-58 we brought out our program for agriculture. I have not got it here but it consisted of nine or ten points, and all of those things except one have been carried out. That one was the establishment of a forage bank in the prairie provinces, but the only province which has shown any interest to date is Saskatchewan and any scheme along that line has not been implemented. But every other one of those things we promised to agriculture in our agricultural program of 1957 has been carried out.
While I am on my feet perhaps I had better deal with some of the other criticisms which the hon. member for Essex East made in the first instalment of his remarks today. He said the members of the government had made speeches in the last election campaign to the effect that deficiency payments on western wheat, oats and barley would be paid. I defy him to produce any proof of that whatever. He said that the Minister of Agriculture had said that. The Minister of Agriculture never made any statement of that kind at any election meeting and no other member of the government made any
Supply-Agriculture
such statement to my knowledge. That is pure fabrication, or perhaps I should say imagination, on the part of the hon. member for Essex East.
He also spoke about four alternatives which the western farm delegation proposed in addition to the so-called deficiency payments, but he did not read what the heading was. This is the heading on the brief that the western farm delegation submitted: "Other measures which can be used to limit the need for deficiency payments". They were putting forward these suggestions, which, if they were put into effect, might limit the need, as they saw it, for deficiency payments.
The most important of these, the one which was designed to give the most money to western farmers, was the institution of a two-price system for wheat. The present payments look after that and it is just another means of doing it. The matter of the exchange on Canadian money has ceased to have much effect. The dollar now is down fairly close to par, so the need for that has largely disappeared.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is about 3 per cent, is it not?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Around two, I think.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Two and three quarters, to be exact.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It does not make a great deal of difference though.
The matter of the flour would be a very small payment indeed, an amount at the most of $4 million. The biggest of these has been looked after. One of them to a large extent has disappeared, and the third would amount to very little. The fourth one was the payment of all storage charges, and it is a very debatable point as to whether farmers in western Canada should pay no storage at all, because that would place farmers in eastern Canada in somewhat of an invidious position if they had to pay storage on all their products whereas the farmers of western Canada did not pay any storage on wheat, oats and barley. I think that is a consideration of which the hon. member might have thought.
Then the hon. member made a great point out of the fact that we had abdicated our responsibilities because we had asked the western farm liaison committee to put in writing any alternative they wished to discuss with us, and that in our opinion they failed to do so. There is absolutely no abdication of responsibility or anything else along that line. The whole point of asking these people to put in writing the alternative they wanted to discuss, as was indicated to them, was so

Supply-Agriculture
that we might study it and be in a better position to discuss it with them. But there was no question that they would come down here and dictate to the government as to what policy would be put into effect. We said that if they had any new ideas we would be glad to hear them, but they never produced any ideas of value. They merely reiterated the four things they put in their brief to begin with, and then they said that they were also prepared to discuss the acreage payments which we had suggested. As a matter of fact at that time we had not suggested that. But as I say, they produced nothing new whatever, not a single new item for discussion, and as a result there was no particular value in having them come down and discuss all over again something we had discussed with them on several occasions before.
The hon. member for Essex East was trying to make out that we had refused to see them, and so forth. We have seen the heads of these western farm organizations since we have been in power on numerous occasions. We have seen them altogether I think at least six or seven times. As a matter of fact, after they came down with their delegation in March we met them again last January and they presented to us a brief on the 30th of that month, this year. So there has been no lack of meetings with the representatives of western farm organizations, and any complaint along the lines the hon. member has made to the effect that we were trying to turn policy over to them is completely ridiculous. If they had had any new ideas we would have been delighted to have them come down and explain them to us, but they did not produce any.
Mr. Chairman, I believe most of the time taken by the hon. member for Essex East was really devoted to trying to sow the impression that in some way we were not assuming our obligations and responsibilities as a government to look after agriculture, that we were delaying the giving of an answer on this and other matters, and so on. I think the whole record of this government, particularly with regard to agriculture, indicates the exact reverse. We have met the promises which we made before we came into power and have done more for agriculture; we have provided more public funds to assist agriculture, and have started more new programs for agriculture, than the Liberal party did in the whole 22 years they were in office.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to take part in this debate on the question of acreage payments. I have been an advocate of this form of assistance for western agriculture and was prior to the march of the farm organizations

to Ottawa in 1959. And I am still a 100 per cent advocate of acreage payments in this regard.
We have listened to the Liberal opposition, particularly today, utter a lot of nonsense. The hon. member did not even know what kind of program we had in 1958. The minister has pointed out that it was obvious, and for the hon. member's further elucidation these people who -have small acreages, from 100 to 199, do not sell their grain.
I would like to give the figures for my constituency in this regard. In 1958-59 there were 1,500 new permits issued in my constituency alone. Why did these people apply for a permit? Why were they not able to sell their grain? Because they were too far from the railroad. In my area we have the lowest elevator storage on the prairies. Those 1,500 people represent almost 25 per cent of the entire farm population of my constituency.
I need not point out to the hon. member that these people would not have got a nickel under a deficiency payment scheme. There is no doubt at all that the argument rests four square on whether we should have a deficiency payment scheme on a bushel basis or whether we should be paying these payments, as we intend to do, on an acreage basis. The Liberal party through its leader has enunciated their policy, as has the C.C.F. party. They have come right out and said they want deficiency payments on a bushel basis.
Let us get the argument right and have them stand on their own feet for a change, instead of listening to the hon. member for Essex East wandering all over the place this afternoon not being able to get back to the point at all. Is the hon. member for it or against it? What program does he want? They had announced that they were for deficiency payments. Obviously they do not know, because they do not know how an acreage scheme works. How could the hon. member bring forward an alternative plan? He could not. Therefore, what we have listened to is just a bunch of Liberal drivel which will sell western Canada down the drain again.
I say that the only reason we have had a substantial increase in assistance to agriculture in the past three years, and particularly western agriculture, is that the right hon. gentleman is leading the government, and the people of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta are going to realize it. They were sold down the drain by the previous Liberal government. I do not say that Mr. Gardiner did not want to do something for western Canada, but he failed to get assistance from the party or from the gentlemen

who are now doing all the talking about trying to do something for western Canada. That is why we did not get the south Saskatchewan river dam at that time. This dam is being built now and it is being built because we have a Prime Minister of this country who comes from Saskatchewan. This is the only way we could have got it.
The hon. gentleman had quite a lot to say with regard to the farm march. It was initiated, instigated, organized and sold by two political parties in Saskatchewan, the Liberal party and the C.C.F. party. Nobody can deny that. Mr. Turnbull, one of the leaders of the march, is now the minister of co-operation in the Saskatchewan government, and Mr. Wesson, a long time Liberal, has been associated with the march to deliberately discredit our Prime Minister in his own province of Saskatchewan. There is no doubt about that. I was one who said that I refused to vote $4,500 to the big farmers on the prairies. The hon. member for As-siniboia went all over the province of Saskatchewan and said that I would not vote this $4,500. My position has not changed one little bit.
The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, a paper which has done more to hold back the development of Saskatchewan than any other that I know of in Saskatchewan-and I was born and brought up there

a paper which has no sense of responsibility, and I can prove that very simply, misquoted remarks that I made in the house. They wrote an editorial without even bothering to read what I had to say. It was something like the hon. member for Essex East getting up and talking about acreage payments when he obviously doesn't understand what they are. This is a paper which has a monopoly in north central Saskatchewan. It is a paper which is supposed to be doing something about the development of Saskatchewan. What has it done for the development of Saskatchewan? Not a thing, sir. I left the province of Saskatchewan because of the socialist government; I am not afraid to admit it.
I now come to the problem which my hon. friends have been talking about. I refer to the liaison committee of the farm organizations. I want to put on record what a farm organization in my area thinks about acreage payments. I have a letter from the director of a large area in my constituency, and I should like to quote from it. I do not intend to give the name of the writer, but I intend to stand by the letter myself:
I was asked to send you our comments on the acreage plan. We are all pleased with the acreage plan which is going to help the small farmers, the ones that need it, instead of a deficiency payment on wheat alone, that would help only a few, and not help the wheat surplus situation any.
Supply-Agriculture
I would like at this time to send you our thanks for your help in getting these two bills passed.
This is from a director of a farm union in my area in Alberta. I have in my file all kinds of letters from farmers in my area, from farm unions in my area, requesting me to vote against a deficiency payment plan and to work for an acreage payment plan as outlined in 1958. I have not one letter from any individual farmer asking for deficiency payments on grain. We hear about what the farm unions are saying. I can tell you, sir, this is what the grass roots of the farm unions are saying. They are saying, we want an acreage plan because it is fair and does not discriminate against initiative and it does not pile up surpluses of the various commodities.
As I said, in my constituency one quarter of the farmers would not have received a nickel under the deficiency payment plan. Why would they not? Because they had the initiative to go out and diversify their operations. I have maintained for a long time that our program to help agriculture must be based on the idea that we have to diversify; that we have to be ready to produce the product that we can sell in the market place. If we do not do that then there is not very much we can do for agriculture.
When the farmers came down to Ottawa Mr. Wesson said that you cannot diversify in Saskatchewan. This year he came down and appeared before the agricultural committee with regard to the question of feed mills. I happened to get him a little bit off the track and I asked this question: Do you not believe that diversification is the basis of the answer to the problems of agriculture in Saskatchewan, and he said, "yes, I do". This was a year later. He is now changing his tune. He now realizes, as he should have realized before, that we must have diversification.
The hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort has pushed the question of rapeseed in this house, and now the hon. member for Essex East is on the bandwagon, and I am very grateful for that. The production of rapeseed is one thing that we can embark on. Owing to present technical facilities and our ability to grow wheat we cannot sell, we cannot afford in western Canada not to undertake two things. We have to recognize and give incentive to quality, but we also have to recognize and give incentive to those people who have the initiative to diversify their farming operations to such an extent that they will be able to have an adequate income from the farm.
The hon. member made a lot of noise about our promises to the farmers. I stand up here and say that this government, headed by the Prime Minister, has fulfilled every pledge

Supply-Agriculture
we made to agriculture. We have not solved all problems yet but we are well on the way to doing it. This kind of program will help.
Yesterday the hon. member for Vancouver East said we recognize that we cannot do anything about costs. We recognize that something can be done about costs. We have done a number of things to reduce the costs on the farm. First and foremost of these is our new farm credit facilities. Farm credit means better capitalization, which means better management, which means reduced costs. It is as simple as that. Cash advances work in the same way in that they give the farmer the necessary capital to enable him to reduce his costs. Our program of crop insurance, which the hon. member for Essex East has discounted because he does not know anything about what is happening in that field, again is something which reduces the cost of operations and this was brought in by the present government.
I could mention other things such as the conservation conference which the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is setting up. Then there are the better and improved facilities having to do with the health of animals, better marketing and research and other technical changes. All of these things help to reduce the farmer's costs and will help more in the future as these programs are fulfilled. To say that we cannot do anything about cost is to say something which is erroneous and not according to the facts.
We have listened, as I have said, with a great deal of amazement to the hon. member for Essex East talking about the acreage plan. It was obvious that he did not understand how it works. I say to him that 95 per cent of the farmers in my area want an acreage plan and have told me so. I told the hon. member so before and he laughed at me. All I have to say to him now is that that is the truth and it will be made evident by support for the government in any future election and support for the Prime Minister as having done more for the three prairie provinces in an historic three-year term than any other prime minister in the history of this country ever did. We shall see that the people of western Canada find out about it in spite of the Sifton press, in spite of the nonsense the hon. member read from the Winnipeg Free Press and that you can read any day in the Regina Leader-Post and in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix. Writers from these papers sit in the press gallery and write articles in which they deride members of parliament to stand up on their feet and say what they think. How many times have they ever written articles for these papers in which they have said what they thought?

They say what their publishers tell them to say and that is all. I defy them to do otherwise.
Since I have been a member of the house I have always said what I thought and I do not intend to change my ways. I intend to support this program of the Prime Minister and the government because it is one of the best things that has ever happened to western Canada.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, since 11.30 this morning we have listened to quite a gabfest on this item of the supplementary estimates and, honestly, sir, it has been rather amusing to listen to so many on the government side speak so emotionally and at length today in support of this item after having listened yesterday to speeches made by some of the same hon. members about repetition and lengthy speeches. I am going to speak very briefly. When the Prime Minister made his announcement of policy yesterday I thought he made the position of the government clear on the matter of aid to agriculture. I also thought that the hon. member for Essex East made the position of the official opposition clear. Although I may have failed to do so in the ten minutes in which I spoke, I tried to comment very briefly upon the statement of the Prime Minister and to explain the position of this group.
Because of that I had rather anticipated that today we would have been able to put through the supplementary item now before us very speedily. I had not anticipated that there would be hours spent by members on the government side and in the official opposition in going back into history, quoting one another and engaging in recriminations. That is exactly what has been taking place.
I think what has taken place highlights one thing, that the problems of agriculture are most complex and complicated, and because of that it is quite apparent that nobody now has the complete answer. I think we have got to recognize the position of agriculture and the problems that affect it not only with regard to wheat but with regard to the industry throughout the dominion. I say that we-I say "we" because we have a collective responsibility as members of parliament- have been dealing with the problems of agriculture up to now on a partchwork basis. Because of dealing with agriculture on a patchwork basis, we now find ourselves in the situation that we are subsidizing everything from soya beans to sunflower seeds, to rapeseed, to tobacco-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Neither rapeseed nor tobacco.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Sugar beets.


Harold Edward Winch: Well, sugar beets, and do not ask me if I know the difference between sugar beets and rapeseed, because I do. In various ways we are providing subsidies and establishing floor prices here, there and everywhere. I do not know what the exact figure is but I would make a guess that directly and indirectly we must be spending somewhere between $135 million and $150 million on wheat.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No.


Harold Edward Winch: Yes, if we take into account all the various aspects, storage, P.F.A.A. and all the angles. I was trying to figure out the amount a while ago and I had reached a figure of $120 million. However, from all angles there is a patchwork approach to the problems of agriculture. Some people are helped and many are not helped, which leads me to the conclusion, whether or not hon. members agree, that we have reached the time when there must be an over-all study of the problems of the agricultural economy and the establishment of an agricultural policy. Although many will not like my saying this, if the government is going to face up to the problem, irrespective of what party is in power, then to that end there will have to be some control of production and distribution. To me that is almost inevitable. Otherwise we are going to go on as we have in past sessions and as we are right now this afternoon.
I said I was only going to speak for a couple of minutes. Under this supplementary vote I am not going into the arguments pro and con as to the various approaches that could be made. I merely wish to emphasize that the time has come for a definite, distinct and over-all approach to the problems of agriculture in the hope that just as soon as possible we will have a Canadian agricultural policy. We have before us now a supplementary item and, as I said yesterday, I think that basically it is a hand-out so far as the individual is concerned and in the overall picture it is a handout of $42 million. Why do we continue talking when we are all going to vote for it? It is something that is going to help. We will not solve the problems of agriculture by passing this item at this time. Why do we not face up to the situation honestly, admit that sufficient has been said on both sides of the house and pass this item providing additional assistance with the hope that next session the government will produce a real agricultural policy for Canada?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, we have listened to the hon. member for Vancouver East appeal to hon. members to put this vote through quickly since we are all going to vote for it. However, I wish to
Supply-Agriculture
point out to him the fact that the 47 members from the prairie provinces have taken the most severe pounding on this very subject that any group has ever taken and that all we are doing is speaking on behalf of our constituents who in our opinion are fighting for survival. I wish to point out that the start of the comprehensive and co-ordinated program of the government was laid down in the house by the Prime Minister on August 30, 1958. If the hon. member will take the time to read it-


Harold Edward Winch: I did.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -he will see that the government has already moved widely and deeply on the problem of a co-ordinated program to assist agriculture. When I rose to speak it was not to answer the hon. member for Vancouver East but rather to have a word or two to say about what has been said by the official opposition.
I am very pleased that the Leader of the Opposition is in his place when I start my remarks, because when one of our members mentioned that the Prime Minister had not promised deficiency payments in the 1958 election I heard the Leader of the Opposition say, "Your leader did". I want to take this opportunity of saying that that is not true in any particular.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will have to repeat it again. How many times do you want to hear it?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Do I understand the Leader of the Opposition to say in his place that the present Prime Minister promised deficiency payments? I would like to get this cm the record.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We will show you the record.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be speaking and I will put it on the record.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I want you to put it on the record, because I have in my hands the record of this matter when it came up twice before, when the Prime Minister stood in his place in this house and said he had made no such statement and when I, as Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and as a minister of the crown stood up and repudiated the member for Assiniboia for this type of false information that he was spreading. It is all here in the record of the house. This was on January 19, 1959 and was on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Assiniboia used these words:
The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has said that the government will provide deficiency payments. This is what the statement says, but I have heard no indication from the government that deficiency payments are to be provided.

Supply-Agriculture
I rose and spoke in my place and said:
Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, this is the same statement that the hon. member made last session. When I spoke on other occasions across Saskatchewan I made it very clear that I was not in favour of deficiency payments but that they would be given consideration. When the proper time comes in this debate I will give a full answer to the hon. member for Assiniboia.
The hon. member for Assiniboia said as follows:
Long after the quotation in the newspapers we get an apology from the minister that he has been misquoted. The Prime Minister said that he was going to give the question sympathetic consideration. These were the words used. Well, sympathetic consideration or otherwise, there is no action.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is just a statement by the hon. gentleman. I make the statement that at no time did I say that I would give the question sympathetic consideration. I made it very clear consideration would be given to this question. Make no mistake about that.


Mr. Argue:: Mr. Speaker, I quoted it before. I do not have the clipping with me now but the report was made from a speech that the Prime Minister made in the city of Moose Jaw.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member will have to accept the statement made by the Prime Minister in his place that he did not use the phrase.
Now we have a repetition of this same type of thing from the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I have challenged him, and I challenge him again-


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have not spoken yet.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: to produce this statement where that promise was made. On the contrary, if you read the news reports of the election in Saskatchewan in 1958 you will find C.C.F. speakers went up and down that province and quoted me over and over again as being opposed to deficiency payments. If I am going to be attacked all across my province as being opposed to deficiency payments, and then come down and have one of the hon. members of this house, the hon. member for Assiniboia, keep on repeating that I was for them, and now the Leader of the Opposition trying it, repeating a debate already in this house on which the Speaker has made a ruling, then I think this should be brought to the attention of the hon. members here. Mr. Chairman,-


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have not spoken in the debate yet.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I have a few words to say about this item, because I have been associated with the words of this item for a good many years. I would like to read the item to the house, to refresh our memories:
Payment of an amount, as a higher return for wheat used for human consumption in Canada, to western grain producers to be distributed on the following basis-
[Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) .1
It then describes the basis of a dollar an acre. As a member of the Progressive Conservative party in the province of Saskatchewan I have attended conventions in that province since the early thirties and I can recount to this house resolutions going back to 1938 in which the Conservative party of Saskatchewan advocated the two-price system.
I do not want to take the time of the committee in reading this history into the record. In Saskatchewan we have always argued that we could not control the price of export wheat, but we did have a right to equal treatment with other producers of other products in Canada in getting a fair price in the domestic market. That has been our stand traditionally.
In Saskatchewan we have always supported a two-price system whereby, because of the fact that we do have to sell in the export market and do have to accept, when world prices are low, a low price for our product, that at least in so far as wheat consumed domestically in Canada is concerned, we can ask for a fair price.
We call this a domestic wheat price; we call it a two-price system. When the Prime Minister spoke in 1958 in announcing this over-all, comprehensive and co-ordinated program dealing with all parts of Canada, he made it very clear that there had to be some attention given to the special problems of the western producers. At the end of that six-point program he enunciated this seventh point of the acreage payments.
As members in this house have pointed out today, the western Canadian farmers never did find out about this comprehensive program, a national agricultural program in western Canada, because all they heard was the great phrase "peanuts" coined by the hon. member for Assiniboia and added to by the Leader of the Opposition.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He did not call it peanuts.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: He called it a pittance.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What is wrong with your propaganda organization?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am corrected. The Leader of the Opposition called it "salted peanuts".


Lester Bowles Pearson: I did not use any such expression.


An hon. Member:: You did.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I did not. That is not so.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, we have before us a very good example of

the forgetfulness of the Leader of the Opposition. I hope my friends in the committee today are looking at that debate of August 30, 1958. It gives the exact words, "salted peanuts".


Lester Bowles Pearson: I added "salted" to "peanuts"; that is right.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think I would like to read this into the record, Mr. Chairman. The Leader of the Opposition said:
I have no doubt that when my hon. friend from Assiniboia gets up immediately after I conclude he will call it peanuts.


Hazen Robert Argue: I did that a couple of days. I shall call it a pittance today.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps he may even refer to it as salted peanuts.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Exactly. What is wrong with that? That is what he said. Your recollection was not as good as you thought.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It was good enough.


An hon. Member:: Good enough for you.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, we have a situation where this has been the stand of those of us from Saskatchewan and I do hope it is held by the farmers of Manitoba and Alberta as well.
But I want to tell the committee now that the Liberal party believed in a two-price system also. They believed in a two-price system and they put one into effect. Let me read what they paid under their two-price system. These are taken from the Canadian wheat board annual reports and they are the dates and prices for domestic wheat as given by the wheat board to the trade.
From August 1, 1942, to September 13, 1947-a period of roughly five years-the price was 77.375 cents a bushel. That was a Liberal two-price system.


George Harris Hees: For shame.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: A special
price that the farmer received for his wheat if it was sold to domestic consumers. At the same time the world price went up to $2.44. The Liberal concept of a domestic wheat price was to let the world market pay $2.44.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let us talk about current situations.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: But if it was
a farmer, all he could get was 77.375 cents a bushel. That was the Liberal type of two-price system.
Then on September 14, 1947, and lasting to July 31, 1948-about a year-they raised that price to $1.55. They let the farmer of western Canada have $1.55 a bushel for every bushel that went into domestic consumption. But what was the price paid on
Supp ly-A griculture
the open market? It was $2.88. There was an example of a Liberal two-price system, a $1.33 differential, a price system of $1.33 below the world price even. On August 1, 1948 and lasting to March 23, 1949 the price was raised for domestic consumption to $1.58J when the world price was $2.26.
Then they got religion, real religion. On March 23, 1949 they raised the price lasting to July 31, 1949 to $2 when the world price was $2.26. It was still below the world price but they did get it up to $2. Why? Because 1949 was an election year.


George Harris Hees: Obvious Liberal tactics.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: A few months before the voters went to the polls they got religion. They suddenly realized that the farmer deserved a fair price for his product. They raised the price of wheat for domestic consumption from $1.58J to $2 a bushel.


James Stanley Speakman: Would the minister permit a question? Would the minister tell the committee how many members they got from the western provinces too?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I do not have the exact figures but I know that the Liberals won just about every seat from Saskatchewan.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We know how many you have from Saskatchewan.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You did not do so well.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I should like to remind the Leader of the Opposition who loves to interrupt that there was a Liberal member sitting on the treasury benches who went out to Manitoba. When the farmers told this minister their troubles he reached over and patted one of these farmers on the stomach and said "You aren't doing too badly". He has now retired from public life and is both out of the treasury benches and out of the house.


Mr. McCleave:: And is rubbing his own stomach.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In fact he has retired to about 20 directorships of corporations. I say here today that if the farmers of western Canada could have heard the speech made by the hon. member for Essex East it would have made Mr. Howe's gesture of patting the farmer's stomach seem like peanuts. The hon. member for Essex East has never even studied a western farmer's permit book and is not even sure whether eastern farmers have permit books. I understand that the hon. gentleman is not even too sure how many pounds there are in a bushel of wheat.

Sup p ly-A gricu Iture


Peter Francis Martin: You will have to be a little more clever than that.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Here we are in this important debate on this item. We know where the C.C.F. stands. As I understand it they favour deficiency payments. We knew that the Liberals stood for deficiency payments two years ago. I suspect that they still stand for deficiency payments although no one has come out clearly and said so in discussing this item.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You are very suspicious.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I would like to put this to the Leader of the Opposition. I am glad he is in his seat. The hon. gentleman is going to have a chance to speak on this item. I want to know whether he stands for deficiency payments now, yes or no.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Would the minister permit a question?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Gladly.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is the minister standing for and advocating a two-price system now as he has been saying in the last 15 minutes?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This leads me right into my next remarks.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member has been repudiated by the Prime Minister already.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have pointed out that the Conservative members from Saskatchewan have always stood for a two-price system. We were aware that the wheat pool and the farm union of that province came out for a domestic wheat price in November of 1956. The chairman of the Saskatchewan wheat pool said that he thought 30 cents a bushel would approximately balance off the differential in cost as compared with the things the farmer had to buy. The figure of 30 cents a bushel was advocated in 1956.
When we announced our statement in the house in August of 1958, which was the earliest we could deal with the matter, we came out with an amount of money which we estimated at that time to be $40 million since the amount of wheat domestically consumed in Canada is between 40 and 45 million bushels, fluctuating each year. We were in effect putting forward almost $1 a bushel even though the wheat pool and the farmers' union had asked for 30 cents a bushel.
This brings up what the hon. member for Essex East was talking about. He spoke about the farm brief and why this government has not dealt with the other alternatives put forward both in the brief presented in the spring of 1959 and the one brought before the government on May 10 this year.

I will repeat what the hon. member for Essex East said because it gives an answer to the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. gentleman raised this question: Do you still believe in the two-price system? The answer is: Yes, I do. But I try to be a responsible minister. As hon. members from western Canada know, those who have the responsibility of putting these policies into practice have some responsibility for the farmers they represent. I am going to point this out. If a payment is made on bushels alone and not on acreage, what happens to the man in the constituency of Jasper-Edson who does not sell any wheat, oats or barley at all? He gets nothing. He feeds his grain. What happens to the farmer in the eastern Manitoba ridings who feeds his wheat, oats and barley? He gets nothing. Therefore, if we are trying to tie our policy towards an isolated problem of the shortage of cash to an over-all co-ordinated and comprehensive program it will be found there has to be some association. If we want to encourage people to move into diversified agriculture, not in a rush but in a steady and economic growth, we are not going to go out and make payments on a bushel basis which will encourage them to go back into the production of wheat, oats and barley.
I know these arguments fairly well. I suggest that what we have done is to take a look at the farmer's rising costs. Even though the farmers asked for 30 cents a bushel in 1956 we gave them nearly $1. What are they asking for now? In the brief dated May 10 they proposed a two-price system for wheat which would add 60 cents a bushel to the producer for wheat used in the manufacture of bread in Canada. The farm organizations asked for 60 cents but we are putting in an item for $42 million which is roughly equivalent to $1 a bushel. We are giving more than what they asked for with respect to this matter in 1960 but instead of putting it on a bushel basis we are trying to find some means that will be fair to all farmers and will be more in harmony with our over-all program as illustrated in the fine speech delivered by the hon. member for Pro-vencher.
I am going to quote from some newspapers, too. The hon. member for Essex East was good enough to quote from some well-known Liberal or Grit papers including the Winnipeg Free Press. I should also like to read from an article in another Liberal paper which is not so "Gritty". I refer to the Lethbridge Herald dated June 18, 1960. I will read a portion from an article discussing the brief presented by the farm organizations to the government:
Three of the four proposals by the western farm organizations are directly designed to raise the

price of wheat. The payment of all storage charges, the creation of a two-price system and the flour subsidy would all serve to increase wheat prices. They would do little for the mixed farmer or for the small grain farmer. They would do nothing for the livestock feeder or for the man who suffered a crop failure. The help would go primarily to the large wheat farmer.
If the federal government agreed to the proposals it would mean they paid the cost of storage on all grain in commercial positions, plus a subsidy on all grain consumed domestically plus a subsidy on flour exports. The annual cost would be about $108 million.
Average production of wheat in Saskatchewan over the past five years has been 20.04 bushels per acre. The subsidy per acre for wheat acreage under the proposal would be $6.60, less a couple of bushels an acre retained for seed, or about $6 an acre.
A farmer who marketed 20 bushels an acre and had 1,000 acres seeded would get a $6,000 slice out of the grain subsidy pile. A farmer with 50 acres in wheat who marketed an average crop would get $300. The farmer who had a crop failure or who for any other reason failed to market wheat would get no part of the proposed $108 million.
Here you have a proposal by the farm organizations which itself, taking those three proposals out of their brief, would be helpful only for the person who produces wheat, because when you pay a subsidy for domestic wheat and concentrate solely on wheat, if you pay a subsidy on wheat flour it goes solely to the wheat producer.
If one calculates what is paid in farm storage and in other forms of indirect payment there would be in the aggregate what would amount to a $6 grain subsidy. This item does not match that, but who would get the big chunk of that amount? The man with the big acreage. You can understand why the Prime Minister told the farm organizations that we were interested in hearing their point of view if they would bring forth a policy that did not discriminate against the small farmer, that would help adjustment to the new type of agriculture we see coming and, in particular, which would not be something which would build up surpluses and help to destroy the very industry we are trying to help.
The farm organizations came back with proposals that seem orientated around the large farmer. Those proposals are now supported by the Liberal party. They are now supported by the C.C.F. opposition. Therefore we And ourselves in this position; the Liberal party, the C.C.F. party, have raised their flag on behalf of the large farmers in western Canada and we, on the Progressive Conservative side, have stood all along, first, for justice to the small farmer and, second, for a comprehensive co-ordinated program that would lift agriculture up to its fair share of the national income.
The hon. member for Vancouver East asked why the western members, 47 Conservatives out of 48 from the prairies, speak on this
Supp ly-A griculture
measure when all intend to vote for it. We are fighting for the truth. We are fighting to get out to the farmers of western Canada the facts as they are. We are trying to warn them that if they return a government of Liberals, they will have more Howes going around patting farmers on the stomachs; we will have more members from Essex East talking nonsense like the hon. member has been doing today; we will have another do-nothing government; we will have a return to the domestic wheat price of the Liberal vintage where you had domestic prices lower than we had for export-


Lester Bowles Pearson: All that was answered last summer in Saskatchewan.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The Leader of the Opposition said all that was answered last summer in Saskatchewan. Let me tell him what happened out there. You would think that if the Liberals really believed in deficiency payments and if the C.C.F. really believed in deficiency payments they would have spoken about them, but you cannot find on the records of the press in Saskatchewan during that election even a minor member of the C.C.F. or the Liberal party talked about deficiency payments. All they talked about was that the fight was between the Liberals and the C.C.F. The C.C.F. was saying we want to give state medicine, and the Liberal party saying we want to do it too, but we will have a plebiscite first.


Lester Bowles Pearson: And you said, see what we have done for the farmers.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: We tried to put our story to them. We have not got a powerful press behind us. We have not got a powerful machine like the Liberal party and the C.C.F. have. All we can rely on in Saskatchewan is a few individuals to stand up and say the best thing they can in every street corner of the province. That is what we had to do. We put the facts as we know them before the house and we hope that hon. members from all parts of Canada will recognize the difficulties we have had in western Canada in trying to get the facts before the people.
We say that deficiency payments will destroy the small farmer and we say that if the Liberal party and the C.C.F. keep on with this suicidal policy of supporting deficiency payments that they are out to destroy the small farmers of western Canada and in the long run that policy will destroy the larger farmers, too.
This is not just a debate on an item of $42 million. This is a debate between many of us in western Canada trying to make our voices heard and trying to get across to the people of all Canada that great injustice will occur

Private Bills-Divorce if we follow the policy of paying out hundreds of millions in deficiency payments which will destroy not only the small farmer but which will ultimately destroy the whole agricultural industry of western Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


An hon. Member:: Five o'clock.


Mr. Peters:: May I call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Arnold Peters: I think it would be advisable to call it five o'clock even though it is not.
I may say I was surprised to find the government offering an acreage payment rather than adopting the solution they promised to adopt two years ago. I was out in Manitoba shortly after the acreage payment last went into effect and I was very surprised to find that it satisfied very few farmers and that it did not represent in their opinion any attempt to solve the problem that they were facing. When the delegation of 1,000 farmers came to Ottawa they did not only recommend deficiency payments-


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member may now call it five o'clock.
It being five o'clock, I do now leave the chair.



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will consider private and public bills, the former having precedence in accordance with the provisions of section 3 of standing order 15.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Perhaps orders 2 and 3 could be grouped together?


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house agreed that items 2 and 3 be referred to the committee of the whole with those bills already before the committee on Item 1?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



JACQUELYN GREGORY BRADLEY WALKER

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill No. SD-341, for the relief of Jacquelyn Gregory Bradley Walker-Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the Chair.
Charles Edward Rea: Is it the pleasure of the committee to take these in one item?
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.


Mr. Howard:: All the bills are being considered at the same time? I have only one or two thoughts to express with respect to these and my first relates to one of the bills, namely Bill No. SD-341 which was previously order No. 2 and which has now been incorporated. My remarks have to do with the
[Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) .1
situation which took place last night, a situation which I think was extremely unfortunate because it does make one wonder about what one should do in the future. The hon. member for Halifax when speaking last night, wrapping himself in his flag of integrity and honesty as he did-I think I am correct in raising this under this item because it relates to this one bill-I think unfortunately violated the confidence which all the hon. members of the private bills committee had between them when they made a decision in camera with respect to Bill No. SD-341. A vote was taken in camera, and one of the cardinal reasons for doing things in camera in committee is that no one will violate the confidence of that decision and relate publicly what took place in the committee with respect to any hon. member.
I do not care myself. I am quite at ease to say how I voted on that particular bill, but that is not the point. I do not think the hon. member for Halifax should, as he did and as reported on page 7789 of Hansard, have violated the confidence of the members of that committee which met in camera and indicate how individual members voted with respect to Bill No. SD-341. He also should not have violated the confidence of members of the committee as to how they voted on the Eccles case.
I rose at this point only because the hon. member himself undertook to reveal himself in his cloak of integrity and honesty but then proceeded, as I submit he did, to violate the confidence of the committee in a decision it took in camera. This makes the third occasion the hon. member has done the same thing.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I think I have to answer that. I do not think it is a question of honesty or integrity. It may be a question of very poor judgment on my part, but I do not always hold myself out as possessing sound judgment. But my remarks were not uttered in the spirit the hon. member for Skeena illustrated.


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


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. SD-56, for the relief of Delema Grace Mullin Simon.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-57, for the relief of Earle James Andrew Aspell.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-58, for the relief of Marie Simone Louisette Bellemare Lafond.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-60, for the relief of James William Neilan.-Mr. McCleave.

Bill No. SD-62, for the relief of Leo Proulx.
Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-63, for the relief of June Laura Welby Leger.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-64, for the relief of Dorothy May Kenny Mulcair.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-65, for the relief of Margaret Kathleen Graham Lane.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-66, for the relief of Hubert Shirley Quartz.

Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-67, for the relief of Claudine Fernande Yvette Thibaudeau Tarride.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-68, for the relief of Maryl Pirie Wood Hunnisett.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-69, for the relief of Marine Tony Jakovich.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-70, for the relief of George Henderson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-71, for the relief of Jean Ludger Villeneuve.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-72, for the relief of Robert Marcel Castets.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-73, for the relief of Sarah Mary Shirley Collins Stewart.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-74, for the relief of Stella Jean Dunn Breitman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-75, for the relief of Klari Margo Farkas Bodo.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-76, for the relief of Vera Eileen Rath Croucher.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-77, for the relief of Rena Kan-ofsky Perzow.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-78, for the relief of Pearl Thorne Chipman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-79, for the relief of Joan Ethel Brooks Clarke.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-80, for the relief of Ann Aaron Regenstrief.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-81, for the relief of Eleanor Agnes Overall Cannon.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-82, for the relief of Betty Zara-coff Ferstenfeld.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-83, for the relief of Kenneth Alan MacKenzie.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-84, for the relief of Honoria Evelyn Day Matthew.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-85, for the relief of Rene Georges Clement.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-87, for the relief of Geraldine Anne Mary McElligott Parsons.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-88, for the relief of William Gordon Jack.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-89, for the relief of Eileen
Coates MacPherson.-Mr. McCleave.
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. SD-90, for the relief of Maria Lozinsky Truby.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-91, for the relief of Willie Pomerleau.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-92, for the relief of Patricia Frances Turley Raustis.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-93, for the relief of Mary Jean Olive De Vouge Tremblay.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-94, for the relief of Dorothy May Vallis Odell.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-95, for the relief of Jimmy D'Abate.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-96, for the relief of Mary Semenyshyn Shuch, otherwise known as Mary Semenyshyn Shuck.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-97, for the relief of Monique Bauset Malo.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-59, for the relief of Elizabeth Lebherz Denig.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-86, for the relief of Mary Eva Sheila Redmond Beards.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-98, for the relief of Rivka Fridman Nimrod, otherwise known as Rivka Fridman Nimrod-Lothan, otherwise known as Rivka Fridman Hebei.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-99, for the relief of John Frederick Alfred Webster.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-100, for the relief of Mary Prukker Wigmore.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-101, for the relief of Elizabeth Rudolph Beauchemin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-103, for the relief of Marie Claire Georgette Cronier Brault.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-104, for the relief of Marie Therese Louise Forest Morin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-105, for the relief of Donat Savoie.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-106, for the relief of Joseph Arthur Andre Sicotte.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-107, for the relief of Stanley Wellington Burton.

Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-108, for the relief of Hannah Bitensky Bidner.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-109, for the relief of Katherine Elizabeth Moore Shaw.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-110, for the relief of Mary Margaret Young Doulton.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-111, for the relief of Iris Margaret Leslie Sankey Jolliffe.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-112, for the relief of Mary Glen Keirstead Routliffe.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-113, for the relief of Helen Balacan Berinbaum, otherwise known as Helen Balacan Berne.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-114, for the relief of Morris
Arthur Bergeron.-Mr. McCleave.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. SD-115, lor the relief of Erica Theresa Schnockner Giwertzman.-Mr. Mc-Cleave.
Bill No. SD-116, for the relief of Boris Moses Ovrutzky.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-117, for the relief of Mac Ra-vitsky.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-118, for the relief of Timothy David Rudston Thomason.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-119, for the relief of Anne Smilovitch Portnoff.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-120, for the relief of Violet Sandra Miller MacKenzie.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-121, for the relief of Reva (Rita) Hutkin Agoston.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-122, for the relief of Jean Ann Brown Craig.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-123, for the relief of Frances Malofy Marzitelli.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-125, for the relief of Georgette Malick David.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-126, for the relief of John Priestley.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-127, for the relief of Caroline May Alexander Clements.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-128, for the relief of Ellen Schwarz Blok-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-129, for the relief of Nijs de Vos. -Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-130, for the relief of Lucien Girard.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-131, for the relief of Emilia Arcoragi Fisher.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-132, for the relief of Michael Kaluta.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-133, for the relief of Andre Marsolais.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-134, for the relief of Jozefa Lukasiewicz Bielicz.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-135, for the relief of Beverley June Russell Ehrhardt.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-136, for the relief of Edith Hirsch Distelman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-137, for the relief of Lise Jo-hanne Carreau Wolczecki.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-138, for the relief of Charlotte Stilman Shulman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-139, for the relief of Gail Rabinovitch Golden.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-141, for the relief of Nelson Cyr.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-142, for the relief of Ivy Baldwin Collier Wright.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-143, for the relief of Joseph Alain Jean Guy Berube.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-144, for the relief of Shirley
Loraine Knodel Burke.-Mr. McCleave.
[Mr. McCleave.1
Bill No. SD-145, for the relief of Rene Lassonde.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-146, for the relief of John Pastor.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-147, for the relief of Margaret Dunn Hepburn Sanderson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-148, for the relief of Maurice Sykes Ward.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-149, for the relief of Clark Alvin Graham.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-150, for the relief of Noeleen Natalie Adams Lamond.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-151, for the relief of Harry Gillman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-152, for the relief of John Philip Bowers.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-153, for the relief of Carl August Christensen.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-154, for the relief of Barbara Joan Marsh Wolfe.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-155, for the relief of Barbara Ann Tuppen McIntosh.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-14, for the relief of Enid Grace Pascoe Dawson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-27, for the relief of Helen Kurtzman Bernard.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-29, for the relief of Evelyn Annie Macleod Vaillancourt.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-33, for the relief of John Thomas Francis White.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-36, for the relief of Omer Therrien.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-37, for the relief of Helen Elisabeth Millar Ramshaw.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-40, for the relief of Larry Orsa. -Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-156, for the relief of Dorcina Doris Dubuc Clark.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-157, for the relief of Gerald Healy.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-158, for the relief of Marlene May Myles Robinson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-159, for the relief of Phyllis Louise Clements Harris.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-160, for the relief of Anne Olivia Sinclair Fuller.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-161, for the relief of Viola Mabel Stead Cole.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-162, for the relief of Patricia Ann Shirley Howell.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-163, for the relief of Lillian Juanita Sheppard Simpson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-164, for the relief of Ivy Winifred Grace Arthur Birks.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-165, for the relief of Barbara
Ruth Aird Barwick.-Mr. McCleave.

Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. SD-166, for the relief of Diane
M. L. Turner Hammond.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-167, for the relief of Dorothy Craven Masse Perrett.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-168, for the relief of Helen Landau Shuster.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-169, for the relief of Fagy Litner Selinger.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-170, for the relief of Pearl Shedlack Dubin Birnbaum.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-171, for the relief of Joseph Szczepanski.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-172, for the relief of Magdalena Beata Landau Weissler.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-173, for the relief of Frantisek Sladek.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-174, for the relief of Kathleen Beatrice Title Levy.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-175, for the relief of Helen Caroline Coleman Lewchuk.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-176, for the relief of Marie Paule Andree Mercier Rowney.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-178, for the relief of Beatrice Jean Madsen Rockburn.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-179, for the relief of Emma Strachan Maclnnes Creery.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-180, for the relief of Vira (Vera) Kotyk Marsden.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-181, for the relief of Shashi Kumar Pande.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-182, for the relief of Ethel Georgina Pottle Pallen.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-183, for the relief of Marilyn Shendelman Kagan.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-184, for the relief of Joseph Henri Marcel Vinet.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-185, for the relief of Martha Dammel Reiche Domnauer.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-186, for the relief of June Isabella Adamson Hogan.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-187, for the relief of Wincenty Strzelczyk.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-188, for the relief of Janina Rodzoch Nowak.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-189, for the relief of Margaret Ruth McLellan Kennedy.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-190, for the relief of Hazel Ina McEwing Hickey.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-191, for the relief of Marie Marthe Alberta Ladouceur Parenteau.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-192, for the relief of Olga Gokler Crisan.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-193, for the relief of George
Graham Thresh.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-194, for the relief of Joseph Arthur Porcheron.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-195, for the relief of Paul Drolet Massue.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-196, for the relief of David Byrne Kieran.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-197, for the relief of Nina Finkelstein Anshell.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-198, for the relief of Joseph Leo Roger Latendresse.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-199, for the relief of Norma Rosalie Parsons Turgeon.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-200, for the relief of Maria Reichinger Lehnen.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-202, for the relief of Rose Mary Dubeau Pietrinferno.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-203, for the relief of Daniel Edward Napasney.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-204, for the relief of Pauline Mary Ann Irene Patry Gaudreau.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-205, for the relief of Rose Ella Katherelos Parry.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-206, for the relief of Gwendolyn Marion Mizener Nassif.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-207, for the relief of Joseph Ernest Coutu.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-208, for the relief of Joseph Henri Berube.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-209, for the relief of Maria Hocheder Weber.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-210, for the relief of Sherrill Ordidge Glandsdorp.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-211, for the relief of Bronislaw Kulawik.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-212, for the relief of Pauline Sornin Barrett.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-213, for the relief of Sandra Maxine Shoore Sheydwasser.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-214, for the relief of Margaret Maclaren Harris.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-215, for the relief of Irmgard Poikonen Horvath.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-216, for the relief of Estelle Labelle Baxter Robertson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-217, for the relief of Alphonse Yared.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-218, for the relief of Andre Lamothe.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-219, for the relief of Rita Hamel Labranche.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-220, for the relief of Lionel Boucher.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-221, for the relief of Eliza Boudreau Filion.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-222, for the relief of William
Leslie Baillie.-Mr. McCleave.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. SD-223, for the relief of Pauline Handji Edelstein.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-224, for the relief of Molly Brenda Stein Butterman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-225, for the relief of Laurette Biron Valade.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-226, for the relief of Viviane Hirsch Montmartin Gabois.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-227, for the relief of Grace Kara Forshaw.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-228, for the relief of Gloria Helene Stotland Titleman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-229, for the relief of Armand Simeon Lavictoire.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-230, for the relief of Audrey Mary Crosbie Morris.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-232, for the relief of Ruth Irene Diakur Mendel.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-233, for the relief of Florence Beryl Kellam Weinstein.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-234, for the relief of Marie Esteie Caprari.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-235, for the relief of Olive Bowes Schofield. -Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-236, for the relief of Jeanne Beauchemin Arpin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-237, for the relief of Jean Claude Bilodeau.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-238, for the relief of Robert George Butler-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-239, for the relief of Helen Harpes Avon.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-240, for the relief of Sonia Slovsky Coppel.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-241, for the relief of Shirley Huberman Schreiber.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-242, for the relief of Paulette Goldberg Slepp.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-243, for the relief of Richard Austin Evans.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-244, for the relief of Marion Mary Treen Frosst.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-245, for the relief of Joyce Mary Whiteman Rogers.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-246, for the relief of Vera Arlene Perry Locke.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-247, for the relief of Beatriki Bourboulis Angelidis.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-248, for the relief of Jessie Margaret Cross Joly.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-249, for the relief of Guy La-brosse.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-250, for the relief of Joyce Agnes Catherine Wilkinson Greenwood.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-251, for the relief of Jacques Cormier.-Mr. McCleave.

Bill No. SD-252, for the relief of Mary Lorraine Little Copping.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-253, for the relief of Sylvia Trachimovsky Fox.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-254, for the relief of Kathleen Shannon Keene.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-255, for the relief of Jean Elizabeth MacCuaig	Vinters.-Mr.	Mc-
Cleave.
Bill No. SD-256, for the relief of Lucy Sekora Budnik.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-257, for the relief of Joyce Middlehurst Walker.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-258, for the relief of Patricia Shirley Rydberg Menzies.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-259, for the relief of Real Blier.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-260, for the relief of Viola Elsie Ann Johnson Anderson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-261, for the relief of Margis Wellisch Ruszugar Hancz.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-262, for the relief of Janina Lukaszewicz Soloducha.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-263, for the relief of Arthur Woodbridge Dale.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-264, for the relief of Maria Jacoba Arens Mannens.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-265, for the relief of Gerard Henri Turgeon.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-266, for the relief of Nancy Jane Wyllie Wood Aylwin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-267, for the relief of Yves Brodeur. -Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-268, for the relief of James Joseph Sceviour.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-269, for the relief of Leon Zygowski.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. 270, for the relief of Neeltje Doruitjer Van der Spoel.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-271, for the relief of Paul L'Heureux.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-272, for the relief of Joseph Daniel Bernardin Daigle.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-274, for the relief of Eileen Williams Gushue.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-275, for the relief of Jean Eleanor Jackson Connell.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-276, for the relief of George Henry Basil.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-277, for the relief of Eileen Kathleen Astley Craig.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-278, for the relief of Edith Tobat Heinemann.

Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-279, for the relief of Davis
Zave Garmaise.-Mr. McCleave.

Bill No. SD-280, for the relief of Marie Frederique Raphaelle Mireille Fortier Kingsbury.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-281, for the relief of Franko (Franz) Stapinskyj.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-282, for the relief of Eva Facey Lund.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-283, for the relief of Joan Dunn Ostrosky.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-284, for the relief of Teresa Greco Caputo.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-285, for the relief of William Pinkerton.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-286, for the relief of Frank David Cousens.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-287, for the relief of Denise Baril Sarrazin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-288, for the relief of Wassily de Krokhaleff.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-289, for the relief of Henriette Rioux Beaupre.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-290, for the relief of Lillian Olive Robertson Reinhold.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-140, for the relief of Marie Rose Lucette Durocher Di	Iorio.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-231, for the relief of Joyce Tabah Tomy.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-102, for the relief of Georges Delrue.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-177, for the relief of Alexander Leslie Mittler.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-291, for the relief of Myrtle Gertrude Lily Molloy Heany.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-292, for the relief of Kathleen Margaret Sinclair McKenna Roberts.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-293, for the relief of Marion Toba Wolfe Cohen Shapiro.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-294, for the relief of Marie Lucille Simone David Raymond.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-295, for the relief of Otto James Kerr.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-296, for the relief of James Justin Sims.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-297, for the relief of Sylvia Overland Katz.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-298, for the relief of Blanche Brigitte Paulette Gagne Joly.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-299, for the relief of Carmel Duguay Mitchell.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-300, for the relief of Catherine Maureen Kelly Mavor.

Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-301, for the relief of Marie
Ruland Reutter.-Mr. McCleave.
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. SD-302, for the relief of Joseph Louis Victor Dupere.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-303, for the relief of Rose Polivka De Bom.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-304, for the relief of Vernis Clifton Christie.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-305, for the relief of Thomas Edward Imbleau.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-306, for the relief of Jean Guy Cardinal.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-307, for the relief of Marie Mathilde Charlotte Boisjoli Dore.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-308, for the relief of David Lloyd Tune.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-309, for the relief of Sybil Fen-ster Shaicavitch.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-210, for the relief of Lynda Marjorie Cowell Smith.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-311, for the relief of Alois Zisser.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-312, for the relief of Stanley Sepchuk.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-313, for the relief of Nadine Tudor Labreche.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-314, for the relief of Robert Gordon Stitt.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-315, for the relief of Philippa Jane Hutchins Tanton.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-316, for the relief of Julianna Barna Nadasdi.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-317, for the relief of Franciszek (Frank) Wyspianski.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-318, for the relief of Mary (Moira) Steel Taylor Maddison-Roberts.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-319, for the relief of Marie Evelyn Lindsay Slade.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-321, for the relief of Joseph Armand Dube.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-322, for the relief of Margaret Elizabeth Perkins Petrachuk.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-323, for the relief of Istvan Horvath.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-324, for the relief of Kathleen Margaret Manchios Kotsos.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-325, for the relief of Peter Zeppetini.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-326, for the relief of Jean Louis Beaudet.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-327, for the relief of Antoni Kubowicz.-Mr. McCleave.
Bil No. SD-328, for the relief of Georg Zechanowitsch.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-329, for the relief of Sonia
Kwas Cada.-Mr. McCleave.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. SD-330, for the relief of Stanislaw Wroblewski.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-331, for the relief of Jean Ednah Hiltz Dewey.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-332, for the relief of Vera Jarvis Lahaye.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-333, for the relief of Claire Marie Marchand McGuinness.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-334, for the relief of Marie Denise Theberge Duguay.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-335, for the relief of Marie Rita Desneiges Trepanier Pelchat.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-336, for the relief of Darrell Ashley Conner.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-337, for the relief of Gladys Florida Allard Chenier.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-338, for the relief of Sonia Floomberg Schaffer.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-339, for the relief of Alice Marylyn Archibald Warren Womell.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-340, for the relief of Doris Miller Burke.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-342, for the relief of Monica Carolyn Nolan McCullough.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-343, for the relief of Aime Albert.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-344, for the relief of Renee Helen Engel Graham.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-345, for the relief of Florian Poissant.-Mr. McCleave.
Bil No. SD-346, for the relief of Mary Kathleen Potts (Wittingham) Barretta.- Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-347, for the relief of George Herbert Bissessar.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-348, for the relief of Leslie Robert Stickles.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-349, for the relief of Philippe Simard.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-350, for the relief of Estelle Caroline Lohnes Antilla.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-351, for the relief of Yolande Marguerite Delorme Houde, otherwise known as Yolande Marguerite Delorme Cyr.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-352, for the relief of Andree Edmonde Augusta Fontaine Barriere.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-353, for the relief of Eleanor Jean Mott Taylor.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-354, for the relief of Rose Van Embden Singer.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-355, for the relief of Jack Emile Chiarella.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-357, for the relief of Gerald
Onie Shannon.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-358, for the relief of Percival
Verna Nathan.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-359, for the relief of Valerie Elsie Price Perrault.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-360, for the relief of Joseph Edmond Giroux.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-361, for the relief of Allen Dwight Westover.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-362, for the relief of Shirley Grace Edythe Sayers Sutherland, otherwise known as Shirley Seguin Sutherland.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-363, for the relief for Claire Ruth Rubins Lyons.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-364, for the relief of Stanislaw Przybyla.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-365, for the relief of Ian Church Wood.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-366, for the relief of Marie Hariette Claudette Boisvert Beaudry.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-367, for the relief of Arthur Edward Parker.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-368, for the relief of Owen John Lummis.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-369, for the relief of Ronald Norman Hogg.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-370, for the relief of Roy Walter Williams.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-371, for the relief of Barbara Doris Jennings Fitzgerald.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-372, for the relief of Christine Nancy Littleton Cohen.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-373, for the relief of Czarna Rose Lemkowicz Bialer, otherwise known as Czarna Rose Lemkowicz Bealer.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-374, for the relief of Kazimierz Romanowski.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-375, for the relief of Norma Katherine MacDonald McLean.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-376, for the relief of Diane Hawkins Edler.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-377, for the relief of Marcel Pouliot.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-378, for the relief of Gisele Raymond Vallee.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-379, for the relief of Madeleine Arbour Gauvreau.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-380, for the relief of Pierre Frederic Bruneau.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-381, for the relief of Nancy Virginia Webster Canning.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-382, for the relief of Annie Zilinskas Schneidereit, otherwise known as Annie Zilinskas Schneider.-Mr. McCleave.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. SD-383, for the relief of Jean Paul
Alfred Lebel.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-384, for the relief of Bernice Ellis Biltis.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-385, for the relief of Evagelia Karidi Tsitsos.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-386, for the relief of Barbara Raphael Salomon.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-387, for the relief of Richard Denis Giblin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-388, for the relief of Fanny Hussey Baggs.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-390, for the relief of Paul Emile Raymond.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-391, for the relief of Doris Mary Luxford Devenish.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-392, for the relief of Beulah Benford Brown Lawrence.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-393, for the relief of Kathleen Walsh Cohan.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-394, for the relief of Francis Whiting Clark-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-396, for the relief of Joan Shirley Davies Herscovitch.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-397, for the relief of Eugena Grandmont Ladouceur.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-398, for the relief of Ivy Helen Gentles Bell Pull.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-399, for the relief of Herve Vaillancourt.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-400, for the relief of Madeleine Hermine Kelen Endrenyi.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-401, for the relief of Marie Jeannine Andree Boisclair Lafrance.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-402, for the relief of Peter Eric Bray.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-403, for the relief of Gerard Lafond.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-404, for the relief of Jessie Davis Hill.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-405, for the relief of Grace Ruth Goldenberg Goldberg.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-406, for the relief of Elsie Mae Freake Vardy.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-407, for the relief of Gisele Fortin St-Laurent.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-408, for the relief of Pauline Anne Elizabeth Cunliffe Hebb.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-409, for the relief of Mary Violet Maloney Elm.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-410, for the relief of Gilles Jacques.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-411, for the relief of Bernice May Snow Oss.-Mr. McCleave.
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. SD-412, for the relief of Guy Grenier.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-413, for the relief of Margaret Mary Ryan Girvan Hollett.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-414, for the relief of Caroline Petryshyn Was.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-415, for the relief of Rhonda Lee Petersen Butt.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-416, for the relief of Alexandra Protonotarios Kingsland.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-417, for the relief of Frances Theresa Smith MacDonald.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-418, for the relief of Anna Soltysik Slawinski.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-419, for the relief of Wera Podkopaewa Kraska.-Mr. McCleave.
Bll No. SD-420, for the relief of Ronald Mugford.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-421, for the relief of Ida Denis Matte.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-422, for the relief of Sterling Norman Woods.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-423, for the relief of Mary Wolloch Vineberg.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-424, for the relief of Lotte Wilhelmine Schwitzer Hornig.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-425, for the relief of Margaret Clare Haigh Marshall.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-426, for the relief of Claire Syrek Stolovitz.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-427, for the relief of Lucien Dubuc.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-428, for the relief of Aino Maria Leinonen Knudson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-429, for the relief of Mildred May Ghenender Greenspon.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-430, for the relief of Gordon Lang Cheesbrough.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-432, for the relief of Frida Rosen-Deutcher Falovitch.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-433, for the relief of Elizabeth Giliaeff Jahn.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-434, for the relief of Myrna Ada Webber Neiman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-435, for the relief of Ellery Gordon Duncan.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-436, for the relief of Sarah Wolmann Rothman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-437, for the relief of Dragan Baljak.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-438, for the relief of Glenda Ruth Warren Meades.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-439, for the relief of Robert
Hugh Parker.-Mr. McCleave.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. SD-440, for the relief of Catherine Hetty Dawson Gilbert Cathcart.-Mr. Mc-Cleave.
Bill No. SD-441, for the relief of Sheila Alexandra Anderson Williams.-Mr. Mc-Cleave.
Bill No. SD-442, for the relief of Georges Justin Goeury.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-443, for the relief of Gabrielle Labranche Bisaillon.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-444, for the relief of Maurice Joseph Martel.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-445, for the relief of Ula Geraldine Taylor Gauthier.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-446, for the relief of Margaret Veronica Stacey Abraham.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-447, for the relief of Colette Bauer Landau.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-448, for the relief of Margot Buerling Zich.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-449, for the relief of Barbara Helen Watson Coones.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-450, for the relief of Bertha Jacqueline Alice Sweetinburgh Glynne-Percy. -Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-451, for the relief of Alphonse Taghon.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-452, for the relief of Paul Morency.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-453, for the relief of Mary Jean Frances Collins Park.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-454, for the relief of Martine Simonne Georgette Krettly Lefebvre.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-455, for the relief of Elizabeth Davis Reed.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-42, for the relief of Brenda Mary Pardy Thacker.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-44, for the relief of Lily Schucher Cohen.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-45, for the relief of Anna Margaret Laurie Cannon Stevenson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-49, for the relief of Roger Vermette.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-50, for the relief of Rose Vosko Ribkoff.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-52, for the relief of John Gilbert Oakley.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-26, for the relief of Julianna Catharina Mehilercsik Jutras.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-28, for the relief of Barbara Jean Gillies Harris Cooke.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-53, for the relief of Earl Bernard Lapierre.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-55, for the relief of Marie Rose
Nicola Lapenna McLaughlin.-Mr. McCleave.

Bill No. SD-456, for the relief of Raymond Faucher.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-457, for the relief of Alexander Bleziotis.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-458, for the relief of Ralph Gatis.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-459, for the relief of Diana Elizabeth Wilson Ronalds.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-460, for the relief of Parthenope Eftichidou Economou.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-461, for the relief of John Edward Anderson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-462, for the relief of Claire Viger Marcil.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-463, for the relief of Denise Claire Lescarbeau Sarroin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-464, for the relief of Carolyn Louise Atwood Leslie.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-465, for the relief of Sophia Kaloutsky Kachur.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-466, for the relief of Rosaire Armand Falardeau.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-467, for the relief of Philippa Osier Day.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-468, for the relief of Mary Rebecca Pittman Lawrence.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-469, for the relief of Frances Cohen Salsky.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-470, for the relief of Shirley Edith Rich Henry.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-471, for the relief of Helene Lepine Greig.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-472, for the relief of Marion Adelaide Smith Berube.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-473, for the relief of Sheila Ethel Mitchell Martin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-474, for the relief of Margaret Hunt Tibbo.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-475, for the relief of Simone Laramee Desroches.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-476, for the relief of Ethel Bannister Thomas.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-477, for the relief of Leo Antonio Gianfrancesco.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-478, for the relief of Mary Spalton Humphries.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-480, for the relief of Nicola Salvatore Veri.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-481, for the relief of Noreen Elizabeth Cassidy Pineo.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-482, for the relief of Marie Therese Barolet Cayer.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-483, for the relief of Iris Nellie Armstrong Wedge.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-484, for the relief of Lucien
Carbonneau.-Mr. McCleave.

Bill No. SD-485, for the relief of Peter Borbely.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-486, for the relief of Joseph Pierre Claude Aubin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-487, for the relief of Vladimir Ignatj ev.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-61, for the relief of Donna Lois Marchand Silverman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-201, for the relief of Marie Cecile Leda Vezeau Leger.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-273, for the relief of Giovanna Intini Mancuso.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-356, for the relief of Elaine Louise Robinson Solkin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-389, for the relief of Lambly Dorothy Audrey Hage Lambert.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-431, for the relief of Charles Guy Comeau.'-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-320, for the relief of Elsa Faiga Manace Grossman.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-488, for the relief of Elizabeth Fairnington Gaul.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-489, for the relief of Rolande Mercier Perreault.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-490, for the relief of France Andree Joly Smith.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-491, for the relief of Marcelle Schipper Brian.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-492, for the relief of Norman Edward Fulford-Mr. Mandziuk.
Bill No. SD-34, for the relief of Helene Frances Estelle Kearney Freeman.-Mr. McCleave.
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the house would bear with me for ten more seconds. The committee wound up rather rapidly and I did not have an opportunity to express to our clerk, Mr. Slack, and to Dr. Ollivier, our counsel, the heartfelt thanks of the committee, and perhaps I can put these on record now.



FINANCE


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: the second reading of Bill No. C-13, respecting the printing of negotiable instruments in the English and the French languages.
He said:
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, this bill is one of the shortest that has ever been submitted to the House of Commons. Yet, its importance
Finance
is in inverse ratio to its brevity, because all Canadians are personally affected by its provisions. By submitting it to the attention of my fellow members, I have no other intention than to ask them to confirm, by act of parliament, the unqestionable and recognized principle of bilingualism in Canada. There is nothing utopian or merely academic about this bilingualism. It is the very definite expression of our bi-ethnical heritage, whose traditions are welded into a single cultural unit in making up the structure and fostering the spirit of our Canadian civilization.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I should be very happy if the house would approve this bill.
(Text):


Mr. A. R. Webster (St. Antoine-Westmouni):: Mr. Speaker, it is not often I have an opportunity to speak on Bill No. C-13, respecting the printing of negotiable instruments in the English and the French languages. I come from a section of the country where, as far as my constituency is concerned, about 90 per cent of the people speak English and possibly 10 per cent speak French. We get along very well with the 10 per cent French, and I hope they get along just as well with the 90 per cent English.
We have everything bilingual down there. Even the street car transfers, the tickets, the road signs, the menus; everything is printed in both languages. Therefore I think it would be a great opportunity and a good move to print negotiable instruments in the two languages. I cannot see any harm that that could do. When the majority of the people get a cheque they are not interested in what language it is printed in; all they want to know is the amount. It would not obligate the government to undertake any great expense when sending in cheques to the Queen's printer for printing to add another line. I would recommend that this bill be given consideration and passed. I do not think there is a single hon. member of this house who is not in favour of bilingualism. It is recognized by act of parliament of the province of Quebec and it is provided for in the British North America Act, and I think if the government is going to acknowledge this fact we should go ahead and pass this bill.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, on two occasions. I had the opportunity to submit a bill similar to that which is moved today by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon). As a matter of fact, Bill C-15, which we shall take up after this one, has been put on the order paper in my name. Therefore, I cannot but unreservedly approve this bill.

Finance
I need not repeat what I already stated twice during the sessions of 1957 and 1958. I merely want to say again, as did the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. Webster), that this proposal has our unqualified approval.
I therefore ask hon. members not to draw out the discussion, so that we may enjoy those bilingual papers as soon as possible.
(Text):


Mr. Egan Chambers (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that has come before this house in the same or similar form on a number of occasions, and to me it represents a very laudable objective. The riding of St. Lawrence-St. George which I represent is about 35 per cent composed of those of the French language. In that constituency and in the city of Montreal in which it is situated we have always recognized the principle of bilingualism. As the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. Webster) has said, our street signs and practically everything of a public nature that is published in that area are done so in the two languages. Since this parliament was elected we in this House of Commons have given further recognition to the principle of bilingualism by introducing the simultaneous translation system. Some years ago the printed money of this country was changed from being printed solely in English to being printed in both languages. Even in those constituencies where the French language is not used, where possibly there are few if any whose mother tongue is French, I do not think anyone refuses to take paper money because it is printed in both French and English. For many years now I think we have accepted the principle that in this country we have two main compositions of our population, those whose origins are connected with the French language and those whose origins are connected with the English language. I think it has also been accepted that no man should be discriminated against because he is able to speak only one of those two languages.
From my own point of view, I think it very desirable that as many Canadians as possible should be able to speak and understand both languages. Nevertheless, it is not for us to say that because a Canadian citizen is born of French speaking parents and brought up in a part of the country where there may not be too much opportunity to learn and practise the English language he should, particularly in the case of official instruments such as cheques, drafts and so on, which are mentioned in this bill, possibly be put in the position of not fully understanding the kind of document that he is dealing with. It may be

said by those of other views that the cheques which are issued today are pretty well always cashed no matter what language they are written in but I do not think this is a sound argument.
We accepted the principle of this bill when we printed the paper money in both languages. We have accepted the principle of bilingualism in this house and this it seems to me is merely removing one of the last anomalies that exist in our system when it comes to the recognition of bilingualism.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. member who has introduced this bill and to assure him that I wholeheartedly support the purpose intended, i.e. establishing the principle of bilingualism in that field.


Mr. Heward Grafffey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, like several other members of this house, I represent a constituency composed of both French speaking and English speaking citizens.
The house will no doubt allow me to tell of an historical fact relating to my constituency. At the time of my early youth, most people in the constituency of Brome-Missisquoi were English-speaking, as in several communities in the eastern townships. Today, the situation is reversed, and I now have the honour to represent in this house an electoral district where 75 per cent of the people are French-speaking.
The people of my constituency realize that, under the capable leadership of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), the Progressive Conservative party is genuinely that of national unity.
As pointed out by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Chambers), already we have established in this house the simultaneous interpretation system; our party has thus confirmed the words of Macdonald and Cartier who said that two languages constituted the real glory and strength of our country.
As several other members have stated, bilingualism is an accomplished fact in our country, and like previous speakers, I take pleasure in congratulating the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) for introducing this bill.
(Text):
It gives me much pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to rise in my place this afternoon and support the bill presented to this house by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon). Since I represent a riding which is predominantly French speaking it is a great pleasure for me, as I say, to support this bill. Our party, under the direction of

the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) is certainly the party which has done more in the past years to cement the true spirit of national unity than has ever been done before. As we all know-and it has been mentioned many times in this house- the spirit of bilingualism has already been admitted-it does not have to be admitted, it has been emphasized-by the fact that we have put in a simultaneous translation system. If I understand correctly, this system is possibly going to be extended into other areas of our parliamentary life. As has already been said, all hon. members admit and feel most strongly that this bill, which has to do with general cheques and drafts, should command the hearty support of all hon. members.
I should like to repeat in English what I have just said in French. When I was a boy-and I was born in 1928-the district of Brome-Missisquoi was more predominantly English speaking, like many areas of the eastern townships. Today, also like many areas of the eastern townships, such is not the case. I have the honour to represent in this House of Commons a district which is predominantly-I would say approximately 75 per cent-French speaking and therefore, I repeat, it is a great pleasure for me to support this bill. I am proud to say and voice in this chamber that we have a very high percentage of bilingualism in my constituency. I am proud of my constituents. I think of towns like Cowansville, Bedford, Farnham, Sutton, Knowlton and many others where both languages are spoken perfectly. When you hear them speaking English you might think their mother tongue was English and when you hear them speaking French you might think their mother tongue was French. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the spirit of bilingualism is more than an intellectual proposition in my constituency. It is something that is deeply believed in and deeply felt. I feel I have a very strong mandate to support the bill now before the house.
It was the spirit of Macdonald and Cartier in 1867 that brought about the union of two great races and two great languages to form the glory and the force of our country. Time and time again the Prime Minister has made that clear from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Today we see these unifying forces. Today that message means two great languages and two great cultures as well as many other groups. I think particularly of people in western and central Canada who have come there from far distant lands to form part of the glory and force of Canada today. The spirit of Cartier and Macdonald, today, as symbolized by the Prime Minister, includes people whose ethnic origins are in many distant lands.
79951-0-495
Finance
No matter what constituency they represent, I think that most hon. members will feel strongly that they can support this measure. As I said before, it deals generally with cheques, drafts and other such instruments. As the hon. member for St. Antoine-West-mount (Mr. Webster) said, I do not think it will cause too much administrative difficulty in printing such documents.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, as member for Brome-Missisquoi, it is with great pleasure that I support this bill, which is of paramount importance. I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.
(Text):


Mr. Frank McGee (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this measure and also welcome the fact that during this hour on Tuesday and Friday we have been allowed again to discuss something other than divorce. Now that the C.C.F. closure action has been lifted-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Frank Charles McGee: -I am happy to contribute a few words in support of the principle of the bill. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Chambers) and the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) have my admiration and respect both for the views they have expressed in support of the bill and for the great facility with which they switch from one language to another.
It was my good fortune to be bom in an area which was bilingual in nature. About half the young boys I grew up with were French speaking and the other half English speaking. One of the great regrets of my life is that I did not take advantage of the opportunity afforded to me at that time in my life to become fluent in the French language. It is a well known fact in educational circles that the learning of another language comes most easily to a person in his early years. Unfortunately for me the method of communication we worked out was that those of us who spoke English spoke that language and the other half of the gang spoke French. While each group developed some ability to understand the other I regret that, typically, those of us who spoke English did not put forth the same effort and were not as successful in obtaining a like degree of bilingualism.
Whether one is a member of the House of Commons, a lawyer, a doctor, a businessman or engaged in any occupation in any area of this country, it is a tremendous advantage to a person to be bilingual. My constituency has very few French speaking

Finance
persons. However, I am happy to say that particularly in recent years, considerable discussion has been going on in different school board groups about taking the initiative and advocating the teaching of oral French in the lower grades of the public and separate schools. From my own experience I would say that any person engaged in business in Canada today, particularly a person from Toronto, would find it would be a tremendous advantage to be fluent in both languages. While education certainly is not my specific business as a member of the federal parliament, I think it would not be an intrusion in the area of provincial rights to wish the school board groups good luck and Godspeed in their endeavour.
This measure has been before the house on previous occasions. It was my privilege to speak in support of the bill then and in reiterating my support for the bill may I say that I welcome the opportunity to discuss again somebody else's ideas other than those of the C.C.F.


Mr. Grant Campbell (Stormont):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), I too have the honour to represent a constituency that now has a substantial number of people of French Canadian origin. In my grandfather's day even the Gaelic tongue was by no means unknown in Stormont but today 53 per cent of the people there are of French Canadian origin. I would be very pleased if every Canadian was not only bilingual but trilingual. I am firmly convinced that no man can ever be considered a thoroughly educated person unless he can speak at least one other language than his own. Furthermore, I am convinced that no one can ever be thoroughly familiar and conversant with his own language unless he knows another language by which he can judge his own.


Mr. Drysdale:: Like Gaelic?


Grant Campbell: For that reason and for many others I think there is a great deal to be said for the principle of bilingualism. There is also the whole question of cultural isolation. If all the people of Canada spoke French, French Canadian authors would have a much larger market for their works. Similarly, if all the people of Quebec spoke and read English, English Canadian authors would have a one third larger market than at present.
Apart from the question of the cultural advantages, in my opinion there is one thing more than anything else that distinguishes us at this time from the rest of North America and that is bilingualism. The one thing that will probably be a greater bulwark than

anything else against cultural assimilation by the United States is bilingualism.
At this particular time our whole trade and unemployment picture and to a large extent our economic future depend on increasing our trade and our contacts with the continent of Europe and with the great continent of South America. I think anything that will increase our knowledge of bilingualism will encourage and aid these contacts.
Today, of course, the English language is the lingua franca of the world. Also, as it has been for centuries, the French language is the language of diplomacy, the language of culture, and the social language. For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be of great benefit that all Canadians should become bilingual. This I believe is a step in that direction. It is a step that aids and supports national unity, and a step that tends to emphasize our Canadian national identity, foster our Canadian unity and preserve Canada as Canadian.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Although coming from the far province of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, I was very fortunate in the early years of my life to live in the city of Montreal and to receive some of my basic education in that city. So I feel that to a certain extent I have an understanding and a knowledge of the French speaking people from the province of Quebec.
I have a great admiration for the French language. As the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Campbell) has said, it is the language of culture; it is a language that has a softness and tenderness, as compared with the English language. I feel that we in Canada are extremely fortunate to have, under the British North America Act, the bilingual nature that we do have.
I think I shall draw to the attention of the house before I proceed any further the fact that our fathers of confederation in 1867, in the British North America Act, made an explicit provision for the fact that there were going to be two languages in Canada. Section 133 reads as follows:
Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the houses of the parliament of Canada and of the houses of the legislature of Quebec; and both those languages shall be used in the respective records and journals of those houses; and either of those languages may be used by any person or in any pleading or process in or issuing from the court of Canada established under this act, and in or from all or any of the courts of Quebec.
I feel that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) in introducing this particular bill has done us a great service, because he is in fact giving effect to the recognition which is already in the British North America Act. I feel, too,

that it is also important to consider whether this act is within the legislative scope of the federal government. In the provisions of the British North America Act I think we have every assurance that it is under our competence and jurisdiction, and I would refer Your Honour specifically to section 91 of that act. That section reads as follows:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces; and for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms in this section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this act) the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,-
I would point out, that the particular subsection in which we are interested is subsection 18, which deals with bills of exchange and promissory notes.
We have therefore established through section 133 and section 91, subsection 18, of the British North America Act first of all the jurisdictional right of the parliament of Canada to enact this particular legislation. I suggest that section 133 provides the cultural justification for the enactment of this particular section. I feel the fact that we have two languages in Canada is not a division, it is not a bifurcation; but I think it provides for greater unity and understanding between two great races and two great nations.
I think this was recognized by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he introduced the system of simultaneous translation, because I have noticed since my arrival here that with the advent of simultaneous translation English speaking members are now becoming quite fluent and proficient at French, and the French speaking members, who seem to have a greater aptitude for catching on to English very quickly, seem to be also benefiting materially by this particular system.
I feel too, that being in the city of Ottawa and so close to the province of Quebec there is the opportunity to obtain many of their cultural benefits. One of the most enjoyable forms was the one where the Quebec members very kindly extended their hospitality to many of the English speaking members to join in the celebration of le bonhomme carnaval festival in the province of Quebec last year. We were able to see first-hand real French Canadian hospitality. We were also able to try out our French on a very understanding and sympathetic group, and we were also able to understand many of the joys of what I would like to call la belle province.
79951-0-495J
Finance
I feel that it is very important that this bill is brought forward at this particular time. It is unfortunate that we are in the closing days of the session and that we are perhaps not able to give it the necessary discussion, and perhaps not all the members who would like to speak will have that opportunity. But I thought it would perhaps give the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm, who proposed the bill, a certain amount of strength to feel that an English member from Colombie-Britannique would also participate in and give him support for this very important piece of legislation whereby we have recognition of both the French and English languages, not only as we have it in the schools and in parliament, but also on matters of bills of exchange, cheques and promissory notes.
I wish, that my French fluency was sufficient that I could do as the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi did and translate my remarks into French. But I feel that would only be imposing an unnecessary hardship on the house. I only wish to conclude by saying that it gives me a great deal of pleasure to support this very important bill which the hon. member has put forward at this time.
(Translation):


Mr. Gabriel Roberge (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, may I just take up one or two minutes of the time of the house to register my wholehearted support of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon).
It is fortunate that the hon. member was able to introduce his bill before the end of the session. It is also fortunate that this bill headed the list of public bills, thus coming before a similar bill put forward by my colleague from Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger).
In fact, Mr. Speaker, you will no doubt recall that last year the bill introduced by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska was at the top of the list of public bills, whereas this year, it is the opposite.
I feel that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm should use his influence with his government colleagues to have the matter put to a vote without delay.
(Text) :
Mr. Speaker, since my riding is situated in the eastern townships, and since you know that this part of the country was settled by the loyalists coming from the United States and Ontario, in our part of the country we are used to speaking either French or English. As a matter of fact, when my own family moved into Inverness in my constituency in my very young years we were the first French

Finance
speaking family to enter that village. We get along very nicely. In my riding the English speaking and French speaking people have always got along well and I am sure they would want me to support this measure.


Mr. M. D. Morton (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to make a few comments on the bill now before us. As some hon. members will recall the principle of this bill or a similar bill was approved on January 31, 1958, I believe, when a vote was taken on the bill then before the house and the four parties then represented in this chamber voted in favour of the principle of the bill. There were a number of hon. members who voted against the bill independent of party. The house having voted for the principle of the bill indicates that there is a general approval of the principle of the extension of bilingualism in this respect. Those hon. members who were here at that time will probably remember the colourful speech of the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Small).
Perhaps in the past not all areas of Canada have readily accepted the idea of bilingualism. However, as the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Drysdale) has reminded us, section 133 of the British North America Act accords the right to Canadians to use French or English, the language of their choice, in the particular fields delineated in that section.
As history developed various extensions of this principle have been made. As we have been reminded today the paper currency of this country has been made bilingual. I believe that the prejudice which has hindered the development of bilingualism is rapidly dying out in Canada in large part because of improvements in the means of communication through which contact is achieved between the people of the two major races. In my own riding there are not many French speaking Canadians and as would be true of similar ridings in Toronto many languages are spoken. Next to English the second largest language group would be Italian, I believe.
Historically, Canada is bilingual. I think it is a good thing that we recognize this principle and sincerely practise it. One of the great handicaps of the English speaking people of Canada has been the fact that they have not learned other languages as readily as have Canadians of other racial origins. As a result we have lost a great deal.
During world war II, I had the privilege of serving with a New Brunswick regiment that had both English and Acadian members. I got to know those of Acadian ancestry very well. In our brigade we had members from Quebec. In those years of trial and

challenge we grew in respect for one another and for the customs, desires and hopes of each other. We came to realize that regardless of racial origin we shared the desire to build one Canada, a nation that would respect the freedom for which we were fighting and the customs of the people within the country regardless of the province in which they lived.
We came to realize too that as our country opened up through immigration from various countries across the world we must develop a new tolerance. We grew in understanding of the idea that ours is a young country that would meld together various cultures to develop the Canada for which we were fighting.
In spite of the prejudice that may exist in certain sections that perhaps have not had the benefit of close friendship and association of other language groups the trend toward bilingualism continues to grow. In permitting this growth the country broadens its horizons and enriches its social fabric. When one learns another language it is like obtaining a key to new knowledge and new understanding.
For the reasons I have briefly stated I wish to add my support of the principle advanced by the proponent of this bill. Although in my riding we do not share in the proportion of French speaking Canadians that may be found in some other areas in Canada I believe we do share the same aspiration and hope that this country will continue to respect the rights of those of different religions and cultures.
Those who are in favour of the extension of bilingualism must attempt to respect and understand the feelings of those who at the moment perhaps hesitate to fully endorse the idea of the extension of bilingualism. Through your understanding I am sure you will succeed in sharing your ideas with them and in winning their support. Be not discouraged by delays or misunderstandings that may arise from time to time because fundamentally, I think, we are united from coast to coast as one people with one purpose, to abide in this country, the land of freedom, in mutual respect for the individual rights and privileges of all.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Peters@: Let us have a vote.


Mr. Tardif:: Do not talk it out.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I see that there are objections from hon. members of the opposition as I rise to take part in this important discussion. From time to time I

have heard protests from hon. members opposite to the effect that they are not allowed the maximum freedom of expression in this chamber. I do not think I should make any apology for rising at this time to add my contribution to this discussion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am sure I have not consumed as much time during the present session as have many hon. members who now utter protests at my rising to speak on this occasion.


William Arnold Peters: Speak to the bill.


An hon. Member:: The C.C.F. have guilty consciences.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: This bill is quite a simple one as I read it. It is merely to implement the printing of negotiable instruments in both the English and French languages in accordance with the principle established in the Bank of Canada Act. I am only sorry that my own bilingual capacity does not make it possible for me to express myself in French this afternoon. It is not that I am completely unacquainted with the language. I think it stems from the fact that in Canada we tend to be linguistically lazy.
I come from the province of Manitoba, and I was exposed to bilingual training from the end of elementary school up to college graduation. Unfortunately, because of this tendency to be linguistically lazy, I did not acquire the facility in conversation that is required in this House of Commons. I had the privilege of sitting under the instruction of a French Canadian teacher. As a matter of fact, during my high school days my teacher was a Mademoiselle Duval, and one of the phrases that I recall she used repeatedly in reference to my attempts at French in the classroom situation was: "Tu es bete". That being interpreted means, I believe, "You are stupid". It was not actually that I was stupid-


An hon. Member:: You are too modest.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It is just that there was a certain inertia in approaching the problems of bilingualism if one came from a part of Canada where opportunities in conversational French did not arise every day.
I admire the facility of many Europeans in this respect. They are not only bilingual, they are trilingual, and in some cases can even handle four or five languages. It seems to me that media of communication, language, is very important in the world in which we live today. As a matter of fact, the word "communication" and the word "community" are of very similar derivation and if we are going to understand one another and our
Finance
respective problems in this country we have to reach a point where we are able to communicate in a meaningful way.
I have found it very useful, since we have had simultaneous interpretation available in this house, to acquire additional facilities in the second language by listening in on the translations, making up for the years of neglect when I had the opportunity in an educational situation to acquire facility and failed to take advantage of that opportunity to develop conversational French.
Having been exposed to that background, it is not in the least difficult for me to endorse the principle of the bill that we have before us this afternoon. There was a time, perhaps, when this was not as important as it is at the present time, but the sooner we as Canadians arouse ourselves from our sluggish attitude toward the acquisition of skill in languages the better we shall be equipped to deal with the type of role in external affairs that is required of Canadians today. Perhaps that idea seems very remote from the terms of this bill, yet it is from the small accumulations of this kind that we are going to move forward toward the skill in languages that we should have in modern society.


Mr. R. D. Thrasher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour):: Like other hon. members in this chamber who have already spoken in this debate I want to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) . This is not the first occasion when bills similar to this have been before the house. I think that all of us should have a definite understanding of what this bill means. In the explanatory note to the bill, as the hon. member has pointed out, it is stated that the Bank of Canada Act provides that all notes payable to bearer on demand and intended for circulation in Canada issued by the bank shall be printed in both the official languages. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Drysdale) when he was speaking in this debate pointed out the basis for having two official languages in this country. He pointed out that the British North America Act provides for two official languages.
This bill goes on to provide that every cheque, draft, travellers cheque, bill of exchange, postal note, money order, postal remittance and any other similar remittance of any department as defined in paragraph (f) of section 2 of the Financial Administration Act or of any crown corporation enumerated in the schedules B, C and D of the said act shall be printed in both the English and the

Sup p ly-A griculture
French languages, provided the form and the material thereof shall be subject to the approval of the Minister of Finance.
May I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: The hour for the consideration of private and public bills having expired, the house will resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.

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



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Production and marketing branch-
576. Payment of an amount, as a higher return for wheat used for human consumption in Canada, to western grain producers to be distributed on the following basis, namely:
$1 per cultivated acre up to a maximum of 200 acres per farm in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, $42,000,000.
Charles Edward Rea: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, just before five o'clock I made a rather reluctant beginning and pointed out that the farmers of western Canada had been waiting for some indication from the government that some of their problems would be relieved, not necessarily on a short term basis but on a long term basis.
When I was in western Canada I visited a number of farmers before and after the march to Ottawa and I was very surprised to find that members here representing those ridings said that the farmers were pleased to accept the acreage payments when they were paid in 1958. I found that was not true of the farmers I talked to. Whether other hon. members talked to a different group than I I am not in a position to say, but in the main those who received acreage payments in 1958 accepted them because there was not anything better and they needed the money. They did not agree that this was the solution to their problem. They knew the problem would be the same next year and that probably it would get worse.
I suggested to them something which did not come to pass. I suggested that they would make the march on Ottawa, that they would get their 300,000 signatures and receive a hearing, but I suggested that they would go back home and would have to report that nothing came of that march. I also predicted at that

time that the next year again they would receive an acreage payment because it appeared to be a very good political gimmick, and that the acreage payment they would receive in 1959 would be $1.25. I expected that in 1960 it would be $1.50, and that by the time the Conservative government went to the people again this acreage payment would have reached proportions probably of $2 an acre. I realize, even if the government does not, that if they are going to give a hand-out on a relief basis they will have to increase the relief as the need increases or it will not even be of any value as an election gimmick.
The western farmer, being no different from any other farmer, is not particularly interested only in the problem as it affects him today but also is interested in correcting the problem on a long term basis. Farmers all across Canada have a large investment in land, in equipment, in buildings and the farm itself and they know that as time goes by there is only one solution for their agricultural problems and that solution is not deficiency payments or acreage payments but a parity price which can be applied to all agricultural products. Farmers have realized, and I believe also the Prime Minister has realized, that there must be eventually a long term solution which will put agriculture into a much more favourable position where they will not have this declining income and rising costs which they have had over the past few years.
When this delegation came to Ottawa a pamphlet was published on March 10, 1959 by the western farmers delegation, and it pointed out the following:
Other groups in Canada have faced comparable increases in costs. But most of them have been able to pass these increases along to others through higher wages or through increases in the price of goods and services they sell. The grain farmer, however, has the price of his product fixed in the export market. Consequently, he is unable to adjust his prices to domestic cost increases over which he has no control.
The rising spiral of costs has been the most significant factor contributing to declining farm living standards. Farm organizations have long held that the government of Canada must accept responsibility for the policies which have permitted a spiralling of farm costs. Consequently, if they are unable or unwilling to arrest this spiral, the government should be prepared to accept responsibility for maintaining farm prices in some reasonable relationship to costs .. .
The government has recognized the danger. Its proposals looking toward a long-range corrective program are appreciated. These policies may eventually place agriculture in a position to cover its costs. But, until that time arrives, the grain producer must be assisted.
Then they point out three ways in which they consider the farmer can be assisted, and these are as follows:
1.	Expansion of export markets. This would be helpful to the extent that farmers were able to increase their marketings. The majority of farmers

in the west will have no grain on their farms by mid-summer. Therefore, they would not be helped immediately even if expansion were possible.
2.	Reduction of farm costs through lower prices of goods and services used on the farm. This would call not only for price controls, but for pushing these prices back to the level of ten years ago.
3.	Transfer payments from the treasury to increase grain prices through deficiency payments.
When these 300,000 people asked the government for assistance they realized that even if they got deficiency payments this would not solve their problems on a long term basis. They were suggesting that other methods more applicable to them would solve the problem instead of acreage payments.
It has been pointed out that the grain farmers do receive other assistance. The hon. member for Essex East pointed out today that this amounts to $150 million, and I do not know whether that is too high or too low. But there are other factors which enter into the problem and there are other considerations which should be given to the grain farmers of western Canada.
We have never really attempted to solve the problem which affects agriculture, not only in the grain industry but all other industries as well, and until this government comes up with a constructive agricultural policy applied to all agriculture it will not get the support of the farmers of this country and it is not going to deserve the support of the farmers of this country.
Acreage payments will do two things. The payment of $1 an acre does nothing to overcome the cost-price squeeze; that is, the worsening of the farmers' position by continuing to increase the cost of production. It is this cost-price squeeze which today threatens the agriculture industry.
Second, the $1 an acre payment smacks of a hand-out or relief measure because it is based on nothing but political expediency. It means no more than the payment of five cents a bushel which was made in the hungry thirties. If you take the average as 20 bushels per acre, you will find this amounts to exactly the $1 which was paid by the then government in the depths of the depression.
Third, $200 in relation to a farmer's total expenses and cost of living is a trivial sum. The Prime Minister claims that it helps the small farmer, yet a small farmer with less than 200 acres receives less than $200. It was pointed out by the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon that there will be 76,000 people in western Canada having an acreage affording them less than $200 under this acreage payment. There will be 125,000 who will get $200 more or less.
Deficiency payments have been an alternative which has been put forward by the
Supply-Agriculture
farmers of western Canada themselves. They admit that deficiency payments will not solve the problem. They point out that the government must immediately initiate a trade program which will encourage the selling of more grain produced by the western farmers. Many farmers who are producing and selling grain on the quota basis depend on the sale of that grain for their income, and their quota this year is seven bushels per acre. I would suggest, that the costs, calculate them as you wish, on the average farm in Canada cannot be covered by the sale of seven bushels of wheat per acre, and the costs of production cannot be geared to a seven or eight bushel quota.
On the other hand, deficiency payments do help to develop a parity price in grain production. To me a parity price means an amount sufficient to cover the cost of production and to pay to the farmer sufficient to enable him to have a decent standard of living for himself and his family. Deficiency payments have these advantages.
There is a clear-cut case for deficiency payments, based on the Prime Minister's election promises of parity of income for farmers. By refusing or failing to control the farmer's cost of production the federal government has a direct responsibility for his present difficulty. Therefore, by making deficiency payments the government would discharge its responsibility to the farmer.
Deficiency payments mean in effect an increase in the price of wheat, oats and barley sufficient to provide a compensation for the increase in the cost of production and therefore strikes at the root cause of the farmer's difficulty, namely the cost-price squeeze. Deficiency payments would constitute the kind of major policy necessary to assure the survival of the wheat industry so important to the economy of the three western provinces. Payment of deficiency payments of the magnitude requested can be practically applied, since the alternatives that the delegation has put forward, for example payment by the federal government of all storage charges, payment of a subsidy on flour exports and, the two-price system, would automatically reduce the cost of deficiency payments.


Mr. Lambert:: Will the hon. gentleman please identify the source of his inspiration at the moment?


William Arnold Peters: These are notes I made before supper.
Deficiency payments with a ceiling of $1,500, to be paid to any individual farmer in any one year, would provide sizeable help to the vast majority of farmers, and yet would not encourage the large or corporation farm.

Supply-Agriculture
In every case where the farmers have come to Ottawa, not only the last time but in years previously, they always put a limit on the amount of payment and on the amount of assistance they requested because it is not their desire to ask the federal government to finance the large operators of the west.


Henry Frank Jones: What they asked for was $4,500 in three years.


William Arnold Peters: They asked for a maximum of $4,500 per farmer for three years. I believe the government has an obligation to the farmers of western Canada, as they have to the farmers of all Canada. The government has used deficiency payments when they have seen fit to do so. I am well aware of the fact that deficiency payments that have been applied to other forms of produce are not the same as those that would be applied to wheat, but they have-and the minister pointed it out today-reduced the amount of pork being produced and, therefore, increased the price beyond the floor that was established. I would suggest that it could be used to advantage in controlling wheat production.
I agree wholeheartedly with the remarks made this afternoon by that well known farm expert from Vancouver East who stated that the farmers were expecting and would welcome certain controls on the production of wheat because of the fact that the government is the sole agency for the sale of wheat and therefore there has to be some control in the production of it. It seems to me we are reaching a rather ridiculous position when we offer to the farmers a straight relief payment of $200 whether they have grown any wheat or not, and call it a subsidy, an acreage payment, or whatever name you wish to give it.
It seems to me that the farmers of western Canada are not going to be satisfied very long with a hand-out, and what they are being offered is only a hand-out. They are going to demand-and they have every right to do so-that an over-all agricultural policy be developed which will solve some of their problems rather than just cover them up. Among those problems is the major one of the cost-price squeeze. This government is going to have to do something either to increase the price of wheat being sold internally and externally and at the same time reduce the cost of production of the farmers, or-


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question? I gather from what he has been saying that he has been making quite a study of the cost problem in western Canada. Has the hon. gentleman read the report of the royal commission on agriculture and rural life in Saskatchewan,
[Mr. Peters.}
and does he know what the recommendations in that report were as to what the provincial government could do to reduce the cost of farm machinery?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, the simple
answer is no. I am not completely unfamiliar with the problem, though. As the minister knows, we have set up a committee to study the cost of farm machinery and his own members from Saskatchewan and others have pointed out that there has been a study of the co-operative ownership of farm machinery. There has been a study in the province of Saskatchewan of whether we should reduce the amount of farm machinery being used, whether it is possible to get along with less machinery. I am familiar with the fact that certain studies have been made. The minister will probably be happy to know that in Ontario also this problem has been given consideration. One of the conclusions that we have come to in Ontario is that a considerable amount of the land that was opened up for agriculture a number of years ago should be turned back to forest production. Perhaps the minister is also aware of the fact that in Ontario, as I presume in the west, we have given consideration to the size of farms. This in turn increases the costs that the farmer has to bear because it has become apparent that he needs more land.
I hold in my hand the supplement to handbook of agricultural statistics put out by the dominion bureau of statistics, dated March, 1960. It points out that the trend in the prairie region is in the direction of larger farms. In 1901 the average size of farms in the prairie region was 279 acres; in 1911 it was 289 acres; in 1921 it was 344 acres; in 1931 it was 381; in 1941 it was 438; in 1951 it was 498; and by 1956 the average acreage was 546.
So, this matter is not completely unfamiliar to us in Ontario. This is one of the reasons why we say that $200 is not a fair amount to be paid, that the acreage is not large enough and that a large number of farmers who are in a marginal position are not being given a large enough acreage payment to be of any value to them because they have had to increase their acreage very rapidly over the last few years. In rising to ask a question the minister has only pointed up what I have been saying, that this problem is a growing one. The government of Saskatchewan is giving consideration to it and I am quite sure the governments of other provinces are also doing the same thing. We are pleased that they are.
We suggest that the federal government should not only hand out this $200 by way of relief, which everybody needs and will be happy to receive, but should also come to

the conclusion to initiate a study so that we can arrive at a long term agricultural program, which the Prime Minister himself indicated they were going to do and on which he considers they are now working.
In this regard, I suggest that what has been done so far as crop insurance is concerned has been unsatisfactory because only one province has shown any great interest in that program. In our over-all approach to solving the problems of agriculture we have depended too often on such things as five cents a bushel per acre or the $1 per acre that we are now going to pay. The farmers will welcome this payment. We are willing to support it but I inform the government now that my discussions with farmers of western Canada and my understanding of the situation indicate to me that this is not a solution for tomorrow but only for today. The farmers are unhappy that the government did not see fit to make this type of payment last year and if it is going to be an election gimmick next year the payment will have to be more than $1 an acre.


Mr. Pascoe:: Mr. Chairman, as a western member, a western wheat farmer and the representative of a large farming area I wish to make a few comments on this supplementary estimate in the amount of $42 million. Like other speakers, I wish to draw attention to the wording of the vote. It is in these words:
Payment of an amount, as a higher return for wheat used for human consumption in Canada, to western grain producers-
The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources indicated very clearly the implications of those words and I should like to draw attention to them again. On behalf of my farm constituents I wish to thank the Prime Minister for this assistance to western grain farmers and for his statement yesterday preceding the introduction of the supplementary estimate for $42 million. The Prime Minister again has kept his promise to prairie farmers. He stated earlier in the session that he would make an announcement of special interest to wheat farmers before the business of parliament was completed. This promise he has kept and, as he stated yesterday, for the past two weeks he has been waiting for an opportunity to place before the house this particular portion of the government's farm policy.
I am sure western farmers will appreciate the Prime Minister's announcement of the $1 an acre payment and his explanation of how this payment resembles the two-price system. According to my figures, $42 million is approximately the amount that western grain farmers would realize if all the wheat sold 79951-0-496
Supply-Agriculture
domestically for human consumption were sold under a two-price system at from 90 cents to $1 a bushel above the present export price. This was also brought out very clearly by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. The Prime Minister also indicated this in his statement and I should like to re-emphasize it because for many years I too have advocated a two-price system as a fair way to bring the western farmers' returns for wheat sold in Canada more in line with the prices of the goods and services the farmers have to buy on the Canadian market.
Although it was stated that the $42 million payment is for this year and nothing has been said officially about similar payments in other years, nevertheless the item before the committee tonight means that the payment will have been made for two years, in 1958 and now in 1960. This might, and I emphasize the word "might", bring about in the future a permanent two-price system for wheat sales. In this regard I should like to refer to the proceedings of the standing committee on agriculture for July 1, 1960, page 406. I was a member of that committee and we had a very interesting discussion with Mr. W. C. McNamara, chairman of the Canadian wheat board. I asked Mr. McNamara about selling wheat on the domestic market for the same price as the export price and Mr. McNamara gave his reply:
Yes. This is under instructions we received from the governor in council-
I asked him whether it would be necessary to change the Canadian Wheat Board Act or merely to change the regulations in order to bring about a higher price for domestic sales, and in reply he said:
No, just by changing the regulations.
Since the mass delegation came to Ottawa in March, 1959 with a petition for deficiency payments I have received many letters from my constituents regarding the two-price system. Most of these letters expressed support for the $1 an acre payment by the federal government in 1958. I admit that most of these letters were from smaller farmers. To them, as was clearly pointed out by the Minister of Agriculture and by other speakers, the payment of $1 an acre up to a limit of $200 will be a big help, particularly at this time when extra cash will be needed to harvest a very good prairie crop. I imagine that the $200 cheques will be going out as soon as this supplementary item for $42 million is passed, and in view of this I hope that the item will be passed by the committee as soon as possible.

Supp ly-A griculture
Prairie wheat farmers will notice with gratification, I am sure, that the western members they elected on March 31, 1958 have worked with the Prime Minister and the cabinet on the farm policy being followed. Yesterday and twice last week the Prime Minister acknowledged this advice and help from the 47 members from Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba on the government side. In this connection I should like to place on record the Prime Minister's statements of last week as reported in Hansard. On August 4, as found at page 7535 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said:
-may I point out that the fullest representations with regard to this important matter have been made by the many members from western Canada supporting the government. They have made most clear the desires and wishes of their people and are able to speak for them.
On August 5, on page 7595, the Prime Minister said:
-the government has at all times the benefit of the experience and knowledge of many members from the western provinces who support this administration.
And again:
I have pointed out that we have the benefit of the opinions and views of some 50 western farm members who have made very clear their views as to the needs and requisites of the western farmers.
Again, yesterday, this statement was made at page 7741 of Hansard, August 8. The Prime Minister stated, and I shall read it from Hansard:
We have had the benefit of the opinion, in so far as the western grain problem is concerned, of the western members supporting the government, who have continued to place before us their views and have pressed for action in accordance with the situation.
This may not be fair to the hon. member for Essex East, but I want to stress that this advice to which the Prime Minister referred comes from practical farmers who know the farm situation and who have a direct link with grass roots farmers, being grass roots farmers also.
Following up this reference to the help from western farm members, I note the absence from the house of the member for Assiniboia who in 1958, as the member for Medicine Hat and the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources said, described the $41,300,000 federal payment to prairie farmers as peanuts. I believe this scoffing remark of "peanuts" and the pattern the member for Assiniboia set for the C.C.F. government in Saskatchewan to follow cost prairie farmers $42 million last year.
If the federal government had considered the payment last fall-and it is very probable that this was the case-the C.C.F. opposition

and the Liberal opposition would give the impression that the payment would not have been well received.
The Prime Minister commented on this, as reported in Hansard of March 4, 1960, when he said this:
I was surprised at the reaction in 1958 when we placed before the house a plan whereby payments were made on an acreage basis. The opposition spoke strongly against it. In the province of Saskatchewan the members of the C.C.F. ridiculed it, condemned it and held it up to public scorn.
In my opinion, as I said before, this opposition, led by the member for Assiniboia, probably deprived western farmers of a $42 million payment last year.


Harold Edward Winch: I did not know you paid that much attention to what was said over here.


James Ernest Pascoe: I will speak about you right now. I think the C.C.F. member for Vancouver East who spoke for his group took a more reasonable attitude when he said he supported wholeheartedly any assistance to farmers, although he said that his group still pushed for the $325 million deficiency payment plan; and, he added, with production controls. I am sure western farmers will agree that this attitude is a much better way to help solve the farm problem than by describing the payment of $41,300,000 as "peanuts". But, speaking as a farmer, I know they will be very cautious of his warning about C.C.F. production controls, because that is what the C.C.F. specializes in, controlling everything they put their hands on.


Harold Edward Winch: What about the wheat board?


James Ernest Pascoe: The Prime Minister emphasized the need for positive action on specific regional problems, but he also referred to the need to harmonize this action with national policy. This one dollar an acre payment will be more than a help to western farmers; it will also help the Canadian economy as a whole.
As was pointed out by the member for Provencher and others, the payment of $42 million in cash to prairie farmers within the next month will make its effect felt in a great many ways which need not be outlined here.
The Prime Minister emphasized the need for a farm policy that will aid rather than impede essential adjustments in agriculture. It is not necessary to repeat the arguments against deficiency payments and in support of this dollar an acre. But I would like to re-emphasize the government's determination to attack the basic problems by means of a long range program.
As a farmer, I will agree that the western farm problem has not yet been fully solved. But the government's long range program of

farm credit, price stabilization, crop insurance, more progressive wheat sales, cash advances on farm-stored grain, and other such measures has laid the foundation for a permanent solution that will benefit agriculture and the whole Canadian economy.
The royal commission set up by the Saskatchewan government, to which reference was made a few moments ago, to inquire into the farm problem, in a report to the Saskatchewan cabinet commented, and I take this quotation right from their report:
-concern with respect to farm mechanization reflects a natural conflict between the old and the new ... considerable uncertainty and insecurity will prevail until the new pattern becomes clarified.
In other words, this quotation from the royal commission's report to the Saskatchewan cabinet expresses the opinion that farm problems cannot be solved all at once, or by any single government action. I believe that all fair-minded and clear-thinking farmers will agree with this statement. I think they will agree with the government's long range program. This justifiable payment of $42 million as a sort of two-price system fits in with the whole farm program. As the Prime Minister stated yesterday:
In connection with the broad national aspects of our planned agricultural policy, the government's intention is to present to parliament further instalments at a subsequent session designed to round out the program that was announced in August, 1958.
I would like to draw particular attention to that reference. The Prime Minister referred to the need to avoid the dangers inherent in other suggested farm remedies, particularly in regard to the effect of these suggested remedies on Canada's wheat exports.
As the Minister of Trade and Commerce has stated on other occasions, Canada is facing very tough competition from other wheat exporting countries. In this connection I would like to refer to the June 30, 1960 report of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization dealing with the annual report of the Canadian wheat board. At page 317, Mr. McNamara, the chairman of the Canadian wheat board, was testifying on his annual report. We brought up the question of prices on the export market and how our prices fit in with other international prices. He was asked about Russian competition for wheat sales and he said:
The Russians would indicate that they watch our prices very closely and they try to sell their wheat, on a quality basis as compared to ours, at competitive prices. They seem to be pricing their best wheats that they are making available for export just below the value of our four northern wheat.
79951-0-496J
Supply-Agriculture
He went on to speak about the Dutch market, where the Russians came in last year and took a lot of the sales of No. 5 wheat. Mr. McNamara said:
The Russians are going to drive to maintain as much as they can of the Dutch market. Now that we have No. 5 wheat coming out we are going to try to get as much of that market back as we possibly can. It will be a price factor.
I must emphasize that again, because that is what we are up against in selling our wheat on the export market. We have to meet world prices. This emphasis on the tough competition in the world market is in line with the Prime Minister's statement that the one dollar an acre payment is justifiable assistance to the western grain farmer, given in a manner that will not hurt our wheat export prices. We can raise the price for domestically-consumed wheat as I indicated before but we must meet world prices for the wheat we export.
The $1 an acre certainly is not a hand-out in any sense of the word. I repeat the statement that it is justifiable assistance. Now that the federal government has offered us $42 million in assistance I would hope that the provincial governments would come forward with a similar offer of assistance. I refer particularly to my own province of Saskatchewan which for 16 years has boasted of budget surpluses. I think the Saskatchewan government should pay less attention to a balanced budget and pay more attention to helping Saskatchewan farmers. A $1 an acre payment from the Saskatchewan treasury would be a very fine gesture particularly when the provincial budget is in such good shape.
The Saskatchewan government has other 50-50 agreements with Ottawa particularly in connection with their welfare programs. Ottawa pays half the cost although they are referred to as Saskatchewan welfare programs. In my opinion a 50-50 deal on acreage payments would show Saskatchewan farmers that the C.C.F. government has decided at last to do something more than call on Ottawa for all farm assistance. As a Saskatchewan farmer I call on the Saskatchewan C.C.F. government to do its share in this regard and shoulder its own responsibility toward its own provincial farmers.
If I may I should like to refer to another payment of more than $43 million from the federal treasury that is of direct cash benefit to the western wheat farmer. It should be kept in mind in connection with this acreage payment. I refer to the payment of $43,604,000 being paid by Ottawa in the 1959-60 crop year for storage of the wheat surplus under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. This sum of

Supply-Agriculture
$43,604,000 paid by Ottawa to the Canadian wheat board eventually is paid to western wheat farmers through wheat board payments. The net value to the wheat farmer of this $43,604,000 federal storage payment is an extra 11.7 cents a bushel.
We had an argument about that in the standing committee on agriculture and colonization. We figured it out with the wheat board and it came to 11.7 cents a bushel. When this information was brought out at one of the meetings of the committee to which I referred even the hon. member for Assiniboia commented that "this is a kind of deficiency payment." Those were his exact words. Even that hon. gentleman said it was a good thing. It comes out of the federal treasury.
I believe it is in order to make another suggestion that would bring more cash directly to the farmer. This is in regard to the storage of surplus wheat to which I just referred. I should like to see some of the surplus earnings now enjoyed by elevator companies-they are referred to as storage charges-diverted directly to the farmer by some form of payment for wheat stored on individual farms. It seems to me that the price of wheat could be increased one cent a month during the crop year in line with the elevator storage charges. This would mean that the farmer would earn one cent a bushel per month by storing his own grain in his own bins. At page 359 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee on agriculture and colonization I pursued this possible farm storage plan a little further with Mr. McNamara. I pointed out that in the Canada Wheat Board Act at page 12, section 2, part 3 provides:
The board shall, if directed by regulation, pay to each producer at the time of delivery of wheat to the board, in addition to any other payment authorized by this section, a sum per bushel on account of storage of the said wheat on the producer's farm, for such period of storage as the board in its sole discretion shall fix-
I asked Mr. McNamara if this was still in the act and if it could be done. My question was as follows:
Has any thought been given to the paying of storage for the keeping of grain on the farm until the farmer is able to deliver it, and raising the price of wheat to the same amount as the storage charges? I see that the board has the power to do that.
Mr. McNamara replied, in part, as follows:
We have the power to do this. This has been a matter of consideration over a great number of years.
In fairness to Mr. McNamara I should point out that he said one of the disadvantages would be that the big farmer would get most of the benefit by holding his wheat
[Mr. Pascoe.l
back. Even if he did it would give the smaller farmer a chance to deliver more of his wheat to the elevator. I just pass that on as a suggestion that might be followed up a little later.
In connection with the latest move to bolster the western grain farmer's cash income I hope I can refer to another program of assistance, the increasing program of federal government co-operation with overseas countries which store Canadian wheat flour for use in emergencies and any other program of shipping Canadian flour to meet immediate emergencies. I know this subject is not before us now but under further supplementary estimate No. 577 we will be dealing with the purchase of flour for a relief gift to Palestine refugees in the amount of $1 million. Also, not long ago we had reports concerning the shipping of 20,000 tons of Canadian wheat flour to Norway and 30,000 tons to the United Kingdom. In terms more easily understood that amounted to 40 million pounds of flour to Norway and 60 million pounds to the United Kingdom.
We mentioned that also in the committee on agriculture and colonization. I asked Mr. McNamara about this and if it was paid for. At page 323 of the evidence I asked about these commercial cash sales and Mr. McNamara replied:
We get Canadian dollars. The Canadian wheat board only sells tor cash, even when the government is good enough to make wheat available they pay us dollars for it.
That is another way federal money is used to help bolster western farm incomes. In conclusion I want to state once again the principle behind this acreage payment of $42 million, the principle of providing the most assistance possible to the smaller farmers. This is how this policy was outlined by the Prime Minister as reported in Hansard of March 4, 1960:
We recognize the principle that public money should be used to relieve distress on the basis of need, and any scheme which gives no help, or very little, to those who are most in need is socially indefensible. Any proposal to augment the admitted income deficiency of western grain producers must be of such a nature that the bulk of the assistance provided is directed to those most in need of it.
That certainly will be the case in regard to the item before the committee. I am very happy to support this policy. I am pleased that so many western members have contributed to the debate today. Hon. members on the government side who participated all spoke good common sense. We have not told enough people on the prairies what the government is doing to help agriculture. We have been too modest in regard to the government's farm program. As may be seen from the speeches today, we are going to tell the

story in full detail from now on. I know we can find very strong support for the government's farm program on the prairies.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, after the enthusiasm being shown by government members, I can hardly contain my own. Therefore, I cannot resist the temptation to deal a second time with the subject now under consideration.
When we analyze the difficulties being experienced by prairie farmers, we always come to the conclusion that the problem boils down to one of marketing the grain, especially wheat. There is also the problem of surpluses and that of low prices which have long prevailed.
For the last three years, the government has vainly tried to find answers to it. The farmers themselves tried to dispose of those surpluses by increased production of hogs, cattle and eggs, but this caused surpluses in hog and egg production.
We say that, so long as we do not succeed in balancing grain production with potential demand, the same problems will turn up.
The government has tried to get around them by increasing exports. Alas, we know what the results have been.
Over the last eleven months our wheat shipments dropped by sixteen million bushels as compared with last year. Barley shipments dropped by 4,400,000 bushels, and flax seed by about 2 million bushels.
We now export 27 per cent of our wheat to world markets, whereas a few years ago we exported 35 per cent. The results can easily be imagined: we have on hand 427 million bushels of wheat. This is six million more than last year.
We have been exporting less wheat in the various countries. Thus in 1958-59, our wheat exports to the Netherlands fell from 21 million to 7 million bushels; our exports to France last year dropped by one million bushels. In the case of the United Kingdom, we exported some 100 million bushels in the years 1953 to 1959, as against 150 million bushels between 1945 and 1949.
We realize today that Russia has been invading our markets. Last year, Russia shipped ten million bushels of wheat to the Netherlands, two million bushels to Sweden, and eighteen million bushels to France. Those are former customers which we have lost to Russia.
The government has failed in its export policy, in spite of its promises, particularly
Supply-Agriculture
those made by the Prime Minister in the election campaign, when he stated that an army of salesmen would fan out throughout the world to dispose of all our agricultural products.
Another field that should be gone into is that of research. Almost nothing was done in that field since the Conservative government came into power, in spite of repeated requests from the Liberals, from universities and from farm organizations.
Several questions relating to wheat as well as to the marketing of that commodity might profitably be studied by that commitee, which would be made up of the best economists in this country, of specialists in research, leaders of farm organizations, representatives of the government and of business. That proposal has already been made by the Canadian federation of agriculture. It has also been suggested by the agricultural section of McGill university, that is Macdonald college, at St. Anne de Bellevue.
The Canadian federation of agriculture even passed a resolution last year, in which it was said that 1/10 of one per cent of the income from sales of grain should go to universities or other bodies engaged in the production, utilization or sale of grain.
During the debate on agriculture, on May 13 last, I referred to such an organization. I suggested that a committee be set up having a two-point program: first, to analyse the present situation so as to determine what can be done on the domestic market; second, to seek new and constructive ideas regarding world marketing of wheat. I should now like to extend my suggestion and ask the government and the Minister of Agriculture to earmark $500,000 for such research and to the setting up of that research committee.
In the last three years, the government has introduced only temporary measures to solve the agricultural problems, both in the west and in the east. We have amended the legislation in various fields. We have passed the Agricultural Prices Support Act. What happened as a result of that amendment? The Minister of Agriculture raised the prices of agricultural products, and we were afflicted with a surplus of agricultural products. So to settle the problem, the prices were lowered, and there was a substantial drop in farm income. Furthermore, we have practically no surpluses left that could be shipped to countries where people are starving.
Indeed, if today we wanted to set up a food bank such as the Prime Minister has often suggested, we would not even have

Supply-Agriculture
any milk powder or pork to supply that bank. That temporary policy, that superficial policy, has resulted in hopeless agricultural conditions for the farmers. There has been a serious drop in farm income, and many farmers, especially in eastern Canada, have gone bankrupt.
For three years now, the government has applied superficial remedies to cure basic ills that are still with us. They often applied conflicting, incompatible remedies. The danger in trying to settle only superficial problems is that we lose sight of fundamental ones.
No solution can be found unless we start by establishing the facts and then undertake research on production and markets. Then and not until then, can a long term farm policy be evolved and applied by appropriate legislation.
Those are the views of the Liberal party, and of the best agricultural experts of this country.
(Text):


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to take part in this debate I am mindful of the debate which took place in 1958 when the government of Canada for the first time gave recognition to the validity of the principle of the two-price system as it could be applied to wheat consumed in Canada for human consumption. I remember that debate particularly well because we had to wait till the end of a very heavy session of legislation, much of which was designed to help those engaged in agriculture. However, my recollection of that debate has a more important signifiance. It was my belief at that time, and in the intervening period that belief has been strengthened, that the principle adhered to in making these payments was a good one for individual farmers, for the agricultural community and for the business community of Canada as well.
I believe I indicated in August of 1958 that the provision of an acreage payment could not in itself be looked upon as a final answer to the income problems facing western Canadian farmers. Unlike the opposition in the House of Commons I feel that this acreage payment cannot in any way be termed a hand-out or a relief measure. Indeed, I am very much inclined to believe that it is much more in line with a deficiency payment as compared to those things which were offered

first as deficiency payments by the delegation which came from western Canada. Indeed, it is my belief that those so-called deficiency payments could be called incentive payments.
The maximum amount of $200 as outlined is not as great as some people would like to see. It is, however, $200 more than a Liberal government would have provided. The fact that there was no payment in 1959 is known to everyone in western Canada. The factors which resulted in that situation are equally as well known. The fact that there have been undertones not openly acknowledged in this situation is one of the indisputable elements which should be and must be taken into consideration.
I want to thank the hon. member for Essex East for the compliment which he paid to those in this party who in the caucus have kept this matter before the government throughout the months. How he could refer to the members of the opposition as having shared in bringing this payment into reality I cannot imagine, as he seemed to indicate that they were opposed to it as a relief measure or as a handout.
With regard to his reference to my remarks of January 28 I want to assure him that they were made as a Conservative who believes that parliament is an instrument to be used to induce action, that the privileges of this house uphold the right of every member to the expression of his views and those of his electors as he interprets them. I am happy to be able to inform the hon. member for Essex East that the great party in which I find myself upholds that right as well. I would hope that the party to which he belongs will some day be able to claim the same distinction.
One of the opposition members was quick the other morning to grasp on the possibility that these estimates might upset the Minister of Finance's balanced budget. I can only extend to the Minister of Finance the appreciation of those who will directly benefit from these payments, and to those I must add the appreciation of the entire business community of western Canada, indeed the business community in all parts of Canada, because I believe that no one in this house will doubt that this amount of money will find circulation eight to ten times down through the business community of this nation.

There are those who will be disappointed with this announcement because they have made up their minds to be disappointed with anything this government might provide to meet this situation. I do not believe that the people of Rosthern constituency are among those, and I know that the people of Rosthern constituency will not question the principle upon which this payment is made. An amount of money in excess of $40 million is better than nothing. Together with the payment made in 1958 it represents close to $85 million. That is $85 million more than a Liberal government would have provided.
There are other things that the men and women who compose the government benches have concerned themselves with during the last two and one half years, and they all have a bearing on the agricultural situation not only in western Canada but in all parts of Canada. I think of the amendments to the health of animals act, increasing the grants to those who have cattle condemned for slaughter. I think of the amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and the extension of benefits to some who were previously excluded. I think of the amendments to the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and the increase in the amounts for yardage in the construction of dams and dugouts. I think of the amendments to the Estate Tax Act allowing the gift of $10,000 once in a lifetime to another member of the family, this in addition to the $4,000 allowable now in any one year. I think of the amendments making possible the securing of a loan of $7,500 under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, as compared to the old $5,000. I think of cash advances on farm-stored grain. They who sit on the opposition benches today said that that could not be done.
I think of import control on certain agricultural products. I think of the increased millions now being expended to assist wheat exports to Colombo plan countries. I think of the $20 million freight subsidies and the Prime Minister's assurance of the maintenance of the Crowsnest pass rates on grain, and then too the appointment of the commission on freight rates. I think of the active support given the food for peace program and the NATO food bank. I think of the price spreads commission which has already reported and which is now under study. I think of the Bracken box car commission and the effect on box car distribution in western Canada.
I think of the $43 million acreage payment, that $200 payment scorned and rejected by those who sit in the opposition. I think of Canada and her Minister of Trade and Commerce who has done a notable job in marketing an average of over 300 million bushels of
Supply-Agriculture
wheat in the face of the very strictest of world competition. I think of the assistance given those who had to move in feed supplies last year and the year before.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, you will recall the ruling you were about to give today following the raising of a point of order, when you said it was not possible to discuss the whole agricultural policy of the government on this estimate. I would remind you that the speech we are now listening to started out to be an interesting one, but it certainly has traversed the ground which you said yourself would be out of order.


Jacques Flynn: I would think that the hon. member would recall that I was very lenient with the hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska. The way I analyse the speech of the hon. member is that he is not discussing the measures individually he is referring to them because, to my way of thinking, he is trying to answer the charge that the present measure is insufficient and that therefore it should be considered in the context of other measures. So long as the hon. member does not discuss the other measures but merely makes reference to them I think it would be relevant, in view of the nature of the discussion and the way I understand his speech.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I agree that is the way you understand the speech, but I suggest to you with confidence that the speech being delivered now is not on this item. You will remember the nature of the point of order that was raised. It arose out of the statement by the Minister of Agriculture, which was a general one on government agricultural policy. When you sought to intervene in the speech of the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska, it was pointed out that this point had been raised when the Minister of Agriculture was speaking and that if the Minister of Agriculture was to be given such a privilege it could not be denied to anyone else. You then said that you thought, that in fairness to the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska he should be given latitude, but you warned other members, including the member for Essex East, that you did not propose to allow a general discussion. I suggest to you that this is not a laughing matter, and that the rules of this house ought to be strictly observed. The hon. member who is now speaking ought to be asked to discuss the item.


Jacques Flynn: I do not think the hon. member for Essex East has given word for word the content of the ruling I gave this morning. What I say was that so long

Supply-Agriculture
as the hon. member does not discuss each measure, but merely enumerates them to show the context of the item under discussion at the present time, it seems to me what he says would be relevant. Up to now I certainly have given latitude to all hon. members who have spoken and I do not see why I should deny it to the hon. member who has the floor.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Does this mean that one can discuss any matter raised in the budget? The discussion of the Estate Tax Act that we have just listened to surely has nothing to do with the item before the committee at the present time.


Jacques Flynn: Surely the hon. member for Ottawa West understands the difference between discussing a measure and referring to it. The hon. member has not discussed any of the measures to which he has referred; he has simply given a list of the measures and I think it is relevant.


Edward Nasserden: I should like to thank you for your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I can understand the position of the hon. member for Essex East. He sat in his seat and squirmed every time any of these measures were brought before the house, each one of which was of importance to those engaged in the agricultural industry. I have sat in my seat here and listened to members of the Liberal party intimate that this government has spent too much money. All I want to ask at this time is which one of those measures mentioned would they want to deny to the farmers of this country?


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Edward Nasserden: In addition to the things which I have mentioned, and as part of the over-all agricultural program to bring those engaged in the agricultural industry a little bit closer to enjoying what we call a fair share of the national income, this party, and particularly the members from western Canada, do not forget that they were given a job to do in the election of March, 1958. The government brought in farm credit legislation designed to meet the needs in this age of changing agricultural techniques.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I must warn the hon. member that he can make reference to other measures but not discuss them. I think he is pointing in that direction, therefore I must warn him before he goes too far.


Edward Nasserden: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The only reason I referred to it was that it helps to make a more economic unit in so far as the farmer's business is concerned.
[The Chairman.]
Some reference has been made to crop insurance today and the fact that it is not more universal in this country at this time. We waited for this more years than most of us would like to remember. Last year when that legislation was put on the statute books it will be recalled there was a situation in western Canada that brought more vividly to the minds of the people in that part of the country than anything else the need for that kind of legislation. I see you are getting a little restive, Mr. Chairman. I am not going to pursue that particular subject at this time but I did want to mention that.
In addition to these things, reference was made today to the South Saskatchewan river dam, a project designed to take care of a situation in that arid part of the province of Saskatchewan where a greater diversity of production is required than exists at the present time.
It is also notable, that in 1960 the provinces received over $500 million more than they received in the last year of Liberal rule. For my part, I cannot possibly go along with the hon. member for Essex East when he says that farmers who were farming on a larger scale do not need any assistance at this time. All of them, large and small, need all the help that government legislation can give them, to provide them with the opportunity to secure an equitable return for their products and labour.
If we go back to 1958 when the acreage payment was made we will see that there are those in western Canada who said they did not know that that payment was related to the two-price system for wheat. I have here a report dated September 4, 1958, in the Western Producer, the official organ of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, and it says this:
By rejecting the principle of basing the domestic price of wheat on Canadian costs and Canadian living standard, the farmers are requested to subsidize the users of bread. This means that 18 cents of the 21 cents loaf is based on Canadian costs and living standards, the three cents share which goes to the farmer is based on a subsidized wheat price with the farmer doing the subsidizing.
How could an organization make a statement such as that in the face of the statement that was made by the Prime Minister at the time the legislation was brought forward in parliament? The hon. member who preceded me did not think this government had been very successful in reducing the wheat surplus. I have a report here which appeared in the Star-Phoenix last year under the heading:
Wheat Surplus Now Felt at Manageable Proportions By Board Chairman McNamara
Mr. McNamara said Canada had reduced its wheat surplus by 200 million bushels in the 1957-58 crop

year. He thought there would be a corresponding reduction during the present 1958-59 crop year ending July 31.
There is another aspect of this situation about which I should like to remind the hon. member for Essex East. He referred to the pamphlet, "Souvenir, on to Ottawa". I have a copy here and on page 2 I find the following:
The grave situation in agriculture began to develop after 1954. At the end of the second world war, when price controls were removed the cost of goods and services required by agriculture began to climb along with all other costs in Canada. Up to 1954, the price of wheat and other grains shared to some extent the generally buoyant price levels. That is, the rise in costs was partly offset by better prices for western grains.
After 1954, however, the price of grains began to go down. Meanwhile costs continued high for a year or two and then, in 1955 and 1956, began to rise rapidly as the Canadian economy headed into a new wave of expansion. The result spelled trouble for the grain producer. As his costs went up, prices for his output went down and he was caught in a squeeze which increasingly threatened his economic existence. It was in this situation that small groups of farmers throughout the country began to demand policies which would rescue the grain industry from the threat confronting it.
What was the answer of the Liberal party? Even during an election campaign their only answer was to try to bribe the farmers of western Canada, with their own money, by offering them a 10-cent increase in the initial payment. Before I conclude, I should like to say that I think it is generally recognized that farmers throughout the world are suffering today from the cost-price squeeze. This was very ably brought out on January 14 by the vice president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, Mr. Bobier, when he spoke to the field husbandry association at the Bessbor-ough hotel in Saskatoon. He said then:
Farmers not only in Canada but all over the world are feeling the cost-price squeeze.
Alf Gleave, the president of the Saskatchewan farmers' union, had this to say:
Limited sales and limited production are putting farmers in a strait-jacket. . . and increasing the size of farms will "not rid us of our headaches". The solution lies in faster movement of grain out of terminal elevators, and the key to this is "stepped up efforts to boost export sales".
Anyone reading these words, and I have almost 100 clippings of one kind or another dealing with this situation, cannot help realize that not only the farmers but the farm organizations have recognized the fact that there is a great deal of confusion among themselves with regard to what the solution to the problem may be.
I wish to say once more that there will be those who will say that this payment should have been larger. For my part I am happy to see the government resume the course it set out upon in 1958. I would encourage those
Supply-Agriculture
on the treasury benches to follow through in the years to come and implant this estimate more permanently in the statutes of our country.
One thing is certain. The Liberal party has learned nothing from its defeats in 1957 and 1958. I have referred already to the fact that their answer to the problem was a 10-cent bribe with the farmers' own money. After listening to them in this debate I am convinced that they are opposed to acreage payments and that they are opposed as well to aid for western farmers because they have not offered any alternative to what the government has proposed at this time. I am proud tonight that I am a Conservative because to my mind this payment represents the supremacy of parliament so far as every western Canadian member of parliament is concerned and because I know that the principle of this payment put forward by the government represents the considered opinion in western Canada today. No one will go to western Canada and say, as the C.C.F. and the Liberals are saying and have been saying, that there is no principle in this estimate. I also believe that this whole experience, and I emphasize that it has been an experience, will inspire western members to continue their representations on behalf of their electors. I shall support the measure and I will be surprised if the opposition dares to oppose it in a vote or even by way of an amendment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I listened with considerable interest to the hon. member who has just taken his seat. It is obvious that in the period since the hon. member made his courageous onslaught against the government and its farm policy, by process of attrition, he has come to regard the government as being now closer to his position than he thought it was on that famous occasion. I rise now simply to refer to a statement made yesterday in Saskatchewan by a representative leader of the farmers of western Canada who I know will be looked upon as expressing a very important segment of western farm opinion. Indeed, the hon. member who has just spoken referred to Mr. Gleave and referred to him approvingly. In tonight's mail I have received a copy of a statement made by Mr. Gleave yesterday which has a very direct bearing on the subject under discussion. The statement is dated August 8, 1960, and reads as follows:
"The $1 per acre payment for western farmers announced today in the House of Commons by Prime Miniser Diefenbaker is small compared with the needs of those farmers", A. P. Gleave, president of the Saskatchewan farmer's union, said here today.

Supply-Agriculture
"It is regrettable that the Prime Minister did not find it worth while to meet with the western liaison committee as we had requested repeatedly", Mr. Gleave, who is chairman of the committee, said. "Only 10 days ago, we received a letter from the Prime Minister's executive assistant saying that such a meeting would be arranged."
The liaison committee had informed the Prime Minister by telegram in April that it was prepared to meet with the government to discuss acreage payments as an alternative to deficiency payments which had been rejected, Mr. Gleave said. This was followed up by a brief on May 12, receipt of which was not even acknowledged by the government. The brief outlined an annual income deficiency of $109,700,000 for western farmers, and repeated the request for a meeting.
"We are happy to see some result of our efforts, but by taking such unilateral action the government obviously intends to assume full responsibility", Mr. Gleave said. "It will be up to each and every farmer in the prairies to judge for himself as to the adequacy of the government's action."
This is a statement from the president of an important national farm organization. Mr. Gleave comes from the same province as does the hon. member who has just spoken. The hon. member said he was satisfied that west-tern farm opinion would support the position he has taken tonight. I call in answer to that statement the statement of Mr. Gleave who is now in western Canada and who is presumed, I believe, to know a good deal about what the farmers of that province and that section of Canada think.
Let me tell my hon. friend for his benefit that we have already stated in the house that inadequate as this measure is we recognize that the farmers of western Canada need assistance and to the extent that this assistance will help them it is being supported by us. But like Mr. Gleave, we say it will be up to each and every farmer in the prairies to judge for himself as to the adequacy of the government's action.


Mr. McIntosh:: May I ask the hon. member a question? I wonder if the hon. member for Essex East realizes that Mr. Gleave, the head of the farm union in Saskatchewan, has actually fewer members in his organization than I had supporting me in one constituency, one out of 17, in the last election. That is how many people he represents in Saskatchewan.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Since I am asked a question by a very amiable and disin-guished gentleman of this house I have no hesitation in answering it. I do not know anything about my hon. friend's organization. I hope it is a good organization. He will require a good organization, because when the next election comes, not only he but many hon. members from western Canada are going to require good organizations to meet the opinion that exists among western farmers in regard to the government's agricultural policy.

I do not know whether my hon. friend's organization is stronger than Mr. Gleave's. But I do know Mr. Gleave and I believe him to be a knowledgeable and responsible farm leader. I have in support of that statement no less a person than the hon. member for Rosthern, who spoke only a few moments ago in such complimentary terms of this farm leader Mr. Gleave.


John (Jack) McIntosh: A supplementary question, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if the hon. member for Essex East realizes that the Conservative members, 17 of them down here, are the political representatives of the farmers of western Canada, and not Mr. Gleave.


James Stanley Speakman: Mr. Chairman, I make no apology at all for rising for the first time today, not the third, to express on behalf of the 11,000 farmers in the Wetaskiwin constituency their appreciation of the announcement of the Prime Minister of the payment of a dollar an acre. I should like to point out to the hon. member for Essex East who spoke so favourably of deficiency payments, and also to my friends of the C.C.F., that deficiency payments would have been paid to less than 1,000 of those farmers in my constituency. The acreage payment will be paid to every one of them.
The hon. member for Essex East gave me the information in the course of his remarks quite some time ago that there are 224,717 permit holders in western Canada. Perhaps the hon. member does not know that the scheme of deficiency payments which he so strongly supports would have put 87 per cent of the money in the hands of 14 per cent of the farmers, whereas this method of assistance puts this acreage payment in the hands of every one of those 224,717 farmers, large or small.
The people in my constituency, will appreciate this. I will quote a newspaper article now for the edification of the hon. member for Essex East, who today took great delight in quoting a statement of a constituent of mine, a friend and a neighbour, the president of the farmers union of Alberta some time ago this year. He said as quoted in today's Ottawa Journal:
It has not solved all the difficulties-
And this, we make no claim to doing, but we do make a claim on behalf of this government of trying to help western agriculture. Mr. Nelson goes on:

but it is something to work on.
I should just like to quote this also to the hon. member who is so fond of quoting newspapers and newspaper authorities. Mr. Ransom, president of the Manitoba federation of agriculture, said:
Very acceptable ... but temporary relief.


An hon. Member:: A very good man.


James Stanley Speakman: Another quotation is:
Even though small, it will be well received.
That was the minister of agriculture for the province of Alberta. As the hon. member knows, they are not supporters of this government. I think perhaps the most eminent authority in western Canada on farmers and farm problems is the president of the United Grain Growers Association of Canada, Mr. J. E. Brownlee. He said:
The distribution of some $40 million among farmers in western Canada will afford considerable relief, particularly to small farmers.
Of the 11,000 farmers in my constituency over 80 per cent have an acreage of 300 acres or less. So I say again that 1 am expressing on behalf of the people of my constituency, and I am sure of the province of Alberta, their appreciation to this government for having recognized their needs and having taken these steps to ease it.


Mr. Slefanson:: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a few brief comments on this particular item in the supplementary estimates. As I represent an agricultural riding from Manitoba I was very pleased with the announcement made by the Prime Minister yesterday when he announced this one dollar per acre payment to farmers in western Canada.
Some members have referred to this payment as being a hand-out. It has been referred to as a hand-out by speakers from both the Liberal and C.C.F. parties. But in reality it certainly is not a hand-out. One can call it a subsidy. The very wording of the supplementary estimates indicates that. The wording is as follows:
Payment of an amount, as a higher return for wheat used for human consumption in Canada, to western grain producers to be distributed on the following basis, namely:
$1 per cultivated acre up to a maximum of 200 acres par farm in accordance with regulations-
Et cetera. So therefore you can say it is a subsidy. In my constituency most of the farms are quite small. In a large section of the constituency there is very, very good land and production is high. In other parts of my constituency there is marginal land and the production is low. In this case with an acreage payment the farmers will get the same return per acre, while under a deficiency payment the man who had a large yield per acre would benefit much more than the man on the marginal land whose crop was smaller.
This afternoon the hon. member for Churchill outlined the legislation that has been introduced by this government, and it was a long list. I do not intend to repeat it here,
Supply-Agriculture
but I just want to point out that all that legislation that has been introduced by this government is aimed at bringing stability into the agricultural industry, and given time to work it certainly will bring about that stability. Some people get a little excited because they do not see any immediate effect. But all that legislation which the hon. member for Churchill referred to this afternoon will in the long run bring about stability in the agriculture industry. This one dollar per acre which we are discussing tonight certainly is another step in bringing stability to the industry.
The hon. member for Essex East referred several times today to the fact that this has not been adequate, that it is inadequate. There are those who will always say, regardless of what the amount is, that it is not sufficient. We know that is only human nature, that no matter what you get you always want a little bit more.
Also in his speech this afternoon the hon. member for Essex East said the Prime Minister said yesterday this program would cost $40 million. On page 7743 of Hansard, the Prime Minister in his speech mentioned that the program would cost between $41 million and $42 million, and this is based on the assistance program of 1958. This type of subsidy would certainly help the small farmer and the so-called family farmer. This government at all times has shown great interest in the family farmer, those people who actually live on the land and farm themselves. That is the type of farm which we have to try to maintain. We know that the small farmer today is facing many difficulties not brought about by himself, this government or the preceding government, but brought about by the great technological changes which have taken place in agriculture during the past 15 years. This government is facing up to the situation. It is attempting to find a solution to the great problems created in the last 15 years.
This measure of acreage payments along with other legislation this government has introduced during the last three years is certainly providing assistance to the farmer and is helping to ease the problem. We have not said that the present measure is a cure-all. I have not heard any hon. member of the government make that claim and I am sure no government member would make it. Certainly, however, this measure does represent a step that will be helpful to agriculture. This sum of $42 million when spread out across western Canada will benefit not only the persons who receive the money but the
7862.

Supply-Agriculture
business people in each area. It is a real shot in the arm for the economy of western Canada.
It has been said that in the west we have 48 members of parliament, 47 of whom are Conservative members. If you take away the hon. members representing urban ridings such as Winnipeg which has four seats, Calgary which has two, Edmonton which has three, and Regina and Saskatoon-11 in all-that leaves 37 rural constituencies. If you divide 37 into $42 million that averages over $1 million for each rural constituency in western Canada. That certainly is not peanuts, it was referred to by the leader of the C.C.F. group in 1958 as such. The payment of over $1 million for each rural riding in western Canada will be of great benefit to the farmers and to all the people of that part of Canada.
I am sure the farmers in my riding will appreciate the $1 an acre payment. I also know that there are many who would have liked to have seen a larger payment and who perhaps feel that the present payment is not sufficient. Nevertheless I am sure that each and every one of those farmers will be very glad to receive this payment and the amount that each receives will be of definite benefit to him.


Mr. Fane:: Mr. Chairman, it affords me great pleasure to be able to rise and speak on vote No. 576 and to express my appreciation and the appreciation of the farmers of the constituency I represent to the Prime Minister and the government for this assistance the farmers will receive. It will be very well received in my constituency and while the payment of $1 per acre up to a maximum of $200 may not be as much as some had hoped for, it is, I am sure, as much as most of the farmers expected. When I heard the Prime Minister-if I heard him aright

tie this payment in with a payment on the wheat used for human consumption in Canada I realized that it would be tantamount to the payment of about 70 cents a bushel for the wheat that is consumed in Canada. That will be of great assistance to the farmers and will be equivalent, in effect, to the establishment of a payment for a two-price system.
This payment cannot be called a deficiency payment such as was asked for by the mass farm delegation that came to Ottawa. The farmers in my riding realize that the deficiency payment asked for by that delegation would have been of little use to the vast majority of my farmers. A few would have got all the money that would have been received in my constituency.

I was a little surprised to hear the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska and the hon. member for Essex East make so much fuss about this payment. It would seem that they were jealous of the fact that they were not doing it and of the fact that the government of which they had been members had never seen fit to assist the farmers of western Canada to this extent. The hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska mentioned that he was looking forward to the return to power of a Liberal government. I should like to suggest to the hon. member that while he is waiting for that supposedly wonderful day to come about he should not hold his breath until it arrives.
I was somewhat amazed at the would-be righteous indignation and the air of injured innocence of the hon. member for Essex East-


Peter Francis Martin: Why go after him all the time?


Frank John William Fane: -especially when he started in to remark about the lack of agricultural policy on the part of this government. I recall attending a meeting on March 26, 1957 which was addressed by the former minister of agriculture. He was, I am told, the only member of the former Liberal government who knew anything about what was going on in his department and he was Mr. Agriculture to the Liberals. At that meeting he stated the Liberal government's policy. It was this, that the farmers in Canada never had it so good up to that time. He also said that anybody who could not raise hogs at a profit for 19 cents should not be farming. He said he could do it. I hope he is finding out what the score is now.
Another point that interested me is that both opposition parties are trying to make so much out of the fact that in three years in office this government has not been able to quite clear up all the mess that was made while the Liberals were in office for a period of 22 years. Is it not about time they realized that it takes a little longer to clear up the mess they made such a good job of creating? They say that this payment is too little, that the small farmers are getting less than $200. What would those small farmers have got had the so-called deficiency payments for which the farm organizations asked been introduced? They would not have got a nickel out of it, because they would not market enough grain off a quarter section to make any money in that way.
It is not very often that I try to indulge in any political backbiting in this house, but tonight I have found it expedient to do so and that is just in order to help keep the record straight. I shall not take up much more

of the time of this committee, but I do want to commend to all those who read Hansard the contributions which have been made on this item by hon. members supporting the government. There have been quite a few made already and there will be more made during the course of this evening. In all those addresses there has been very good material, very true statements which should be spread around throughout the farm communities of this country.
Again I want to thank the Prime Minister and his government for bringing this matter forward, and I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I accord it my most sincere support. I thank you.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I should like to join with those who have spoken before me in appreciation of the announcement made by the Prime Minister that acreage payments will be paid to western wheat growers this year. I do not want to repeat what has been said by speakers who have preceded me, but I am certain this will be welcome news to farmers and to the businessmen who do business with the farmers. There should be around $1 million paid into my constituency by the acreage payment method. We do not believe that this is a cure-all but at the same time I do not think it is peanuts, either.
This acreage payment should help to alleviate the effects of the cost-price squeeze in which the farmer finds himself owing to the high cost of farm machinery, of fuels and of machinery repairs. I think this method of payment is fair because it does not discriminate against the farmer who feeds his grain and it does not rule out the farmer who loses his crop through weather hazards; the man who, in my estimation, is the one who needs a payment the most. Lastly, it does not encourage an increase in wheat production, and I think this is important in the light of the surplus we have at the present time.
In view of the correspondence which I have received during the last few months, I may point out that the requests for acreage payments exceed by far the requests for deficiency payments. In conclusion, I wish to say that I endorse and appreciate this payment to the western farmers. Thank you.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I rise at this time to say a few words on item 576. I shall try to make my remarks as brief as possible, because I realize there are others who are to follow, and I believe the ground of this subject has been fairly well ploughed. However, I have a few remarks which pertain to the feelings of the farmers of my constituency, and may I say that during the past three months I have
Supply-Agriculture
received a total of 11 resolutions from F.U.A. locals in my riding and, in addition, a large number of letters from individual farmers. Now each of those locals were prompted by the F.U.A. central organization in the province of Alberta. In so far as the F.U.A. locals are concerned, they were asked by their central organization to write to their member of parliament and to suggest an alternative to deficiency payments. I have received these 11 resolutions and I have since had an opportunity to talk with many of the members in these different farm organizations in my riding. I have been working among them to ascertain their desires, and may I say that in all cases they have asked for acreage payments.
The vast majority of farmers and particularly the small farmers do not want deficiency payments. I say this in answer to the hon. member for Essex East and to others, especially those in the far corner who have spoken in favour of deficiency payments. The majority of farmers in my riding are not asking for deficiency payments. They would, of course, like to see a somewhat bigger payment, that is true, but did hon. members ever hear of anyone who was perfectly satisfied with any particular payment? I imagine that if we were to make a canvass of them they would all be grateful, and many of them are very thankful for the payment of $200, especially when they realize that the payment is one which is being made to them and which is not being all paid out to the large producers.
While I am on my feet I want to say that the western liaison committee to which the hon. member for Essex East has often referred is a committee which was formed supposedly to speak for the farmers of western Canada. But the committee does not hold the confidence of the grass roots farmers. They are not speaking for the farmers. There are too many motives back of what they are doing which are not held by the people they are supposed to represent.
There is an evolution going on in agriculture. Yes, there is a very definite evolution in agriculture, and if you are to understand the farm problem of western Canada you must break it down into its elements. There is the large, medium and small grain farmers, and I have 6,000 farmers in my riding. About one third of all the wheat produced in the province of Alberta is produced in the Macleod constituency, so I have some right to speak on this subject.
If you break down these 6,000 farmers into size groups as I have done they follow a pattern which is about the same as was outlined this afternoon by the Minister of Agriculture. About 60 per cent of them are

Supply-Agriculture
small farmers, and it is this group that we seek to reach by this acreage payment. As everyone knows, there is a storage payment which amounted last year to $38.9 million and which went to wheat producers through the wheat board. That, in turn, is a payment for the storage of wheat, oats and barley and amounts to from 6 to 10 cents per bushel. This storage money goes indirectly to the people who deliver grain to the wheat board. To be sure, some of it goes to the small farmer but the great bulk goes to the large operators. It is not only fair that this $41.3 million under item 576 of the supplementary estimates should supplement the income of the small farmer; it should go all across the board, and include the small farmers.
It it were possible to single out just the small farmers I believe the large farmers of western Canada would go along with the proposition, if it were administratively possible to help the small farmer to a greater extent because it is the small farmer who is finding it most difficult in his struggle against the cost-price squeeze. There is perfect competition among farmers. As everyone knows, the farmer operates in an economy which is, I must say, perfect in its competition, and he does not know he is in competition with his neighour.
Under this sort of situation the advantages of technological improvements are not retained by the farmer but are almost immediately passed on to other larger groups. I mention that as a justification for making this payment to farmers, and it has its roots in the economic phenomena of the perfect competition environment. So I say to anyone who wishes to help the position of western farmers that prime consideration should be given to that.
With regard to this payment of $41.3 million, perhaps 230,000 permit holders will receive approximately $200 per farmer; but in the aggregate it is a tremendous amount of money, and in my riding alone will amount to about $1,200,000. If you take communities where there are 500 farmers, at $200 per farm this would amount to $100,000 of additional purchasing power in the community. This sum should give a stimulus all along the line to small businesses and to all others in that area. For those reasons it is not only supported by the farmers but it is supported by all those who must rely upon the farmer and his income for a livelihood in those agricultural areas.
Let us analyse for one moment one or two of the statements made here today about what this government has done and link them up with the income of the farmer. I want to refer briefly to on article in the Financial Post of July 30, 1960, page 3. That

article shows the incentive subsidies and the income subsidies over the years. In 1954-55 they amounted to $41.6 million; in 1955-56 to $51.4 million; in 1956-57 to $44 million; in
1958-	59 to $116.9 million; in 1959-60 to $130.1 million; and in 1960-61 will amount to about $120 million or $130 million. In other words, there is 300 per cent more subsidies going into agriculture today than in the years between 1954 and 1957 under Liberal administration. How can the opposition and the hon. member for Essex East in particular answer that question and say that this government has done nothing for agriculture?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I never said it did nothing. I said it did not do very much.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Let me pass on now to one or two other matters and then I shall close and yield the floor to others. I should like to see the time when the farmers of western Canada receive $2 a bushel for their wheat. If it were possible to bring about a situation where wheat surpluses were taken care of and the farmers received $2 a bushel for their wheat, with a balanced economy and a greater population it would provide the farmers with the type of income they need. I do believe that inside of another 15 or 20 years there will be sufficient growth in population to take care of the productivity of the farms of western Canada and give these farmers that type of price for their goods.
However, as we all know we are faced with competition in world markets. We have had international wheat agreements. Every effort has been made to maintain prices to the farmer, and I just want to quote the price of western wheat No. 1 for 1958-59. The initial payment was $1.40; the interim payment was ten cents and the final payment was .09374, the farmers receiving in all a little more than $1.59 per bushel. The
1959-	60 crop is expected to yield to the farmer for No. 1 wheat in that neighbourhood too.
So that the operation of the wheat board, which is a government monopoly is doing a grand job for the larger grain farmer. What he needs is larger quotas and a little more money would be helpful to bring him up to the international wheat agreement level; but he is not as badly off as the small farmer who we are trying to reach and help with this acreage payment. So I say that there is every justification for this acreage payment and I advance this argument believing that this payment is well conceived by the government and will be deeply appreciated by the farmers.
I might add that the province of Alberta, which has tremendous wealth by way of natural resources, which has a provincial budget of more than $325 million and about

80,000 farmers, might also give some consideration to matching the federal contribution of $200 per farm which would cost them about $16 million and bring the income of the farmer up to, say, $400, which would be something I am sure all the farmers would appreciate.
One other point on the cost of production side. The hon. member for Timiskaming said that the government should control the cost of production. I should like the hon. member for Timiskaming to tell me how he or anybody else could control the cost of production on my farm or on any other farm. It is beyond control of any government. If you are going to assist with the cost of production of the farmer it is necessary to go into the question of the price of farm machinery. An investigation is under way on this subject and hearings will be held next session and we are hoping that the results will be useful and helpful to farmers in the cost of machinery side of their operations.
This government has added new legislation like crop insurance, paying 20 per cent of the loss, and also this government instituted farm credit; and I need not go over all the other items which this government has put into effect.
In closing, may I say that there are 230,000 permit holders in western Canada. There are so many of them that if the government was to attempt to raise the level of each one to the point where I, and I am sure many other hon. members would like to see it, it would be a tremendous burden and it might place the industry itself in a position of instability. On the other hand, if the world surplus could be eliminated and we could by some means balance the supply and demand for wheat and get the farmer a price through that particular avenue I am sure that he and everyone else who depends upon agriculture would be tremendously benefited.
The government has made a tremendous move forward. The new programs which have been put into effect are costing over $100 million. In addition we come along with another $40 million in assistance to the agriculture of western Canada and when we get our story properly across to the farmers they will understand. They know about it because they have met in each of their particular locals and talked things over. They are extremely intelligent; they know the story just as well as all hon. members know it. When the story is told to them in an unbiased way they will certainly be 100 per cent in favour of the policies put into effect by this Progressive Conservative government during the past two or three years.
Supp ly-A gricu Iture
I met a delegation of farmers last Friday evening and I never heard a more enthusiastic group. They know that this government has given them every piece of legislation they have asked for in the last 50 years with the exception of deficiency payments. I can verify that by saying that I was once the president of the junior branch of the united farmers of Alberta, and built an organization of over 6,000 young people. Let me tell the hon. member for Essex East that we do not need to ask him about the problems of western agriculture. Farm people are starting to understand and speak up in favour of the things which this government has done, and show their appreciate because they know that the majority of the fine pieces of farm legislation which are on the statute books today and which agriculture is enjoying were put there by this Progressive Conservative government.
I should like to make a few remarks about cattle prices and then I am through. There was a floor price of $17.80 on good steers put in effect on April 1, 1959. Hon. members may ask what effect it has had since the price has been higher. It has helped those farmers with their income and I am relating it to the income of ranchers as well as farmers. This floor price is simply to project the income of those people who are trying to make a living by producing whatever types of commodities are best suited to their area.
One rancher came to me about two years ago and he was about ready to contract and to sell his calves on a five-year basis for 20 cents or 21 cents per pound, and he asked me what I thought. I said to him, "you know there is a new and improved farm floor price in effect; you can add the price of cattle together for the past ten years, divide it by 10 and multiply the result by 80 per cent and you have the floor price." Instead of this rancher going into the program and contracting his calves for the next five years he said, "No, I will take a chance; I will stand on my own feet with the help of the price stabilization act." What has happened? Two years ago he sold his calves for 32 cents a pound. Last year he sold them for about 27 cents a pound. He has made oodles of money as a result of not going into that contract and if it had not been for the price stabilization act he would have signed the contract.
Therefore, I say to you, Mr. Chairman, and to those who are inclined to criticize, that those acts may need some truing up, they may need some adjustment to fit the needs of agriculture, but they are doing a grand job. I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and all those who

Supp ly-A griculture
assisted in bringing this legislation into being. I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister on his announcement of the acreage payment and to assure him and others that it has my full support.


Mr. Gundlock:: Mr. Chairman, may I add a
few words in support of this measure. In my constituency, which is one of the two in Canada that enjoys irrigation on a grand scale, the other being the constituency of Medicine Hat, represented by my colleague, over half a million acres are under the ditch. The farms are small and specialized compared with the large grain farms, and thus a larger number of farmers benefit from this type of government action than would benefit by a straight deficiency type of payment. These farmers would benefit only to a small extent from another type of payment owing to the fact that they grow and subsequently sell only a small amount of grain; in fact, just enough in many cases for their own use.
The point I want to make is of course that this announcement is more than welcome in my area owing to the fact that there are more small farmers and what we commonly call family farms than anything else. There is also the fact that a diversified area benefits from the announcement. No matter what the farmer specializes in, the acreage payment is by far the most equitable and the most desirable way for the government to fight the high cost of production that our family farms are experiencing today.
Through you, Mr. Chairman, I should like to emphasize that I feel quite strongly about the preservation of our family farms. These are not just farm units or a statistic, but a way of life in Canada that we in this house should be very much concerned about at all times. Very soon we shall have to concern ourselves to a much greater extent than we have in the past before the present government took office.
The present government, as we all know, has done a great deal along this line for agriculture and I must pause for a moment at this time to give praise to our Minister of Agriculture. Naturally, I am very proud to call him our minister and doubly so because I sit on the same side of the house as he does.
Without going into detail I just wish to say that it was largely through the efforts of the minister and his colleagues that western Canada in particular sent Conservative representatives to the House of Commons in Ottawa, not only as supporters of the government, but as members of the government. I can tell hon. members in this house that not only as a western member but as a farmer myself I have all the confidence in the world that the

problems of agriculture, and particularly of western agriculture, will be dealt with properly and that this government will do a great deal along this line.
As a matter of fact, having listened often to hon. members opposite I should remind them of just a few of the products that are being stabilized under the Agricultural Stabilization Act. However, I will not take the time of the committee to go into detail because the statistics are available and well known to most of us. I am sure that even the hon. member for Essex East would have most of the statistics available if hon. members opposite would only consult him.
I wish to point out the greatly increased participation by the government in dealing with the cost-price squeeze that faces agriculture. As a matter of fact, when total expenditures are compared in the years immediately prior to and after the present government taking office we find that in some cases they were almost tripled by the present government. This bears out that the government has been very seriously and successfully doing a great deal toward solving the dilemma that confronts Canadian agriculture.
In considering further just what the particular payment now under consideration means, may I point out that the sum of money involved has been referred to by some hon. members opposite as a mere pittance, peanuts, and other such phrases. But I ask you, Mr. Chairman, can hon. members opposite describe that amount of money, which represents taxes collected from the people of Canada, by such phrases? I cannot do so and, as I said before, as a western member, as an actual farmer, I can only term this move toward equalization by the government and the amount involved as a very serious financial effort to come to grips with the problem that exists.
I also feel that by the time the next session begins further serious considerations will have been given to the alleviation of the pressing financial problems with which Canadian agriculture is faced. The provision of an acreage payment at this time is a most welcome and timely move by the federal government. I need not tell the committee what cash in the hand of western farmers means. We all know quite well how many times a dollar changes hands and assists the whole economy of a community. I have heard it said that by the time the circle is complete a dollar has changed hands something like eight times.
The hon. member for Essex East stated that the government has ignored the requests of the farmers of western Canada. May I remind

him once again that there are several members in the house representing western farmers who are in close touch with their constituents and are actual farmers themselves. I am a farmer, a member of parliament, and if the hon. member sincerely wants to know something about western agriculture I suggest that he should ask some of us who have spent a lifetime engaged in western agriculture.
In a truly diversified area such as mine with small farms specializing in such crops as peas, beans, alfalfa, sunflowers, onions and sugar beets, the grain farmers specializing in grain alone fulfil a need in rounding out the full circle and are not a deteriment as some people try to say. All the people in the whole diversified cycle benefit from a payment of this type.


Mr. Cadieu:: Mr. Chairman, as a farmer and one who represents a large farming community I feel it is my duty to take part in the debate on this very worth-while item. Many farmers in my constituency, as well as people in all walks of life, will be very happy at the announcement made by the Prime Minister yesterday. Acreage payments will be very well received and, I might add, are greatly needed at this time by a large number of farmers. I am most pleased that the Prime Minister and the cabinet have taken heed of the views of western members of parliament, the many farm organizations and individual farmers who have requested acreage payments.
Many farmers and businessmen have been in favour of the two-price system. However, they realize the difficulty in making payment under such a system on a bushel basis and the danger of increasing wheat production. Because of that fact they feel that the measure now proposed is the fairest way in which payment can be made. I would take issue with the members of the opposition who spoke when the announcement was made yesterday and referred to these acreage payments as relief. This is not relief but is something that is due to the western farmer because of the price squeeze situation in which he finds himself and what he has to pay for the commodities he requires to operate his farm.
The government has brought in many measures which will assist agriculture. The government made an acreage payment on the same basis in 1958 which I know was appreciated by a great many farmers and businessmen. I am quite sure that a similar payment would have been made in 1959 if it had not been for some organizations that wanted to embarrass the government and put forward the idea of deficiency payments
Supply-Agriculture
which would have cost some $325 million. They knew that the government could not accept this proposal inasmuch as it would have assisted the large grain producers to the greatest extent in that about 87 per cent of this vast sum would have gone into the pockets of about 27 per cent of the farmers.
I am aware that the proposal now before us will not be a cure-all for the problems of the western farmer but it will be a great help. I sincerely hope that the inquiry being made by the agriculture committee into the high cost of farm machinery will bear some fruit and that the item now before us will help the farmer to solve many of his problems. In conclusion, I should like to say that I fully support and endorse the acreage payment program.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, down through the years there have been many discussions in the house of the problems of prairie grain farmers, particularly wheat farmers. I have sat throughout the entire debate and I must say I have never heard a better treatment and consideration of this continuing problem than that which has taken place today. I think it has been an excellent thing that so many western members have had an opportunity to contribute to the discussion because unfortunately there has been an attempt to convey the impression throughout the country that members from the western constituencies were not doing the job of representation that they had been sent to Ottawa to do.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They have been prodded by the Liberal members.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Notwithstanding that attempt to malign these hon. members I think it has been demonstrated that we have a very high standard of representation in the house. I am not going to speak at length tonight because during the years when I sat in the opposition I made many speeches on this important subject. The last major speech I remember was only three years ago, which is not a very long period in terms of history. At that time I urged the then Liberal government to launch a new program for Canadian agriculture. Those were the days when the minister of agriculture of that time was endeavouring to convince the farmers of Canada, particularly of western Canada, that they had never had it so good. Furthermore, the then minister of trade and commerce, a minister who bears such an important responsibility in matters pertaining to wheat farmers, was even denying the necessity at that time for a cash advance program.
I think it has become apparent here today that our western members are intimately and

Supply-Agriculture
closely in touch with the problems of our prairie farmers. The only criticism that we have heard, repeated several times in the discussions from across the way, have been to the effect that this program is to meagre, it will not solve all the problems of agriculture. Second, that there has been too much procrastination in launching the program. Those criticisms have been answered over and *over many times. As a matter of fact, when we consider the long delay in coming to grips with agricultural problems of the former administration, obviously they need no answering whatsoever.
Much has been made today of the fact that this acreage payments scheme does not represent the true viewpoint of the prairie farmer. X have taken the trouble over the past three years to keep very closely in touch with the viewpoint of farmers in my constituency. I have met annually with the representatives of the farmers union. I have received many letters and have corresponded at length with representative farmers, particularly the president of the Manitoba federation of agriculture who was quoted here tonight by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin.
Typical of the expression coming from those sources, especially in letters expressing the viewpoint of individual farmers, is the notice of a meeting that took place in the town of Antler last April. This was a meeting held by the Saskatchewan farm union last April 7 at which Mr. Gleave spoke. At that meeting a motion was passed favouring acreage payments rather than deficiency payments on grain, in this way assisting all farmers. Antler is a typical agricultural community, and the viewpoint expressed in this formal resolution coming from that meeting is the viewpoint that I have heard expressed time after time in reference to the issue that we have been discussing here today.
The Conservative government has launched a new program, a national program for agriculture, that we in opposition during the years I sat in this house advocated year after year. This is not a new problem. As a matter of fact, I came into this house as a result of the growing protest back in 1951 because of Liberal inaction on growing agricultural problems.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely not.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I was competing against- and the hon. member for Essex East knows this-the dean of agriculture of the University of Manitoba, and the crux of the campaign at that time was the growing problems of the farmer. Nothing was done until 1957. We have made tremendous progress since that time, and I believe the item we have been

discussing today is another long step forward in assisting the farmer, who after all will have to bear the real burden of solving his problems, in moving to a new period of prosperity in the agricultural industry.


Mr. More:: Mr. Chairman, I am not a farmer; I am not a farm expert, but I am a representative from western Canada in this parliament of Canada. I am one of 47 the premier of Saskatchewan referred to some months ago as members who had never been heard of before, who had not been heard of since. He is a pretty good friend of mine. I realize that was a political sally with a bit of a barb in it, and I will not take him to task too much for having said that.
I do say this, though, that I have not cluttered up the pages of Hansard very much with words. I came here to act responsibly on behalf of my constituents and Canada as a whole. I will be quite satisfied to do that. The courses of action open to me have been courses which I could follow behind the scenes, courses which did not bring newspaper headlines, but courses with which I have been satisfied. They have brought the results I have been seeking, and as long as I can take that sort of action I will not speak very often in the house.
However, I feel obliged to rise on this occasion after listening to the debate today, particularly to the great expert of the Liberal party who put forward indignant criticism of the measure, made with such sincerity as he always evinces whenever he speaks on any subject, on any side of any subject, or in the middle even of the course that is being followed. I could not resist the opportunity that has been given to me to say a few words at this time. In his criticism the hon. member for Essex East directed some remarks to the delay of the Prime Minister and the government in taking no action in regard-


Paul Joseph James Martin: "Procrastination" is the word I used.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: to a meeting with the farmers liaison committee of western Canada. I have suggested to him before when I have spoken, and I suggest to him today, that people in glass houses should well consider before they throw stones.
I think when he talks about delay in government action he should turn his mind back to the many, many years when the party of which he is such a capable member sat in this house as the government, and the delays that occurred then. I heard in 1919, I think, a Liberal spokesman put forward the idea of a national health scheme. Any action in that regard came, it seems to me, just before an election was called in 1956.


Peter Francis Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. You have been very vigilant tonight in calling members to order. I am sure you will recognize the close relationship between health insurance and this program of farm acreage assistance.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: I take note of the point of order of the hon. member for Essex East.


Peter Francis Martin: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the hon. member to address his remarks to this subject.


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member who had the floor may give an explanation and discuss the point of order raised by the hon. member for Essex East.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: In talking this way, Mr. Chairman, I am only answering the criticism the hon. member has levelled at this government of delay in this measure. I am referring to delays that took place under the Liberal government of which he was a member.


An hon. Member:: Many of them too.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: I would like also to point out that it was the Conservative government who brought about the South Saskatchewan dam that is in progress today, after many, many years of Liberal procrastination preceded this action by this government.


George James McIlraith: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: surely we have got to the stage in this committee where there should be some relevancy to the item under debate? The procedure has become a little ridiculous. We have had tax regulations discussed, the public health program and the South Saskatchewan dam. The item before the committee reads as follows-


Egan Chambers: If the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate were here, he would talk about codfish.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I think we are entitled to be heard, even though certain backbenchers on the government side have no knowledge of what the committee is about and what goes on in the house, and they do interject rather thoughtlessly. But perhaps their own remarks are an answer to the problem; perhaps their remarks contain the answer. But surely, Mr. Chairman, we are entitled to have some degree of relevancy applied to the debate on this item, and I would ask that you so rule.


Jacques Flynn: I agree with the hon. member in principle, but the hon. member for Regina City is explaining why he was referring to health insurance. He did not continue to discuss this matter and I did not think I should intervene in those circumstances, because he was not continuing on
Supply-Agriculture
the same subject. Again I draw the attention of the hon. member for Ottawa West to the fact that there is a difference between a reference to a matter and a discussion of a matter. The hon. member for Ottawa West in the course he has been following has been indirectly criticizing the ruling of the Chair. That is why I wanted to be clear on the point that I always make the distinction to which I referred.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know it is getting late and the patience of the hon. members of the opposition is growing a little thin. I have listened diligently to the debate all day and am content to let the matter rest at this stage.
Coming from a business community in western Canada I feel I can say that this measure is welcome indeed for it will be of assistance not only to the farming community of western Canada but will make an impact on the business community of western Canada and eventually on the business community of eastern Canada. The impact will be very great indeed. I venture to say without being guilty of exaggeration that the final impact on the business community will be in an amount seven or eight times the amount we are voting here tonight, an amount of $294 million in its effect.
In closing let me say that I have confidence in the government of which I am a backbencher. That term does not bother me a bit. I have an opportunity to play my full part in that category and to represent my constituents well. I came here because I was interested and because I was confident that with the leader of the Conservative party we have there would be every expectation of curing many of the ills created over the years under the previous Liberal administration. We have made a long forward stride in that regard. The criticism coming from opposition benches and the concern they have for the future of this government is of little value and is of not very great concern to me.
They talk about unfulfilled promises and the promises that brought us here. I think on reflection they should consider that it was not our promises that brought us here. We were brought here by the lack of action on the part of the Liberal government over a period of over 22 years. The actions this government has taken I am convinced will have the effect of maintaining the confidence of the people whose support we will win again on the next occasion we go to the people for a mandate. I support this measure wholeheartedly.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture Production and marketing branch-
500.	Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act-further amount required, $150,000.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, this is a rather important item. When the main estimate was up the minister will recall that that night he was rather touchy, impatient and a little irritable. We did not get from him the account of that item which I think it warrants. Since we have had a long discussion today I think the minister ought to be given an opportunity of saying a word or two with respect to this item.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I must say, Mr. Chairman, that my recollection of the last time this was up differs considerably from the recollection of the hon. member for Essex East. However, the purpose of this supplementary item is to cover new expenditures resulting from applications which have been made for assistance in building cold storages since the main estimates were prepared and brought before the committee. The total amount of these new contracts is $191,569. It is expected that an amount of $41,569 will be required in the current fiscal year because of the time it will take to construct cold storages and have them inspected and so forth. Therefore the amount requested is as it appears here, $150,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Could the minister tell us how this vote will be divided among the various provinces?


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is Shippegan Cold Storage Company Limited, $23,116.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Where is that?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Shippegan.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thought the minister said "shipping".


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, Shippegan Cold Storage Company Limited, $23,116; Lorrainville, $24,038; Leamington Vegetable Growers Co-operative Limited, $50,000; Monashee Cooperative Consumers Limited, $37,748; Sanford Co-operative Consumers Limited, $6,667.


Paul Joseph James Martin: How does that compare with last year? My hon. friend introduced a supplementary item last year. His estimating was out as it apparently was again this year. How does this compare with the supplementary estimate provided last year?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not have that information here, but I shall be glad to obtain it and send it to the hon. member. The hon. gentleman says that the estimating appears to be out. The point is that you cannot very well estimate for expenditures of this kind. It depends on the number of contracts that

come in and are approved. There is no means by which you can estimate with any degree of accuracy how many of these will come in.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says he does not have the information. Perhaps he could let the item stand and we will proceed to item No. 501. I believe that hon. members are entitled to have this information from the minister when they are considering a supplementary estimate of this kind. Perhaps the Minister of Finance who has been unusually attentive tonight could give us the answer. After all, that hon. gentleman has to concern himself with these matters as head of the treasury board.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I do not know that it is of sufficient interest to delay the committee. I have already suggested to my hon. friend that I would be glad to send him the information and I would think that should be sufficient.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister may not be interested but other hon. members on this side may be.


Egan Chambers: Essex county is getting more this year than last so you should be happy.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have no objection to the Minister of Finance seeking to reply. It will not be the first time.


Jacques Flynn: Shall the item carry?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The item is not carried.


Mr.   Mc@: Mr. Chairman, may we have an answer from the minister?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for Essex East asked what the amount of the supplementary was last year. I have not got that information here as I explained to the hon. gentleman. I said I would be very glad to obtain it and send it to him and I think that should be sufficient under the circumstances.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister may think it is sufficient but in this committee each hon. member must take his own position and accept his responsibility as he sees it. Can the minister tell us whether or not the supplementary estimate last year was as high as this year or was it less?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have no recollection of whether it was larger or smaller than this.


George James McIlraith: What was the total expenditure on this item for the last fiscal year both in the main and supplementary estimates? What amount was being spent?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Last year, as far as the main estimate was concerned, it was $433,510; that was 1959-60.


George James McIlraith: What was the supplementary?


Douglas Scott Harkness: As I say, I do not know what the supplemenetary was. I cannot carry these figures in my head as the hon. member well realizes.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, the minister is asking the committee to vote a supplementary item and when asked a simple question as to what the amount was last year he complains that he cannot carry the figures in his head. There can be no criticism of him for that but there can be criticism of him for not doing the committee the courtesy of bringing the information with him when he comes before us with this estimate.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I have already said I would get the information and supply it in response to the hon. member for Essex East. All that hon. members opposite are doing this evening are engaging in obstruction.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Oh?


Peter Francis Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the minister has stated that we are now engaged in a process of obstruction. This coming from a minister whose estimates have been attended tonight by a whole series of speeches made by hon. gentlemen opposite for the sole purpose of preventing this house from voting on amendments having to do with old age pensions-*


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: On a point of order.


Jacques Flynn: I can only hear one point of order at a time, but I must remind the hon. member for Essex East that he must not impute motives to any hon. members.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Peter Francis Martin: You will recall that when points of order were raised earlier tonight there was not the same vigilance despite the obvious fact that hon. gentlemen were violating the rules of order-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I cannot permit the hon. member to proceed along that line in criticism of the Chair. He may do it tomorrow if he wishes after he has consulted the record. I do not think his comments are fair and I shall not tolerate his continuing along that line.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On the point of order-
Supply-Agriculture


Peter Francis Martin: My point has not been dealt with. The hon. gentleman charged us with obstruction, and I have asked you to ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw that statement.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinlon):: There is no point of order involved in that.


Peter Francis Martin: Mr. Chairman, I
rose on a point of order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am speaking on the point of order at the moment. I do not think there is any point of order involved, but if the hon. member takes such objection I will gladly withdraw the word "obstruction".
The Minister of Finance has now been kind enough to supply me with a copy of the Appropriation Act of last year which says that the supplementary estimate covering this item last year was $198,010.


Peter Francis Martin: I thank the Minister of Finance for that information.


George James McIlraith: Can the minister tell us whether this is expected to be a continuing item and what requests are coming in now?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Certainly this is expected to be a continuing item. However there is no means of telling what the number may be in any one year; it varies a great deal from year to year.


Peter Francis Martin: The minister says applications are coming in regularly. Am I not correct in saying that he anticipated on his main estimates that there would be a curtailment of assistance from the federal government in connection with this cold storage?


Douglas Scott Harkness: What I actually said was that we had put a limit of $50,000 as the maximum amount of assistance available in respect to one of these cold storage plants, and that automatically cuts down the number of applications. Some of the big commercial concerns which were building cold storage plants costing $1 million and upward cannot now obtain a subsidy from the government amounting to more than the figure I have mentioned, and therefore the people who were chiefly taking advantage of this are in a different position.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dairy products division-
501.	Grants and other assistance in accordance with the Cheese and Cheese Factory Improvement Act-further amount required, $143,327.
Jacques Flynn: Shall item 501 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.

Supply-Agriculture


Peter Francis Martin: No. Mr. Chairman, these are being called so quickly that one hardly has a chance-


An hon. Member:: Be fair.


Peter Francis Martin: Hon. gentlemen are saying "be fair" but surely we should have the opportunity to discuss the use of these moneys which are being asked for by the government.
This is an important vote amounting to $143,000. Can the minister give us any information as to who are receiving these grants in accordance with this particular arrangement?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, I shall be glad to do that. The first of these is the Green Valley Cheese factory of Ontario, $4,620; the next is Fernand Sabourin of Hammond, Ontario, $49,450; the next is the Agricultural Society of Normandin, of Normandin, Quebec, $60,000; and the last is the Pine River Cheese and Butter Co-operative of Ripley, Ontario, $29,257.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
504. Contributions to the governments of the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the Minister of Agriculture, of one half the amounts paid by the governments of those provinces in respect of the transport of fodder, straw and other livestock bedding and the movement of cattle to feed from the 12th day of October, 1959, to the 30th day of April, 1960, $261,500.
Peter Francis Martin: This is the contribution to the governments of the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba in connection with half of the amounts paid by the government to those provinces with respect to the transport of fodder, straw and other livestock bedding and the movement of cattle to feed from October 12, 1959 to April 30, 1960. Would the minister care to give us an explanation at this late hour of the night?


Douglas Scott Harkness: An amount of $300,000 was voted in the supplementary estimates of 195960 to provide for these payments to the three prairie provinces concerned in accordance with the agreements which had been made to assist in the transport of fodder, under the adverse weather conditions and in view of the shortage of feed which prevailed. As it happens, the provinces were very slow in getting in their claims. No item was put in
the main estimates for 1960-61 but up to the time that the vote ran out they had put in for only $58,355 of the $300,000 which had been provided. So this is in effect a revote of that money so that the claim can now be paid.


George James McIlraith: Do I understand that the $300,000 was the limit under the original estimate?


Douglas Scott Harkness: We made an estimate that it would be $300,000, but the claims which have now been put in amount to somewhat more than that. The actual claims which have now come in and which remain to be paid amount to $261,500 and there was $58,355 put out on the other vote.


George James McIlraith: Is it expected there will be more claims, or are these the final claims?


Douglas Scott Harkness: These are the final claims. This will close the thing up.


Peter Francis Martin: Eleven o'clock.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is the last item under agriculture. Won't you let it pass?


Jacques Flynn: It being eleven o'clock I will rise and report progress.
Resolutions adopted this day in committee of supply reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: I should like to ask the leader of the house if he would be good enough to indicate the order of business before the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Business will be taken in this order: continuation of the estimates of' the Department of Trade and Commerce, followed by those of the national research council, followed by those of the atomic energy board. The general program of the two latter organizations was considered in the committee on research which met earlier in the-session. Then after those items are finished the house will have left before it only the estimates of the Department of Finance and of privy council, one supplementary estimate-in agriculture and one supplementary estimate in external affairs. That is the only business before us now.


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

[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
Production and marketing branch-
576. Payment of an amount, as a higher return for wheat used for human consumption in Canada, to western grain producers to be distributed on the following basis, namely:
$1.00 per cultivated acre up to a maximum of 200 acres per farm in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, $42,000,000.
Production and marketing branch-
500.	Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act-further amount required, $150,000.
Dairy products division-
501.	Grants and other assistance in accordance with the Cheese and Cheese Factory Improvement Act-further amount required, $143,327.
Supply-Items Passed
Fruit and vegetable division including maple products and honey-
502.	Assistance in construction of potato warehouses under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council-further amount required, $113,775.
Plant products division-
503.	Contributions to the governments of the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council, of one half the amounts paid by the governments of those provinces to farmers in respect of their 1959 unharvested crops to a maximum of $300 in respect of any one farm; and to authorize, in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council, contributions to the governments of those provinces (or their municipalities) in respect of the administrative costs incurred by them in making such payments to farmers, $1,060,000.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, August 10, 1960