1960-05-06

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege relating to a column entitled "Parliament" written by Norman Campbell and Greg Connolley in the Ottawa Citizen of Thursday, May 5, which reads in part:
Meanwhile prospective C.C.F. candidates in the Quebec provincial election are wringing their hands as the blockade is interpreted in the French language press generally as an effort to force divorce courts on Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the latter quotation "an effort to force divorce courts on Quebec" is not in accordance with the facts and that that is not our desire at all.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether the hon. member presents a question of privilege. It is a matter of the interpretation of what has transpired in this house.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on railways, air lines and shipping-Mr. Rowe.
Fourth report of standing committee on banking and commerce-Mr. Cathers.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax) presented the eighth report of the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as indicated by the leader of the house, the budget resolutions will be under discussion in the house next week. There will be the usual few amendments to the budget resolutions to be introduced and may I, following the practice I inaugurated during the last two
years, give notice now for the convenience of hon. members of the amendments that I propose to introduce to the budget resolutions when the house is in committee of ways and means. Perhaps if it meets with the wish of hon. members these might be printed in today's Votes and Proceedings.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreeable to the house that these documents be printed in today's Votes and Proceedings?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, there is no objection from us, of course, but I wonder if the minister could give a general idea of the nature of these amendments.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, there is no general idea. These are individual matters. They are not extensive. It is just a matter of giving the house an opportunity to have notice in detail in advance of the discussion next week.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT-CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENTS RESPECTING MERGERS, MONOPOLIES, ETC.

Hon. Gordon Churchill (for the Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-58 to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FEEDS ACT


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. S-27, to control and regulate the sale of feeds.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Now that the United States House of Representatives by a vote of 327 to 3 has

Inquiries of the Ministry eliminated funds for procurement of the Bomarc missile, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he will not stop all expenditures on the Canadian Bomarc program?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The United States congress as the hon. gentleman well knows, has not concluded with this matter. One house of the congress has dealt with it, and the question is now on its way to the United States Senate. It is to be hoped that the United States Senate will be able to deal with this matter reasonably expeditiously, but in the light of the agreement which was entered into between the two countries it would be improper on our part simply to assume that the United States government is not going to be in a position to carry out its part of the agreement.
We hope this matter will be clarified and cleared up at an early date. I think the house is already aware of the fact that the program, in so far as Canada is concerned in the construction of two bases, is very modest indeed, and that the expenditures on it are merely fractional. Canada, at a relatively tiny expense to herself, has enjoyed the benefit of huge expenditures by the United States on the development of and experiments on this weapon.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinily):: Will the Acting Prime Minister suspend the operation immediately until the United States congress and administration have come to a conclusion on this question, in order that not one additional dollar of the taxpayers' money shall be spent unnecessarily?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think I have answered that question, but if there is any doubt at all about my answer, may I remind the hon. member that the expenditures by the Canadian government at the present time on these two sites are, relatively, very tiny indeed. I have given the reasons why we hope for an early conclusion and final decision on this matter and why, in the meantime, the program which we have agreed upon is not one that we, as a government which honours its obligation, are in a position to ignore.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Would the Acting Prime Minister comment on the story in the Globe and Mail that Canada has taken a most unusual course in approaching two United States senators in an effort to help retain the Bomarc program?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: I can answer that question. I think it was last Monday that I gave a definite negative in reply to a similar question. I said I had not approached any United States congressman or senator. Since then I have had no

communication with any United States senator or congressman. There is absolutely no truth in the story.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister or any hon. member or representative of the government contacted any member of the United States administration in respect to this matter urging that they carry on and complete their commitment?


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, 1 have not contacted any member of the United States administration urging them to take any course in this matter. I cannot speak for the other members of the government, but my hon. friend may go around and ask each one.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Defence whether in the light of these recent developments referred to by the Leader of the Opposition the minister still has faith in the Bomarc missile.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, from all the information I have received from the technical people connected with the Bomarc missile I believe that it can be made functional. It might interest the hon. gentleman to know that the administration in the United States are asking that the Bomarc program be restored to the appropriations.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: At the insistence of the Canadian government.


George Randolph Pearkes: That is entirely incorrect, Mr. Speaker, and I ask that that remark be withdrawn. Within the last five minutes I have said a number of times that we had not contacted the United States administration in this respect.


Mr. Speaker:: If the remark was made it was not made by an hon. member who rose and was recognized. I heard nothing, and with the leave of the house the record might very well take no account of what was said.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, with respect, the hon. member for Trinity while retaining his seat, said at the conclusion of the previous answer these words-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the Acting Prime Minister proceeds may I say to him that if he proceeds to say what was said I shall not ask to have it excluded from Hansard; but if he wishes to put the matter on record and make it a matter of record he may proceed. I think perhaps that is the only course to follow.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I think the comment should be on

the record. I said "At the insistence of the Canadian government". There have been numerous reports from Washington that members of congress, both of the House of Representatives and of the Senate, have been contacted by someone, sources unnamed.


Mr. Hees:: I would not be surprised if the sources were members of the Liberal party.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I point out to the hon. gentleman that he is quite out of order in volunteering any such statement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether any diplomatic representative of the Canadian government has been instructed to approach the United States government in regard to the decision to be taken in Washington on the Bomarc?


George Randolph Pearkes: As far as my department is concerned, Mr. Speaker, the answer is no; they have had no instructions to attempt to influence in any way the decision to be taken there. No remark has been made other than that which I made in the house last week, that if this program were finally cancelled it would not be in keeping with the arrangements which were made. No other remark has been made.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Can the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs say whether any instructions of that kind have gone from external affairs?
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External
Affairs): To my knowledge, absolutely no, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY AS TO DECISION RESPECTING MANNED INTERCEPTORS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that the SAGE computer installation was intended to control both the Bomarc missile and manned interceptors designed for the purpose, and in view of the minister's statement to the house last Tuesday that Canada would proceed with the SAGE computer installation notwithstanding the outcome of the Bomarc, can we conclude that the minister has decided to re-equip our defence squadrons with supersonic manned interceptors?


George Randolph Pearkes: Such a conclusion would be quite erroneous.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Can the minister tell the house what Canadian weapons will be controlled by the SAGE system?
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Randolph Pearkes: It is not necessary that any Canadian weapons will be controlled by the SAGE system. We are in partnership with the United States for the defence of the North American continent. The United States have stationed at various points in the United States a large number of interceptor squadrons which should be controlled by the SAGE system whether or not Canada had any interceptors of her own. As I said in the house some time ago, no decision has been reached to re-equip the CF-100 squadrons with any particular aircraft at the present time.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister based upon his approving reference yesterday to statements made here last Tuesday by the Minister of Public Works. My question is, when the Minister of Public Works stated that we helped to spoil the lending market, was he making an official government comment on official government monetary policy?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the statement which I made at that time is self-explanatory. The fact that we borrowed in 1959 one third of a billion dollars in the money markets for one separate item, housing, which was a very great amount of borrowing indeed, did help to make the money market a difficult one in which to borrow money at reasonable rates.



INTERNATIONAL TRADE FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that Canada was not successful in obtaining the world's fair for 1967, will the government give consideration to supporting an all-Canadian fair along the lines proposed by the Toronto Daily Star?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, while regretting the fact that the decision taken yesterday was not favourable to Canada's claim that the international fair of 1967 should be held at Montreal, the house can be assured that the

Inquiries of the Ministry government will take all proper steps to see that Canada's one hundredth birthday is suitably observed.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Can the Acting Prime Minister say why Canada did not make an attempt to get some oi its friendly nations to enter into the discussions in the same manner as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. While I appreciate the hon. member's desire to discuss the matter, it seems to me that he is opening up an argument about something that happened in the past, and it would be better to raise the matter on the estimates or at some other time when a debate would be possible.


Lionel Chevrier: May I respectfully draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that it is not something that happened in the past; it happened yesterday.


Mr. Ricard:: What is yesterday?


Lionel Chevrier: I am sure when Your Honour used the word "past" you did not mean the immediate past. Because this is a matter of considerable concern to many of us, and I am sure to the government as well, it seems to me perfectly in order to ask the Acting Prime Minister the reason, if any, why Canada did not move in the same way as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics did.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of what the hon. member says I will revise my view.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the house the government did all that was within its power to persuade the group meeting in Paris in recent days to select Montreal as the site for the 1967 world's fair.
When the hon. member asks me why Canada did not adopt the same tactics that were adopted by a totalitarian country, I can only say that Canada pursued proper tactics, and has not always open to it the kind of methods that are open to a totalitarian government. We proceed by the methods that are open to a democratic government. I assure the house that every effort was made properly to persuade that meeting to choose Montreal as the site for the 1967 world's fair.
The house is aware of the fact that the matter was resolved only after five votes were taken, and the contest was exceedingly close. Austria withdrew several days ago and the issue then became a straight question of choosing Moscow or Montreal. On the first two ballots a two thirds majority was required. The result of the first ballot was 17 for Moscow and 13 for Montreal, and on the second ballot 16 for Moscow and 14 for Montreal. On the remaining ballots a clear

majority only was required. The result of the third and fourth ballots was a tie, 15 votes for each side. On the fifth ballot one country changed its vote, and the result was determined in consequence by a vote of 16 for Moscow against 14 for Montreal.
We regret the result but, Mr. Speaker, I wish to leave no doubt in the mind of any hon. member that everything that could properly be done to persuade the group meeting yesterday to select Montreal as the site for the 1967 world fair was done and efficiently done by the two ministers who represented Canada at the meeting.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In view of developments of recent weeks which bear on the position taken yesterday, did the government at any time, without adopting totalitarian methods, suggest to any of its friends that there were advantages in joining this bureau? The answer is no.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not think it would be appropriate to launch into a detailed review here of what might or might not have been done in relation to any particular country. There were 30 countries represented at this meeting and, as hon. members are aware, certain countries, associated with the Soviet philosophically, had recently joined the group. So far as Canada is concerned, we acted at all times in a straightforward way. We do not profess to be able to control the decisions of other countries. Canada, I think it is our proud boast, does not exercise sway over any satellite countries.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister tell the house how many cabinet ministers attended the meeting in Paris?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Two, Mr. Speaker; the Postmaster General and the Associate Minister of National Defence. I think the house will agree that the country was very well represented.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Can he tell the house whether the government intends to introduce legislation at this session to implement the request of the Canadian tourist association that a tourist establishment improvement loan act be introduced?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, if any such decision were taken at any time by the government it would be indicated to the house in the usual way.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: May I address a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister inform the house as to how much money is earmarked for and will be spent by Canada during world refugee year?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, there are two parts to the question, the first of which is capable of an answer. The sum of $600,000 has been provided in the estimates in connection with measures related to world refugee year. It is not possible at this point in the fiscal year, of course, to say precisely what will be actually expended.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It will not all be spent.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister tell the house what effect the collision which took place last night in Montreal harbour, resulting in the sinking of one ship, will have upon shipping in the harbour and what effect, if any, it will have upon shipping in the seaway?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for notifying me of his intention to ask this question, but as his notification only arrived in my office at the time the bell summoning members started to ring, I have not got a complete answer. However, I do have a report from the national harbours board which I think will give him the information he requires.
Last night about 10 o'clock the motor ship Polaris downbound through Montreal harbour apparently had some trouble with its rudder. It rammed the Federal Express, which was docked at berth 28. The Federal Express broke loose from its moorings, drifted down river and struck the Thorshope, docked at shed 29. The Thorshope also broke 79951-0-229
Inquiries of the Ministry loose and drifted but was immediately anchored. The Federal Express sank off Laurier pier.
The ship is reported lying at the bottom of the river 700 feet off Laurier pier. The S. S. Safeguarder of the Department of Transport is now in Montreal to locate the exact position of the Federal Express and place wreckage buoys. Navigation has to be interrupted until the Federal Express is located, and it is expected that navigation should be resumed by noon.
As far as the national harbours board is aware, there has been no loss of life.


Lionel Chevrier: There was a supplementary question, namely whether this accident would affect the movement of ships through the seaway.


George Harris Hees: I have not the answer to that question. As I say, it is expected that navigation will be resumed by noon.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport. Can he advise the house if he has received a request from the mayor of London to meet with the mayor and others regarding the decision of the Canadian National Railways to transfer their car shops from London to Montreal?


George Harris Hees: Yes, I received such a telegram, and I replied to the mayor of London that matters of this kind come 100 per cent under the operational jurisdiction of the management of the Canadian National Railways. I told him that in my opinion a meeting for that reason would not serve any useful purpose, and suggested that he get in touch with the president of the Canadian National Railways.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the minister and ask a supplementary question based on a Canadian Press report in yesterday's London Free Press to the effect that the president of the Canadian National Railways said that he was unable to see what useful purpose would be served by such a meeting with him. In view of that report, would the minister be good enough, in the face of this serious problem as far as London is concerned, to ask the president of the Canadian National Railways to meet with the mayor and other interested representatives from London to see if some solution satisfactory to London might be found?

Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: High officials of the Canadian National Railways have been in London and have examined this situation several times. They re-examined the situation as recently, I believe, as last Monday, at my specific request that it be gone over completely and thoroughly once again. This was done, and I feel sure that if any useful purpose can be served by a further meeting with Mr. Donald Gordon, he will have that meeting. However, I feel that this matter has been very thoroughly investigated by the management of the Canadian National Railways.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the minister be good enough to answer my question and say whether he will ask Mr. Gordon to see the mayor and other interested parties?


George Harris Hees: I will pass along the request made by the hon. member for Essex East.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Thank you very much.



HOUSING

[Stage Direction]
ST. JOHN^S EAST LAND ASSEMBLY PROJECT- REPORTED STATEMENT BY PREMIER SMALLWOOD
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a statement made on May 2 in the Newfoundland house of assembly by Premier Smallwood concerning the land assembly project in St. John's East, wherein the city of St. John's, as agent of the province, would enter into an agreement with the federal government to proceed with this much needed program? If so, does the minister care to make any comment?


David James Walker: I want to thank the hon. member for St. John's East for giving me notice of the question. In reply may I say that I have had the opportunity to read the newspaper report relating to the statement made by Premier J. R. Smallwood in the Newfoundland house of assembly on Monday, May 2. Premier Smallwood stated:
The government of Newfoundland has not appointed St. John's as their agent for the proposed land assembly project and the government of Newfoundland have no authority to appoint the city as their agent.
On March 10, 1959, more than a year ago, the province of Newfoundland requested of the dominion government, through its deputy minister of municipal affairs, that the possibility of a land assembly project be investigated with a view to entering into an agreement with the city of St. John's as an agent of the province under section 36 of

the National Housing Act. Since this type of arrangement has been used in many other provinces, the federal government was prepared to work with the city of St. John's as an agent of the province.
In accordance with this request the federal government agreed to investigate the proposed project with the city of St. John's. This investigation has now been under way for two months. When the province completes its delegation of authority to the municipality and when the investigation is completed, the formal agreements can then be drawn up if the project is approved by the federal-provincial partners. Surely no more evidence is required that the federal government is prepared to participate in federal-provincial housing projects in Newfoundland.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON GOVERNMENT PLANS FOR SESSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to address an exploratory question to the house leader. In view of the fact that it appears unlikely that this house can conclude its business by July 1, and in view of the state of uncertainty in which this situation leaves members and their families and the staff and their families with respect to plans for the future, particularly the summer months, can the minister inform the house whether it is the government's intention to make an announcement soon in order to resolve this growing state of psychological disequilibrium?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Nothing would restore us to normal more quickly than active co-operation by the group represented by the hon. member in conducting the essential business of the house with dispatch.
The question is interesting and important, Mr. Speaker. This is the 75th day of this session. Of that time, 39 days have been allocated to debates set under the rules or debates which have been conducted here at the request of the opposition, private members' days and supply motions. Fifteen days have been utilized for the consideration of supply. Of those 15 days, 10 were spent on a discussion of supplementary estimates, 2 days on agriculture and 8 days on labour. The balance of the time, 21 days, has been available for government legislation, and a number of measures have already been passed.
Between now and such time as we might conclude the session-and this is within the hands of the people on the opposite side of

the house-we have the legislative program to complete and the consideration of estimates. There are left two supply motions, which will consume four days. The balance of the time then is available for discussion of the matters now on the order paper and the others which will be coming forward very shortly. I think it is within the expectation of the house that we could complete the business by the end of June.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It depends on an assessment of the measures which appear before the house; and for those items on which the opposition finds it wants to conduct a spirited and lengthy debate, the opportunity is there. There are some items which can be referred to a committee for study, and there are still other items which do not involve lengthy debate.
I hope to consult with representatives on the other side of the house on Monday with regard to the program that remains before us, and perhaps by co-operation we can allocate time in such a way that no one is prohibited from expressing his opinion here and at the same time the business of the house will be speeded up.


Lionel Chevrier: I think the house will appreciate the statement the leader of the house has just made on the present position of the session, but I wonder if he will give consideration to telling us whether all the legislation which the government intends to introduce is now on the order paper, whether all of the committees have been established, and what is the proposal from now to the end of the session.
While I realize that the minister said a few moments ago that he will discuss this on Monday, would it not be a good idea to have down on paper what there is which remains to be done over and above what I have already asked?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think there is great advantage in making clear to everyone in the house the business that is before us, and that is what I have been trying to do during the course of this session. Immediately on the return of the Prime Minister I think it will be possible to lay before the house the projected program for this year. We have on the order paper now, with the addition of these bills which were given first reading this morning, 17 items for consideration. There will be, I think, 12 more items to appear on the order paper, some of them of major importance, some of them of less importance.
79951-0-229i
6, 1960	3631
Inquiries of the Ministry IMMIGRATION



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON DEPORTATION OF CHINESE WOMAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisfa-Twil-lingate):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could
ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, in view of the decision by the Ontario supreme court yesterday in a case which her department had before the courts, whether the department still intends to persist in its effort to deport this Chinese woman who is the mother of a Canadian citizen, thereby involving either the exile of a citizen of this country or the separation of an infant citizen from its mother.


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I understood, Mr. Speaker, that we were not going to discuss details of these cases in the house, but I would refer my hon. friend to a decision which was given in another case in Montreal which is exactly the opposite of that given in Toronto.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the point of order raised by the hon. lady, since she has raised it-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member probably misunderstood what the minister said. She was replying to a question, not raising a point of order, and indicating why her answer was of the kind it was.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then may I put a supplementary question. Is it still the policy of the hon. lady to deport the parents of infant Canadian citizens from this country?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, the implications of that question are too broad to give a simple answer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, does the hon. lady intend to deport the mother of this Canadian citizen?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes.



STATEMENT RESPECTING COMMERCIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Ottawa West asked me a question concerning the commercial purchases of wheat by India in the last year or so.
The information that I have been able to get in the interval is that in the crop year

Inquiries oj the Ministry 1958-59 India purchased 29,000 tons of wheat from Australia. Under the present arrangement with the United States, in the crop year 1959-60 it is expected that India will purchase 400,000 tons of wheat; and of this amount India has already made arrangements to purchase 276.4 thousand tons from Australia and 20,000 tons from Canada. Australia has been the main supplier of wheat to India on a commercial basis.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, while I have the floor I might reply to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday with regard to Elliot Lake, and outline what the government is doing in that respect.
The problems concerning the Elliot Lake community have been receiving continued and intensive study by the government. Based on the information supplied by various organizations representing Elliot Lake and on investigations conducted on the spot by representatives of the government, plans have been made to examine every aspect of the situation at Elliot Lake with a view to assisting in sustaining the community.
As I mentioned earlier in the house, the problem requires action on a broad front. The community itself is showing commendable effort. The mining companies are engaged in searching for other industries for the area. The government of Ontario over the years has shown a very active interest in the development of the community and is concerting provincial measures to aid in the continued well being of the community. The dominion government also has an interest in the welfare of Elliot Lake.
To further these purposes a committee has been appointed with instructions to consult with the appropriate representatives of the government of Ontario, the mining companies and the community of Elliot Lake. The committee has also been empowered to examine the possibility and feasibility of any projects under federal government jurisdiction that might be considered for location in the Elliot Lake area.
At the present time several proposals Involving industrial establishments are being considered. In addition, the Department of National Defence has been making inquiries as to the practicability of establishing a training centre at Elliot Lake. The continuance of as much employment as possible under the circumstances is a major concern,

and all factors affecting employment are being reviewed with the mining companies.
Pending the outcome of the consultations and investigations now going on it is not possible to state precisely the type of assistance that may be given to the Elliot Lake area. The committee is actively engaged in attempting to find an acceptable solution to the problem.
Hon. Mr. Macaulay, minister of energy resources in Ontario, has informed me that similar activities are being undertaken by a committee appointed by the government of Ontario, and in conversation with him we have arranged to have a meeting of the two committees at the earliest opportunity.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if it is not the case, judging from his answer, that the federal program of assistance for Elliot Lake at this time is merely a further examination by the appointment of a committee?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I think that is an unnecessary gloss on the statement I have made. The Minister of National Defence reported to the house just the other day that his department is very actively engaged in assessing the possibility and feasibility of locating a defence training establishment at Elliot Lake. This is going ahead, but a decision cannot be reached overnight or within a few days because of the obligations involved. If this is gone ahead with it will be a very substantial contribution by the dominion government to a very active and important community.



SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources whether the government has declined to make a loan, on the same basis as the loan for the Beech wood project, to the government of Saskatchewan for the power project in connection with the South Saskatchewan development? '


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: No, Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada has not declined.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister say whether negotiations with that government are still under way?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think it is understood that the working out of a national power policy takes some time, and the members of the government of Saskatchewan understand the over-all studies which are being made in this regard.

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



DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including advisory committee on agricultural services, $777,657.
Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Chairman, when I adjourned the debate last Friday I was pointing out that the Minister of Agriculture, in his second speech, made certain accusations concerning the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska. He accused the hon. member of having delivered in this house a purely political speech on agriculture.
I am sure I am not the only one in this house who understands very well why the minister made this accusation. It was much easier for him to make an accusation of that kind than it would have been to try to reply to the very specific charges which were made by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska against the agricultural policies, or lack of policies, of the Minister of Agriculture.
In saying only one or two words about the second speech of the minister I might ask the hon. gentleman why he did not try to deal with a statement of fact which was clearly made by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska, to the effect that the farmers' net income for the year 1959 fell by 7 per cent. The minister might also have attempted to explain to the country and to the house, when he took the floor shortly after half past four, precisely what constitutes the long range program in agriculture about which he talked so much in 1957 and 1958.
There is another reason why the minister should have accused the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska of having made a political speech in this house, and it is this. The hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska reminded the minister and the Prime Minister of their solemn pledges to the Canadian people in the field of agriculture. Nothing has been done to implement those solemn promises, and the nature of what has in fact been done has contributed to the deterioration of the agricultural situation in our country.
Supply-Agriculture (Translation):
Mr. Chairman, like all hon. members, I heard the speech made last week by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), and I now want to quote one or two sentences from that speech. As reported on page 7 of the appendix to Hansard for April 29, 1960, the hon. member stated:
In the province of Quebec, three experimental farms folded up under the former government.
Unfortunately, the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) did not mention those facts to the house.
It is unfortunate that the former government discontinued operation of three experimental farms in the province of Quebec. However, there are other facts that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, who seems to be particularly careful about accuracy, might have made known to the house.
For instance, he could have told us that, in Quebec, in the last fifteen years, 32,000 farms have been deserted. This is 20 per cent of the province's farm lands. Proof of this statement will be found in Le Soleil for August 13, 1959.


An hon. Member:: Is this not the Union Nationale paper?


Augustin Brassard: Anyone is free to draw his own conclusions.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm also stated that sales of margarine in the nine other provinces were very harmful to Quebec agriculture and farmers.
In reply to some of the questions put to him, the hon. member could only say that there was a law against the sale of margarine in Quebec.
The hon. member made a reference to the federal legislation prohibiting imports of American cigarettes. I might point out to him that federal laws are not passed only as padding for statute books. They are enforced, and government representatives see that they are obeyed. When they are not, legal proceedings ensue, and penalties are meted out. But if there is a law against the sale of margarine in Quebec, did the authorities ever take legal action, assess fines or impose jail terms? I submit these few thoughts to the attention of the hon. member for J oliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.
Mr. Chairman, I do wish, however, to support the hon. member on one point.


Mr. Johnson:: Would the hon. member allow me a question?

Supply-Agriculture


Augustin Brassard: I shall be pleased to do so when I have completed my remarks.
Mr. Chairman, I do, however, wish to support the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm on one point. He pleaded with the farmers to join the U.C.C. This, 1 think, was shrewd advice on his part, and I earnestly support his suggestion.
In the report of the Stewart commission which was set up by this government-a most creditable move, in my opinion-it was indicated that the U.C.C. and the co-operatives -probably mostly the co-operatives, as they are more particularly concerned with the economy-had helped narrow the spread between production costs and consumer prices, a problem which was investigated by the Stewart commission.
On the subject of price spreads, I should like, Mr. Chairman, to say a few words about that royal commission. I think the government acted very responsibly in setting it up. I shall indicate later what I think of the commission's recommendations and especially of the attitude adopted by the government later on.
When the Prime Minister announced the creation of that commission in the house on December 10, 1957, he said, as shown on page 2123 of Hansard:
The chairman will be Dr. Andrew Stewart oi Edmonton, president of the University of Alberta, formerly lecturer in agricultural economics at the University of Manitoba and dean of business affairs at the University of Alberta. The other members of the commission will be Mrs. W. R. Walton Jr., of Toronto, a member of the board of directors of the Canadian Association of Consumers since its inception in 1947; Dr. W. M. Drummond of Bristol, Quebec, and Guelph, Ontario, head of the department of agricultural economics of the Ontario Agricultural College; Mr. Howard Mac-Kichan of Halifax, Mr. Romeo Martin of Montreal, Mr. Bernard Couvrette of Montreal and Mr. Cleve Kidd of Toronto.
The commission is appointed under part I of the Inquiries Act, their powers being to inquire into the extent and the causes of the spread between the prices received by producers of food products of agricultural and fisheries origin and the prices paid by consumers therefor; to determine whether or not such price spreads in general or in particular are fair and reasonable or are excessive, in relation to the services rendered; to make such recommendations as they deem appropriate if any such price spreads are found to be excessive, and to examine the adequacy of price information currently available.
I mention the personnel, sir, to indicate the high standard of those who have undertaken, at personal sacrifice, to discharge the important responsibilities which will fall on them.
The same day, Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister tabled a copy of the order in

Council appointing the commission. It is said, in paragraph (c), setting out the commission's responsibilities:
(c) to make such recommendations as they deem appropriate if any such price spreads are found to be excessive;
The commission proceeded with the inquiry and submitted a report. It also made some recommendations to the government. In various cases, it had found that prices were perhaps not unreasonable profits, but of a size that was hard to justify.
May I tell of a case which, I think, deserves immediate government attention. It will be found in volume II, entitled:
Report of the royal commission on price spreads of food products.
On page 101, table No. 16, we see this:
Rates of return on investment after taxes.
There is a reference here to:
Three breakfast food firms-
-together with figures showing their average profits for the years 1949 to 1957.
In 1949, those three unidentified breakfast food firms made a net profit-I would point out that this is after taxes-of:
26.4 per cent;
In 1950, 30.5 per cent;
In 1951, 25.2 per cent;
In 1952, 29.8 per cent;
In 1953, 30.5 per cent;
In 1954, 28.4 per cent;
In 1955, 30.2 per cent;
In 1956, 32.3 per cent;
In 1957, 29.3 per cent.
which, for the given period makes an average net profit after taxes of 29.2 per cent.
After ascertaining certain facts and conditions in this country, the commission made some recommendations. Among others, it recommended the appointment of a permanent board on prices, productivity and incomes.
Mr. Chairman, I am far from being an advocate of unmitigated socialism. I am not for government interference in all fields of human activity, and I am convinced that the system we have in America is still the best in the world.
However, the fact that we do not want out-and-out socialism is no reason why we should remain blind to the weaknesses of our system.
I believe the best way to avoid extremes is to have the intelligence to see our weaknesses and, above all, the courage to apply a remedy.
I have just pointed out to the house a weakness that I think we should try to correct.

It is precisely because of cases such as those that some of our people want the government to interfere in all fields. But I think that the government should take into serious consideration the recommendation of the royal commission on price spreads of food products and establish a permanent board on prices, productivity and incomes.
Even if the permanent board did nothing more than prevent similar abuses, I think we would have made a great step towards avoiding government interference in all spheres of human activity.
The government must take action respecting such shameless abuses.
What is the good of fine speeches, of talk about human freedom, if we lack the courage to correct the few weaknesses in our system.
The C.C.F. party has made a great many suggestions in the field of agriculture. I admit that several of them were most interesting and appropriate; the same can be said of other fields of human endeavour in our country. But, on the whole, the party's platform seems to give the impression that if the C.C.F. got into power, we would be living in an earthly paradise.
What I don't like about them is that they try to give the Canadian public the impression that if they ever occupy the treasury benches, it will mean the end of all the evils that plague mankind.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: It will never be.


Augustin Brassard: The C.C.F. platform is marvellous, even fascinating to me, but I believe it has come 2,000 years too late. Had it been made known before the fall of Adam and Eve, it would have been a benefit indeed.
I should like to say a few words now about dairy production, especially in Quebec. My colleagues are aware that Quebec produces more than a third of all the milk consumed in Canada.
Canadian farmers derive nearly 40 per cent of all their income from that industry, and for a great many of them, dairying represents 80 per cent of their total income.
It is therefore an important sector of Canadian agriculture, but particularly in the province I represent here with my other Quebec colleagues.
The situation has become critical, for the simple reason that the market is increasing from day to day, and that we have no support price on milk powder.
Supply-Agriculture
Sixty two per cent of the milk powder produced in Canada comes from the province of Quebec.
You will all remember that, in February 1960, milk powder was selling at 12 cents a pound. Today, it is down to 7J or 8 cents.
Canada produces about 170 million pounds of milk powder a year.
We consume about 120 million pounds, so that we have a surplus of a little over 50 million pounds. Now unless the price is supported, there is unfortunately a strong possibility that this milk powder will sell below production costs.
Farm organizations have submitted briefs and demands to the government on this matter. Some organizations have urged and are still urging the government to buy, if not all the surplus, at least between 35 and 40 million pounds of our milk powder surplus. Those associations have suggested a price of 10 cents a pound. This would have the effect of maintaining prices and stabilizing production to some extent.
There is no doubt that the government could also find markets. It is true, admittedly-I want to be candid about this-that this might cost the government about $2J million or $2 million, or even $3 million, but this surplus might well be given away to the Colombo plan as assistance to certain countries that need it. I think it would be a highly humane measure which would please the countries obtaining this help, though perhaps it would also cause some of my Quebec colleagues to grumble.
Mr. Chairman, before resuming my seat, I should like to make one more suggestion to the government. At the outset of my remarks I commended the government for setting up the royal commission on price spreads of food products. The commission has submitted its report, and I understand that the experts are studying its recommendations. I hope some positive action will come out of the highly appropriate recommendations made by the Stewart commission-


Paul Joseph James Martin: A commission set up by the previous government.


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Chairman, I have another suggestion to make to the government. Many farmers in my constituency-


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) to refrain from interrupting the hon. member who has the floor.

Supply-Agriculture


Mr. Boulanger:: Start by setting the example.


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Chairman, many farmers in my constituency have complained that there is an unaccountable spread between the production costs and sale prices of farm machinery. I was told of some instances, and I would not like to bore my colleagues by repeating them all, but I intend to send the list to the minister. I feel the government should consider the advisability of establishing a commission to investigate this matter and to determine the reasons for that spread between the cost price of farm machinery and their sale price to the farmer.
If the government were to listen to my humble suggestion, one I am making at the recommendation of some farmers in my constituency, I think it would be doing a real service. And I hope the government would then carry out any recommendations that commission might make if it were appointed.
When the minister replies to hon. members, I hope he will tell us whether the government proposes to follow up in the present session one or the other recommendation made by the royal commission on price spreads of food products.
Mr. Chairman, I would not like to conclude my remarks without again asking the Minister of Agriculture to deal somewhat differently than he did during his second speech last Friday, with the arguments advanced by my colleague, the hon. member for Drum-mond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger).
Like the minister, I myself am not unhandy with irony and sarcasm, but I do not think it is dignified for a minister of the crown to reply in that vein to complaints made by the official critic of the Liberal party in this house. If his had been merely a political speech and had not faithfully pictured the farming situation in Canada, the minister would have been justified in speaking as he did. But as a responsible man-I hope he is- I trust he will at the end of this discussion, or whenever he considers it appropriate to rise, reply in a more complete and dignified manner to the remarks of my colleague, the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska.
(Text):


Mr. Rapp:: Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to speak on the agriculture estimates before the committee at the present time. Since I am a member for a constituency in Saskatchewan, namely Humboldt-Melfort, I feel it is my duty to speak on matters pertaining to agriculture. Also, I

would like to take this opportunity to say a few words, since I have just returned from a five-day Canada-United States interparliamentary conference which was held in Washington, D.C.
I must say I received some useful and interesting information on agriculture. We met with our counterparts from the United States Senate and House of Representatives, and discussed problems closely concerned with agriculture. We had a considerably detailed discussion on surplus wheat problems confronting both the United States and Canada. As you are probably aware, Mr. Chairman, Canada and the United States together produce about 20 per cent or 25 per cent of the world production of wheat.
In this connection, in our agricultural industry we have problems in Canada and in the United States which we can call common problems, and one of them is the wheat surplus. Wheat production in Canada and the United States in the past two years has exceeded the domestic consumption plus exports. Because of this there has been an accumulation of huge surpluses. Moreover, wheat surpluses are more likely to be of a long term rather than of a short term nature.
An expression used by a United States congressman was very disturbing to me. He said in no uncertain terms that at the end of this year the United States will be faced with a huge surplus of wheat, and they will likely have to adopt a more liberal approach to the disposal of wheat surpluses. Further, he said that by the end of this year the United States will have about a billion or a billion and a half bushels of surplus wheat on their hands. All this pointed up to a stepped up program, a program that has been ruinous in a way to us in Canada in the past. I refer to the give-away program, the Carter deal, and so on.
In this connection I might say that a few years ago the present government made some strong representations to the United States government and asked them not to dispose of their surplus wheat in our commercial markets. To the remarks of the congressman from Florida I expressed some concern, and pointed out to him that although we are not in a position to suggest methods by which they should dispose of their surplus, we hoped they would not do it in our commercial markets. I also emphasized the point that export wheat means much more to Canada than it does to the United States, because 60 per cent of their wheat production is consumed domestically while Canada consumes

only about 25 per cent of her production. Naturally we have to find markets for many more bushels of wheat in our country.
Another comparison can be drawn in this way. Wheat accounts for 20 per cent of cash income from all our farm marketings, while in the United States it accounts for only about 6 per cent. I also brought to the attention of the committee the need for a free world food bank. If we set up such a bank we would be in a position to achieve two purposes; first, to dispose of our wheat surplus and, second, to feed the underdeveloped peoples of the world.
After a two-day session the members of our committee passed a resolution stressing continuous, close consultation in order to avoid damage to other countries' commercial markets. In this connection I should like to say that wheat surpluses in the United States are large but that country, as I have already stated, can resort to give-aways and other methods to dispose of them. We in Canada cannot resort to these methods. The only avenue left to us is to take acreage out of wheat production and thus reduce our surpluses.
There are not many methods by which we can do this. We can put more acreage into edible oilseed production such as soya beans, sunflower seed, rapeseed, and safflower seed. The production of soya beans is restricted by climatic condition and in the western provinces, where most of the wheat is produced, we cannot go into soya bean production.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have such production in Essex county.


Reynold Rapp: It is very nice to hear the hon. member say that they have it in Essex county. I will deal with soya beans a little later.
The farmers of my constituency are not only good farmers but they are also pioneers in this new industry, the production of rapeseed. They were the earliest producers of rapeseed on a commercial basis in western Canada, and have done a magnificent job in establishing this western grain. When I see statements in the press and hear statements over radio and television that rapeseed will become a major crop in the future or that it is a new crop to watch or that here is an opportunity for a new crop, then I must say that I sense my responsibility to these western farmers and feel it is my duty to speak in the house on behalf of the rapeseed producers. I am doing this in the full knowledge that this new industry is not getting the attention it deserves.
79951-0-230
Supply-Agriculture
By this I do not mean to say that we in the west are looking for subsidies, deficiency payments or other financial assistance. Far from it. All we are looking for is an opportunity for the rapeseed growers equal to that enjoyed by other grain producers in the west. I know that hon. members have heard me speak on rapeseed quite often and that I have almost become a laughingstock. Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that this is not a laughing matter for the western producers. They are aware that they have to take acreage out of the production of wheat, and the only method the farmers of the three western provinces can resort to is to plant rapeseed.
At the beginning of the industry the freight rate structure was the biggest factor in preventing the industry from developing. Over a period of 10 years freight rates were allowed to go up 125 per cent. The rate on rapeseed went as high as 80 cents per hundredweight, while on other grains coming under the Crowsnest pass agreement the rate remained at only 22 to 23J cents per hundredweight. This situation almost wiped out the rapeseed industry in 1959, and I have statistics here in that regard. In 1958 production in the three prairie provinces amounted to
626,000	acres, while in 1959 it had dropped to 218,000 acres, a drop to almost one third the acreage. Naturally the freight rate structure was a big factor in this drop, and it has also prevented the expansion of this new industry. The situation is very disturbing because we have just been able to introduce rapeseed oil and have it accepted by the edible oil trade. This was a very important decision. There is no reason in the world why carloads of oil could not be sold to the edible oil trade if the rapeseed growers were given proper attention.
The biggest single factor against the use of this oil in Canada is the fact that Canadian crushers are allowed to crush United States soya beans in Canada and thereby by-pass the 20 per cent tariff now in effect on soybean oil. Take note, Mr. Chairman, that there is a 20 per cent tariff on soybean oil but no tariff at all on imported soya beans. Here is what is happening in the crushing industry. On soybean oil imported for edible use there is a 20 per cent tariff while soybeans are allowed entry duty free. In any other type of manufacturing in Canada a tariff is charged on the imported material that goes into the manufacturing. A rebate on that tariff is made to the manufacturer when he exports his goods, but there is no rebate on that part of his production of manufactured goods that

Supply-Agriculture
is used in Canada. In addition, the manufacturer in Canada who exports to the British commonwealth must use 25 per cent of Canadian product in order that he may export to British commonwealth countries.
This is what is happening in Canada. The Canadian crusher purchases all the Canadian soybeans. He does not use any of those beans for crushing into oil for Canadian consumption. He uses those beans to make up the 25 per cent of Canadian material in the oil and meal that he markets in Great Britain and other favoured nation treaty countries. The soybean oil that he sells in Canada is made almost entirely from United States beans which come in free of duty, and the great bulk of the meal sold in Canada also is made from United States beans that enter duty free. In this way he entirely by-passes the 20 per cent tariff on soybean oil.
If our country is anxious to have a crop of rapeseed grown in western Canada we should immediately take action to see that any United States soya beans used to make oil sold in Canada should pay the 20 per cent tariff. If this were done it would mean that the growers of rapeseed, sunflower seed and safflower seed in Canada would be able to market their products at a little better price than they are getting now, but so far as rapeseed is concerned it would not raise the cost of the finished product by 1 cent. It would only bring the price of rapeseed oil up to the present price of soybean oil in eastern Canada, whereas now we have to sell it at a discount of about 2 cents per pound. One pound of rapeseed oil is equivalent to one pound of soybean oil. If this were done we could depend on a very large crop of rapeseed in western Canada with a reasonable price to the farmer, and at the same time take thousands and thousands of acres out of the production of wheat. I am afraid that if nothing is done the price of rapeseed this year will have to go so low that the industry will be practically wiped out.
Cottonseed oil, peanut oil and corn oil all enter Canada duty free, while on the other hand Canadian rapeseed sold in the United States must pay 1 cent per pound import tax. Since repeseed only sells for about 4 cents a pound, a 1 cent a pound import tax means a great deal to the rapeseed producer. Canadian rapeseed meal entering the United States must pay a duty of $6 per ton while United States soybean meal is allowed to enter Canada duty free.
To illustrate my grievance, I should like to point out that margarine production in

Canada in 1959 amounted to 152 million pounds. Preliminary reports show that in the production of margarine the following oils and fats were used: Soybean oil, 76.1 million pounds; cottonseed oil, 9 million pounds; cocoanut oil, 5| million pounds; palm oil, 10J million pounds; marine oils, whatever they are, 12.8 million pounds; animal fats, 4.7 million pounds, and other vegetable oils, 4.3 million pounds. Dr. B. M. Craig, a national research council scientist at Saskatoon and a very good friend of mine-he comes from my constituency-has made the statement that only one tenth of the margarine made in Canada is made from oilseeds grown in this country. Most margarine is made from these oils which I have just listed and which all come duty free into Canada from the United States.
As you can see, Mr. Chairman, under these adverse tariff and freight rate conditions the rapeseed industry cannot compete successfully against the cheap American soybeans that are brought into Canada duty free. This situation will eventually wipe out the whole rapeseed industry. Indeed that would be a tragedy for our agricultural industry, since rapeseed can play a very important part in our Canadian economy.
The remarkable change with respect to Canada's place in the world's rapeseed market and the important position which rapeseed may have in the years ahead calls for a good deal of attention to be paid to this valuable oilseed crop. Since 1958 rapeseed has been officially designated an edible oil in Canada. This new step opens up interesting possibilities for the use of rapeseed as a major ingredient in margarine and shortening instead of bringing in United States soybeans and oil duty free. Only a partial shift in this respect would require the planting of several thousand acres to supply the domestic market alone. Quite apart from edible use, however, it has been found that the industrial potentialities of rapeseed are very promising, particularly with respect to the blending of certain special lubricating oils and the production of grease. Everyday use of grease containing rapeseed oil has yielded top results. I should like to make here a statement that I read not so long ago in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix in regard to rapeseed grease that is used now on farm and other vehicles:
The first carload of a new grease using homegrown rapeseed instead of imported castor oil arrived at federated co-operatives Regina branch April 19.
Shipments of the grease are already on the way out to co-operative retail outlets served by FCL...
It requires 25 pounds of rapeseed yielding 8-10 pounds of oil to each 100 pounds of grease.

This is indeed a good discovery, and it opens up the use of rapeseed oil in this country. But equally as great possibilities are open for the farmer who produces rapeseed for the export market. The initial development of the rapeseed industry in the prairie provinces in recent years has come largely as a result of the demand of the export market. The largest part of the 1959 crop of rape-seed has been exported to Japan, which is our good customer for agricultural products. Here I should like to give you some statistics from the dominion bureau of statistics. It is stated that our best customer is Italy. Last year we exported to Italy about 100 million pounds of rapeseed oil or rapeseed. The second best customer is Japan, which bought about 81 million pounds of rapeseed; and our third best customer is the Netherlands, which bought 31,620,000 pounds.
During these last three years we lost some good and big customers. For instance, there was Belgium. In 1956 we exported to Belgium about 27 million pounds of rapeseed, and last year only about 1 million pounds. The same thing applies to Switzerland and so on and so forth. However, over the years we increased our export markets from a mere 60 million pounds to 225 million pounds in 1959, indeed a remarkable figure.
Reports that French interests are negotiating for the purchase of a considerable quantity of Canadian rapeseed have heightened Canadian hopes that a somewhat better market might be developed in Europe in the immediate future. A $5 million sale of rapeseed to the French government has been reported in Canadian grain circles. As I say, Canada has emerged from the position of a net importer of rapeseed in 1954 to that of the world's leading exporter, with exports of over 225 million pounds.
Rapeseed could become a major crop in the prairie provinces within the very near future if given the right attention. Oilseed production offers a partial solution to our surplus wheat in the long range view. It is possible that another million acres or one and a half million acres of rapeseed could be produced in the prairie provinces, taking into consideration the domestic consumption and export. This action would mean reducing the wheat surplus by 30 million or 40 million bushels a year, and at the same time it would bring cash money into the pockets of the farmers who go into the production of this edible oilseed. It would also mean a saving of millions of dollars to the Canadian treasury, since there would be much less grain for which storage would be required.
79951-0-230i
Supp ly-A griculture
In this connection I must say that the statistics show that during the last five years the storage our treasury had to pay amounted to $135 million.
In conclusion I should like to stress again the importance of this crop by means of which it would be possible for our farmers in the west, particularly in Saskatchewan- since Saskatchewan may be called the wheat province of Canada-to take out acreages that would produce wheat and utilize them in producing this edible oilseed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the discussion of these estimates I am sure we regret- certainly we on this side of the house do- the inadequate statement made by the minister when he introduced his estimates, I think some time about March 1. His six minute speech on that occasion could hardly be regarded-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Your leader said it was a 15 minute speech.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -as the kind of speech that should be made by a minister administering a department in which some $113 millian are proposed for expenditure; and certainly it was not the kind of speech that one would expect from my good friend the genial Minister of Agriculture in respect of an industry that has reached in this country-as it has, I admit, elsewhere- a very critical stage.
The minister ought, at the earliest opportunity, to face frankly the critical situation that confronts farmers from one end of Canada to the other. I am sure the situation in my own county demonstrates the position in this particular, one to be found from one end of Canada to another. There the farmers are concerned not only about importations from the United States, as we have just learned from the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Rapp); they are concerned about the reduction-for instance, in the case of the tomato growers-of the acreage normally given them by companies such as the Heinz company and others. They are concerned about the closing down of canneries. They are concerned about the inadequate floor prices on some of the commodities under the agricultural prices stabilization act. They are concerned about the failure of the administration to include certain other products under the stabilization act. They are concerned, too, about the indications that the government is bit by bit abandoning or straying away from its original policy of floor prices under the stabilization act and resorting to a system of deficiency payments, as was characterized

Supp ly-A griculture
by its policy announced some months ago with such disastrous results in the case of hogs and eggs.
In my particular area, if I may be local for a moment, the farmers are also concerned about the price they will receive for Ontario grown wheat. The 1960 support price looks to be about $1.36 per bushel f.o.b. truck. The wheat producers board will want the stabilization board, I think, to increase the support price to a more realistic level, which I suggest should not be less than $1.60; that is at harvest to the producer. Not less than that should be done if the minister is going to be able to live up to the general kind of assurances which were given to the farmers in my area, as in other parts of Canada, by such statements as that of the Prime Minister when he said "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."
To date the stabilization board price has not been of any real value to the Ontario wheat producers; I doubt that the minister would quarrel with this statement. One of these days the minister will be receiving representatives from the Ontario wheat producers, and I will be surprised if they do not ask for an exemption from the mandatory list of grains covered under the act so far as wheat is concerned. The reason for that is that they feel that 80 per cent of the ten-year average seriously affects their chances of getting a better price on the basis of negotiations with the trade. In any event this is a very important matter to farmers in Ontario, in my section of the country, and I hope this further plea to the minister will bring the action which he failed to take last year.
I hope also the minister will be able to indicate today when we may expect a decision as to the floor price on sugar beets. I would be interested in knowing whether the stabilization board has been able to take into account the losses which have attended the sugar beet growers as a result of the award recently made by the arbitrator under the contract between the sugar beet growers in southwestern Ontario and the sugar company at Chatham. The farmers as a result of that award have lost a considerable source of income, and it would seem to me, as the minister did indicate in reply to a question of mine, that in the fixing of the price this year that loss ought to be taken into account.
I would hope also that the minister and the board would take into account the different interests that prevail as between the

various sugar beet producing regions of Canada. The return to the sugar beet grower in western Canada last year may have been satisfactory to the sugar beet grower in western Canada but in that part of the country on whose behalf I speak at this moment, there was and is less satisfaction. Instead of having a general price it ought to be possible to have a price which will take into account the interests and concerns of the various regions. Therefore I hope the minister can tell us something about the government's intentions with regard to sugar beets.
I listened with interest to the speech which has just been delivered by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort. Soybeans, of course, are a very important product in my county and in the neighbouring county of Kent, in the province of Ontario. I have before me a brief which was prepared by the Ontario wheat producers' maketing board, the Ontario soya bean growers' marketing board and the Ontario grain corn producers' association. At page 9 of that brief I note the following:
The federal deficiency payment program is not designed to bring producers a satisfactory return for their product.
The wheat board's establishment of floor prices above the government support price exemplified the possibilities of maintaining satisfactory prices through collective action. Even in a year of surplus production as in 1958, no deficiency payment was necessary.
Soybeans were classified for support price purposes at the request of the soybean board who administered the records and made the distribution of the deficiency payments. Even with the deficiency payment from the federal treasury, growers maintain that price levels are below cost of production plus a fair margin of profit.
The soybean grower in my section of the country is not satisfied with the floor price of soybeans. It was $2.10 a year ago and is $2 now. The principle of averaging the price is such that the declared floor price is not the price which is received by a great many of the farmers. In any event, I can say to the minister that I attended a meeting recently in Tilbury at which farmers from the counties of Kent and Essex were present, and to which all members of parliament of all political parties were invited, where it was declared by this group that they were not satisfied with the price support on soybeans.
The hon. member who has just spoken was right and justified in drawing attention as he did to the importance of soybeans. Soybeans are the major domestic source of edible oils in Canada. The production last year, most of it in southwestern Ontario, totalled
6,649,000	bushels. This was equivalent to the production of about 70 million pounds of edible oil. To make up the deficiency in the

supply of edible oils, last year, to carry further the argument of the hon. member who has just spoken, Canada imported from the United States 10,900,000 bushels of soybeans valued at $23,400,000 and 23,500,000 pounds of refined soybean oil worth $3 million. So anything that could be done to meet the situation confronting the soybean growers I think would be not only in their interests but in the interests of such people as the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort, thus indicating the national character of some of these problems in agriculture.
I complained a moment ago about the speech of the minister. I said, and I say again now, that it was not the speech of a minister who fully appreciates the gravity of the situation confronting Canadian agriculture. The minister said nothing about the long range programs of which he, the Prime Minister and others spoke during the time they were asking the people of Canada to give them the opportunity to carry on government in this country. The minister said nothing about the reduction in net farm income in this country; he overlooked the point made by the hon. member for Drum-mond-Arthabaska that there was a decrease of 7 per cent in the net national farm income in Canada. That 7 per cent represents a serious diminution in the income return of the Canadian agricultural community, and I am going to suggest to the minister that the reduction is in fact greater than 7 per cent. I suggest to him that a careful analysis of the revised figures will show that it is over 10 per cent.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I wonder if the hon. member would allow a question. Has the hon. member taken into account the fact that in 1958 the net income of farmers was up by 20 per cent; that the 7 per cent reduction from 1958 is a 7 per cent reduction on an extremely high rise, and that the net income in 1959 is still more than 12 per cent higher than it was in 1957 when the hon. gentleman was a distinguished member of the government of that day?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister
did not ask me a question; he made a speech, and I welcome that, because I think a good discussion is very valuable. I take it you will note, Mr. Speaker, that the minister made a speech and that his remarks will not interfere with the time allotted to me.
All I can say to the minister is this. This statement of his is not new. The fact is that there has been a serious loss of income suffered by Canadian farmers notwithstanding the assurance given by the minister last year, and I say that instead of the actual drop being 7 per cent, careful analysis of the
Supply-Agriculture
figures will show that it is over 10 per cent. This is not at all consistent with the assurance given by the Prime Minister on April 25, 1957 or the assurance given by the Minister of Agriculture to the farmers of Canada that they would share more equitably in the national income as a result of the price support program which the present government was going to bring in to ensure adequate parity for agricultural producers. That is the point, and I do not think I need resort to many proofs to indicate that what I am saying is felt by farmers generally throughout Canada.
We have the speech on agriculture made by the Prime Minister on March 4, in which he outlined the general principles guiding government policy since he took office. The right hon. gentleman made six points, and he went on to say to the farmers of the west that they would not get the deficiency payments they were asking for but that the government was concerned about doing something satisfactory for western agriculture.
The Minister of Agriculture himself spoke differently. A report appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of March 18, 1960, as follows:
Hon. Douglas Harkness, federal agriculture minister, said Thursday he won't present any alternative to the proposed deficiency payment program on wheat, oats, and barley which was turned down by the federal cabinet.
He says he expects to be asked for an alternative, but he will tell farmers the matter is one for the entire cabinet, and it hasn't been decided yet.
Of course it is a matter for the whole cabinet. The minister says he expects to be asked for an alternative. Surely the government does not need to wait to be asked. It is the responsibility of this government to provide solutions for these situations. The farmers of Canada have put forward suggestions; they have made repeated representations to this government. They wanted to meet the Prime Minister and his government over the Easter recess to discuss some of these alternative plans.
When is this government going to meet the farmers, who are dissatisfied over the lack of action by the government on the request for deficiency payments on the three grains? When is this government going to indicate its willingness to sit down with the farmers to discuss this question? Is the government to have a meeting with these western representatives next week, the week after, or when? Is the government going to give satisfaction with an acreage assistance plan? Or is the situation this, that the government is merely waiting for the farmers themselves

Supply-Agriculture
to present alternatives? It is no wonder that the Union Farmer in its issue of April, 1960 said:
What the Prime Minister failed to mention was that no measures had been taken to actually increase farm net income by increasing the cash returns for the products farmers sell.
If Canadian farmers are to get "their fair share of the national income" as they were promised by Mr. Diefenbaker before and since he took office, it will have to be done in the same manner industry has been and is being assisted by subsidized prices.
Unless this is done, and done soon, the family farm will disappear, and Canadian farmers will end up as hired men in an industrialized agriculture operated by big business which will then pressure government into giving it protected prices.
The Prime Minister, in the speech to which I have already referred, went on to say:
With reference to the other matters to which I had intended to direct my attention, I will do so at the very first opportunity which comes to me during discussion of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.
We all understand why the Prime Minister cannot do that at the present time; he is preoccupied with affairs outside the country. The fact is that we are not being given, either by the head of the government or by the minister responsible, any indication as to what the government intends to do with regard to the representations made by the western farmers in the face of the government's decision not to accede to the proposal for deficiency payments.
Then we have the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, who interests himself in these matters. He was giving an indication to the farmers that if they put forward an agreed assistance plan it might receive the favourable attention of the government.


An hon. Member:: One o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr, Marlin (Essex East):: 
The Chairman:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Mr. Smallwood:: May I ask the hon. member a question? He has my sympathy when he is speaking on agriculture and I did not want to interrupt him; but at one stage of his speech he mentioned something about the farmers in his particular area receiving $1.36 for their wheat today. Does he realize

Supply-Agriculture
that the farmers of western Canada are receiving possibly $1.23 today? If the hon. member requests this government to consider paying his farmers $1.60 a bushel, is he really sincere in this because if he is it is no wonder that there are no Liberal members west of the great lakes?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend wants to know whether I am sincere and I certainly am. The two situations are not comparable at all. The hon. member is now saying that the price received by one group of farmers in one section of the country must necessarily govern situations that are not comparable in other parts of the country. For instance, the sugar beet farmers of western Canada received a better price for their product than the sugar beet farmers of central Canada; but that in itself is not necessarily an indication that the other position is wrong.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: I am speaking about wheat.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend is speaking about wheat. He is asking me whether I am sincere. I say to him that when the Ontario wheat producers come to see the minister in the month of May I will be greatly surprised if, in the light of their problem of negotiation with the trade, they do not ask for something along the lines of what I have suggested. The hon. member must recognize this; the plight of the farmer is serious not only in western Canada but in other parts of Canada, and that is why we have supported western Canada-


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Answer my question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -those of us who live in eastern Canada. I would expect the hon. gentleman to rise in his place and support the eastern farmer as well. His problems-


Clifford Silas Smallwood: The hon. member has not answered my question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend has asked me to answer his question. I have answered his question but he does not like the reply-


Clifford Silas Smallwood: The hon. member has not answered it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -any more. I am sure, than will the Minister of Agriculture.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Will he answer my question? Why should the eastern farmer receive 40 cents a bushel more than the western farmer?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have answered your question.


Mr. Danforth:: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the last statement of the hon. member for Essex East who, as we all know, is a gentleman farmer. I wish to assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I have followed his career with a great deal of interest for a great many years. I am certainly satisfied that he is and always will be a gentleman but as one who has all his life been engaged in the agricultural industry I have very great doubts that he will ever be a farmer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A champion of of the farmer.


Harold Warren Danforth: I have listened to his remarks today, and they painted a very general picture when they touched on the sore point of agriculture. Certainly, he represents that fine county of Essex where I was born.
I do appreciate the problems of agriculture and the seriousness of the situation with respect to certain commodities that he outlined. I should like to help him in one respect. However, I should like to point out -and I am sure he would wish me to do this-that he overlooked in his discourse today the problem of the burley tobacco growers. This is a crop which is very important in his county and one which faces not only lower prices in 1960 but the problem that the marketing board and the tobacco growers are advocating absolutely no production of burley tobacco whatsoever.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will admit that that is so.


Harold Warren Danforth: There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the agricultural industry today faces a very real crisis, and we have heard in the house many representations to the effect that in the past 20 years the agricultural industry has been facing a revolution.
First of all, I should like to deal with the basic changes that this revolution is bringing about; second, I should like to deal with what farmers are doing in the face of those changing conditions; and, third, I should like to recommend what we as a governing body and the government of Canada might attempt to do to aid this serious problem.
Perhaps, for a little background, I might say that after world war II, a time when the major agricultural commodities were operating under ceiling prices, it soon became apparent that there would be scarcities all over the world in all types of manufactured and primary produce. It was evident that all over the world there would be a terrific demand for goods and services, including all agricultural products, and the future

looked very bright indeed. But it soon became very apparent to those of us engaged in agriculture that there were other factors at work over which the industry had very little control that would soon place the industry in an almost untenable position.
One of the major factors that caused this change was labour. This is not to be taken in any way as censure of labour or labourers but merely as pointing out what has actually happened. With the terrific demand that developed for consumer goods, naturally there was a great upsurge in industrial expansion to meet this demand, and since we did have a great industrial expansion in this country it soon became apparent that there would be a terrific demand for workers. Since the demand was so great it naturally caused wage rates to rise to a phenomenal degree, and it soon became quite evident to the agricultural industry that it would not be in any position to compete with other industries for its proper share of the labour which is so necessary in the economic production of agricultural products. Since there was this terrific competition and the agricultural industry had to pay more for wages, the cost of production of all agricultural products increased to such a degree that we soon became very much concerned about our ability to compete successfully in world markets.
Agriculture was hurt by labour and the high cost of labour in another way. Increased labour costs resulted in an increase in the cost of all the goods and services that the farmer must use in his business. Since both these factors had the direct result of increasing the cost of farm production, the farmer's costs did rise at a phenomenal rate.
There was one factor too that became apparent so far as labour was concerned. Labour soon became very selective in its desire for work. We in the riding of Kent find ourselves today in the peculiar position of being one region in Canada where, although there are thousands of people registered as unemployed in the country, we are unable to procure the necessary labour today for successful economic farm production. This situation was pointed up very seriously because at one period last summer, when there were literally hundreds registered as unemployed in the constituency of Kent (Ont.) it was absolutely impossible for a farmer to procure any of these registered unemployed regardless of the wage scale. When these workers were solicited to go out to the farms they never even put in an appearance, let alone make any inquiry as to the wages prevailing at that time. I should like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that at this time the farmers in my district were paying wages running from $18 to $25 per day.
Supp ly-A griculture
The consumers themselves have added to the problems of the agricultural industry because of their increasing demands with respect to the packaging, preparation, grading and freezing of farm commodities. Because we are primary producers, naturally all these extra costs follow the pipe line back so that for the most part they are tacked on to the cost of production of the farmer. By no means do we criticize consumers for their desire for quality and service. The fast pace of life today makes prepackaged goods almost a necessity for the housewife rather than a luxury.
These trends have had a direct result. They have placed farmers in the so-called cost-price squeeze. The farmer pays more for what he buys, receives less for what he sells and is faced with an ever-narrowing margin of profit. May I illustrate my point, Mr. Chairman? The selling price of soya beans has dropped since the war from a high of $3.85 to $4.25 a bushel down to the prevailing price today of $1.85 per bushel. That is the market price. Hon. members will understand that the government makes a deficiency payment to bring the price up to $2 a bushel. During this same period the cost of farm machinery necessary for the production of this crop has in the main doubled or even more, and the cost of farm labour has increased to a greater extent. This causes serious repercussions in the industry.
In my particular area we have a potentiality of almost twice the present production of soya beans. We have a potentiality of twice the production of sugar beets that we are growing at the present time. We could grow more canning crops. All these crops have a high dollar return per acre and with the economy under which we are working in our area, since we lie between industrial centres, we need this higher return per acre in order to operate successfully.
I am sure all hon. members are aware of the small margin of profit available to the farmer today. No one will dispute that as being a fact. That has been the basic reasoning behind all attempts to render financial assistance to this great industry. That is why we have increased the amount of farm loans, why the farm stabilization act was implemented, why we have price supports and the subsidization of prices.
I should like to deal for a moment with the remarks of the hon. member for Essex East about the stabilization act and his advocated price for soya beans. I should like to refer to the meeting at Tilbury which the

Supply-Agriculture
hon. member attended. As reported in the Chatham News, the hon. member is alleged
to have stated:
The higher price of $2.40 was certainly not unfair especially when the commodity is produced on a small scale.


Mr.   Ivfariin@Essex East: Did the hon. member say $2.40?


Harold Warren Danforth: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend knows that cannot be right because the price is $2 now and was $2.10 last year.


Harold Warren Danforth: I wish to assure the hon. member that in this quotation-


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: The hon. member is referring to the proposed price?


Harold Warren Danforth: Yes.


Murdo William Martin: Oh, I am sorry.


Harold Warren Danforth: The hon. member supported the request for a price of $2.40 a bushel for soya beans.


Murdo William Martin: That is right.


Harold Warren Danforth: Although something like this seems on the face of it to be very justified and it is certainly not my intention to suggest to the farmers that they should take anything less for their commodity, may I point out that just across the border in the United States there is a surplus of over 60 million bushels of soya beans and the floor price there is $1.85. A stabilized price such as has been suggested by the hon. member would therefore cost the government 50 to 55 cents per bushel to subsidize this one industry alone, and I am sure that the taxpayers of this country would take a long look at such action on the part of the government. 1 point out, Mr. Chairman, that the farmers are not interested in a price of $2.40 or $2 or $2.80. What the farmers are interested in is their margin of profit between their costs and their selling price.
What is to be done and what can we do in these circumstances? I should like to point out that the farmers themselves are taking gigantic steps to meet the situation as it now exists. I resent it vehemently when any hon. member in this house or anywhere else portrays the farm industry as being down on its knees asking for a handout from government. I present the assertion that no industry in this world has been beset through history by so many major and continuing problems and has so successfully and valiantly fought back through the centuries.
What are the farmers doing? We have in this country today-and I am very thankful for it-in our agricultural schools, government departments and experimental farms

agricultural technicians who are providing second to none in the world today new varieties, new techniques, new fertilizers, new sprays and new farm machinery and have supplied a service to our industry without parallel in the history of this world. This is not by any means a political bouquet. It is on my part a sincere statement of fact.
Progressive farmers, taking advantage of these services and by the use of new mechanization and specialization, have changed their method of farming from growing six, eight or ten different agricultural products. They have changed their farming to one or two major endeavours and by the use of technical assistance and new machinery and by the time allowed for study and concentration have been able to produce today in Canada, in quantity and quality and at low cost, units to such a degree as would have been thought impossible even three years ago.
I have been on a farm where today I have seen two brothers feed 2,500 head of cattle in 20 minutes, something that would have been thought absolutely impossible ten years ago. I have been on farms where the milking parlours in which cattle have been milked are larger and contain more cattle than did the entire herd of these producers ten years ago. I have seen hogs produced by thousands on farm units. I do not mean commercial establishments; I mean farm units, units farm-owned, farm-operated and farm-managed. I have seen farmers joined together in co-operatives work in harmony in an endeavour by quantity purchases and quantity sales to widen the margin of profit. I have seen them join together in order to approach government and selling agencies with a few voices instead of the many which in too many instances confuse the issues of the day.
The farmer is trying. He is employing every bit of available agricultural and business science to cut his costs, increase his efficiency and make possible a living like that of his fellow man. This is what the farmer is doing. What can we do as a government?
There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the assistance given by this government has been enormous. I was greatly interested to hear the hon. member for Essex East speak about the sugar beet industry, a major portion of which is in my riding and about how bad he felt that the arbitrated prices were less this year than last year. I am certain we have no quarrel in that respect. However, it was our government which placed a floor price of $13 a ton under the sugar beet industry and made possible the retention of this industry of Canada which was in the throes of bankruptcy. I should like to point out to the hon. member that it was the



I960

[Stage Direction]
minister of agriculture of his party who, in visiting the sugar beet industry at that time, is alleged to have said that if they could not grow sugar beets at a profit, they should grow something else.
I think we must approach this agricultural problem on a much larger scale, with a much larger endeavour on the part of hon. members and government departments. Men who are engaged in agriculture are no longer satisfied with subsidies or with floor prices. The latter are at best a medicine to get this industry over a present ailment. They are not a feature that will get down to the basic facts troubling this great industry.
There are two things we can do. We can emphasize the experimental work being done to utilize farm products and to find a greater field of use for these products. We were fortunate enough to hear the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort discussing rapeseed this morning and speaking of the oil from this great grain crop being used as a lubricant. This is, in my opinion, one way in which we can expand here at home and abroad the use of our farm products, namely by concentrating on the development of new uses in this ever-changing world.
The other is the extension of world markets. I am sure we all agree that the selling of all products of Canada comes under the Department of Trade and Commerce. However, I should like to deal with what we in agriculture can do to help. The extension or world markets would take away the glut that has constantly hurt us in every aspect of agriculture. This is the old story: take a larger part of world markets. However, I should like to point out that possibly we are not doing it in the right way.
I have reason to believe that we have an opportunity of seizing on more world markets. I refer to the shining example of one man from my constituency making one trip to one country at one time and obtaining, mostly through his own efforts, the sale of nearly $1 million worth of farm products which are now in the process of being shipped out of this country from our constituency and from constituencies across Canada. I should like to point out that we have in our particular riding men in this day going across into the territory of the great neighbour to the south and selling to that country, which has the greatest surplus on earth, farm products, making a sale of farm products to that country. When we can do this, is shows that these markets are there. I think it is time that we developed salesmen in this country with the ability to sell farm products.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Is that Mr. Warwick?
Supply-Agriculture


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Harold Warren Danforth: What does it mean to sell farm products? We have -a reputation for developing farm products second to none, such as wheat, dairy products, meat, sugar, white beans, and livestock. Anything you care to name in the way of agricultural products, we not only produce it but we produce it in high quality. We have in this country thousands of men who have a natural aptitude for salesmanship but who perhaps are not familiar with the aspects of our quality produce. I should like to point out that no longer is it the time perhaps to expect the men in our trade commissions and in our embassies overseas to recognize and to be able to sell successfully quality products of such a nature as those developed on farms today. These men, I point out, should be trained by our Department of Agriculture for this specific task alone and should be paid according to their abilities. If we want good salesmen let us pay good prices. Then with good training we can put them in various countries and then begin to move this great glut which we have today.
It is not impossible to sell in a market that is already crowded. I would like to point out that right in the United States, the greatest producer of automobiles today, it was possible for salesmen in Europe to come into the United States market in 1959 and sell 600,000 automobiles shipped in from Europe. That is the type of salesmanship that I wish to talk about today. This salesmanship is absolutely necessary and I am confident that we will have to come to it eventually.
In my riding today we have a burley tobacco that has been grown every year until this year. And what has happened? Due to lack of sales the growers association is recommending to the farmers that no burley tobacco be grown in their 1960 crop, resulting in the loss of millions of dollars to the farmers in my area. The sale of five, ten or fifteen million pounds of this commodity would have made all the difference in the world. Burley tobacco is not to be confused with flue-cured or cigarette tobacco. It is a heavier quality tobacco grown out of heavier soil and the curing and harvesting methods are far different. The tobacco I speak of is used principally in blends, in pipe tobacco and chewing tobacco.
We have the same thing in the sugar beet industry. Because of world conditions today and lack of sales, in the sugar beet industry in my area contracts are less than half of what they were in 1959. This is a deplorable situation but something we have to face. I

Supply-Agriculture
have every confidence that it we as a government seek to train men to sell a quality product such as we produce we can find the markets and surely the price would be far less than what the taxpayers of this country are being subjected to because of the countless subsidies and assistance given to the farming industry today.
Mr. Chairman, all too often our sales overseas go through the embassies of the United States and Great Britain. This is a necessity today because of world conditions. But is it preposterous to suggest that contracts which require agricultural produce should pass, not through the embassies of these two great countries but come direct to Canada.
We are an independent country. The world recognizes us for our diplomatic relations and the way we honour our obligations. Is it not time that we began to get a world reputation as traders, and would this not solve our basic problems? This will not be easy and we will meet with many failures. Perhaps today we have not the money to go out and do this on a world wide scale, but may I humbly suggest that if we are unable to do this, then let us take one particular section of the world, let us take one particular commodity of which we have too much, let us take and train men to go out into this district and let us see what we can do.
If we cannot sell there must be a reason. If we are too high in price, maybe we need some form of banking set-up to provide credit to those people who need it. If our quality is not up to that required by these other countries, we should know this because we have the men who can supply the necessary knowledge to provide the necessary quality. If we need different varieties we should find this out. It is only by digging into this problem in a major way that we can ever learn what is necessary for this great industry.
I think the time has come for us to start to plan and to use and develop agriculture as a major industry and a major business. It is time we started to employ business principles in this great industry to restore it to its rightful place among the Canadian industries of today.
(Translation):


David James Walker: Another farmer.
(Text):


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to participate in this debate, but my remarks will not be prolonged. However, I do come from a rural riding and I am aware that there are problems in our agricultural communities but although promises

have been made that these problems would be solved they have not as yet been solved and the farmers are still waiting for the legislation which will be the cure-all of all these problems.
There is one aspect that I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture, and it is a paragraph to be found in a statement made by the Minister of Agriculture on April 13, 1960 having to do with dairy products. In my riding we have a considerable amount of dairy farming, and the paragraph in question reads as follows:
In addition, 25 cents per 100 pounds will continue to be paid for whole milk delivered for manufacturing purposes, exclusive of milk from producers who sell a portion of their milk in the fluid bottled milk market.
One would get the impression from reading this particular paragraph that if a farmer produced milk, a quantity of which was to be sold for the manufacture of either butter or cheese in addition to selling milk in the fluid bottled milk market, he would receive the 25 cents on the milk that was sent for manufacturing purposes but would not receive it for the bottled milk. But apparently in practice that is not the case. If a farmer sells one bottle of milk and the rest of his product is sent for manufacturing purposes, not only does he not receive 25 cents for that particular bottle of milk but he does not receive the 25 cents for the balance of the milk sent for manufacturing purposes.
Mr. Chairman, there are two points I would like to make here. First of all, I feel that the statement as made by the minister on April 13 is certainly open to confusion, because the way I read this particular statement, one gets the impression that 25 cents will be paid for all milk that is sent to the manufacturer for making into cheese and butter.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If you read it carefully I think not.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: You can read it any way you like but you still get the impression that you do not get the 25 cents for bottled milk, but if you have milk which is sent for manufacturing purposes you will get the 25 cents.
As a matter of fact I have had a considerable number of complaints from farmers in my riding who have had to pay back the amount they received in subventions just because they happened to sell one or two bottles of milk to neighbours on either side. I think that is rather unfortunate, because this particular statement does lead to confusion. I also think it is very unjust that if one farmer or several farmers, as happens to be the case in my riding, should sell a very limited amount of milk in the bottled

milk market, then they are not allowed to have the subvention for the greater portion of their milk production. I certainly hope this matter will be cleared up by the minister.
First of all, I suggest the particular paragraph I have in mind should be rewritten so as to clarify the position once and for all. What is far more important still is that payments should be made to farmers in respect of all the milk that is sent for manufacturing purposes without discrimination against any who happen to sell bottled milk. It is my sincere hope that the minister will allow such farmers to benefit from this subvention. I am sure the purpose of this provision was to benefit the farmers, but by reason of this particular regulation any benefit which they may have been intended to receive from this legislation is being completely nullified.


Mr. Nasserden:: In rising to speak at the beginning of the agriculture estimates, I think back to the estimates of 1958 and 1959. All of us who sit on the government benches can share some satisfaction in that regard. Any pride we take in the results of the accumulated actions arising out of these estimates should nevertheless be measured with a certain humility. Agriculture and those engaged in agriculture have been neglected during the greater part of this century, and the decline of the industry has been most noticeable and significant in the nation's mind during the past 14 or 15 years.
This situation has been one of the products of our ambition to become a great industrial nation. The neglect of the needs of agriculture and the lack of consideration given our agricultural resources, including the people engaged in that industry, in the years following world war I made the depression of the thirties much more severe for all Canadians. With the passage of the years of world war II Canadians began to talk of a new order that would emerge after the cease of that conflict. No one was more eloquent on that theme than the late Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King. He made the memorable statement that if that new order was not well on the way before the cessation of hostilities we might well look for it in vain. His foresight in that regard mirrored the attitude and future of Liberalism in Canada. You can see where they are today.
The elections of 1949, 1953, 1957 and 1958 gave Canadians a good chance to assess the policies of all parties. The overwhelming results of the 1958 campaign were a tribute to the leadership of the present Prime Minister. But they were much more than that. In the hearts and minds of the Canadian people they were an endorsation of a national policy for Canada. After all, during the war Canadians were prepared to make sacrifices.
Supply-Agriculture
In the years immediately following Canadians, of necessity, saw the future of this nation drift at the whim of political expediency which saw narrow regional considerations dominate the decisions in our parliament. National policy as such was a stranger in the Canadian parliament.
Today I wish to look at these estimates, and the agricultural industry, and match them to the pressing needs of the Canadian nation. There are several ways of dealing with these estimates. It would appear from reading Hansard and the news and editorial pages of our influential newspapers that the yardstick generally used is cost to the treasury; cost to the taxpayer. There have been a few men who have used a different yardstick, a yardstick considerate of the needs of Canadians in other walks of life. If one follows their search to strengthen Canada's national policy he is compelled to acknowledge that for many years Canadians have neglected to utilize the agricultural economy in such a way as to strengthen and build the general economy of Canada along sound and balanced lines. This can be amply illustrated by a comparison of the population in agriculture, the measure of agricultural production and the share of the national wealth that those engaged in it receive. As long as Canadians allow this situation to continue our national economy will be subject to serious and severe problems in so far as attaining strong industrial communities and stable and improved employment patterns is concerned.
I know there is a widespread view that great nations are industrial nations. I believe most of us will agree that Canada has a great industrial potential. I think most of our people will agree that we have not reached that potential. Indeed, it could be estimated that it will take nearly a quarter of a century, perhaps longer, to realize our ambitions in that regard. The question that must be answered soon is what will happen in the meantime. There is no doubt this immediate period will have a tremendous effect on the lives of all Canadians for years to come.
Last fall I travelled in Ontario, in the province of Quebec, in New Brunswick, in Nova Scotia, in Manitoba and in Saskatchewan. Everywhere I went I found farm people asking the same questions. Everywhere I went I found conditions in rural areas very similar. I was shocked by the lack of attention and encouragement that the agricultural industry has suffered over a long period of years in these areas of Canada. I have reason to believe the same situation has prevailed in other parts of Canada as well. I can tell you, sir, and the members of this committee, that I was impressed with the area of application

Supply-Agriculture
where the new Farm Credit Corporation could well serve both a social and an economic purpose. The new crop insurance legislation is still to be demonstrated, but here again I saw a need of this legislation in all these provinces.
However, the measure of legislation that can be a most effective instrument to bolster the Canadian economy and eliminate some of its inequities is, of course, the farm stabilization act. If we read the act and its preamble, we see it was designed to stabilize farm income and ensure farm security. Nevertheless, it would seem to me that it has a much greater service to perform. It could very well be a cornerstone-one which has been overlooked too often in the past-upon which this nation can embrace some of those national economic problems which have remained with us for the greater part of this century. To read the farm stabilization act is to think in terms of a balanced agricultural economy. It brings to mind such terms as support prices, deficiency payments and other payments. I think it is fair to say that there has been some measure of disagreement as to the use to which each one of these can be best applied.
There appears to be a great deal of confusion in this regard. That has been so from the time this legislation was first mentioned as possible legislation. Farmers and farm organizations are expressing a confusion of opinion. Then there have been those who have urged the government to try this, that and anything-indeed to try nothing-and it seems to have been their hope that by some process of trial and error or even by default we might find a method that would prove reliable.
These considerations are inconsiderate of the immediate position of farm people and if followed for any period of time will throw the entire stabilization act and program into disrepute. That would be a calamity for the agricultural industry and for the Canadian nation.
It is my opinion that deficiency payments should be more properly called incentive payments and should be used only as an instrument to promote production. They should seldom be used in connection with a commodity in a surplus position unless this commodity commands a ready export market. These incentive payments used judiciously could have a far-reaching effect on the agricultural industry, on farm income and on Canada's trade and dollar balances. For those commodities in surplus position, support prices appear very desirable.
Farm organizations and farmers alike are on record that these support prices should

be set at non-incentive levels. The beauty of support prices is that they tend to uphold the entire price structure of a commodity and this is an important consideration in building a healthy agricultural community. It is equally important as an aid in balancing the Canadian economy. Flat payments which more properly might be called deficiency payments can be useful in levelling out those segments of the agricultural economy that cannot be reached successfully with incentive payments or support prices.
Net cost of the operations of the stabilization act for the year ending March 31, 1959 was $15,124,100 for all commodities. The net cost of all support price operations since 1946 has been only $100,073,260.26. The publicity and emphasis given the cost of the program for the period ending March 31, 1959 are to be wondered at. I remember the words of the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska which were disturbing to farmers and farm organizations. One was almost led to believe that it was unreasonable to expend this amount to support agricultural stability and security. Fifteen millions of dollars is less than one dollar per capita to ensure the food supplies of this nation. Looking at this amount in relation to the serious problems facing labour and industry I am inclined to believe that these national problems cannot and will not yield to better days until Canadians are prepared to invest three or four or even seven or eight times the $15 millions paid out under the stabilization act for the year ending March 31, 1959.
Yet there are those who still maintain the ideal situation would be an agricultural industry without these artificial aids. I will not labour you with a recital of the artificial props that have become so much a part of the entire economic and industrial structure of this country. Rather I would say, add to the estimates I have outlined the amounts that could be reasonably justified for the producers of grain in western Canada, who incidentally are producing a product that can be successfully merchandised in world markets, and it might bring the increased estimates to an amount that could be considered a decisive factor in meeting the needs of labour and industry. There are those who have a peanut mentality and they would no doubt still ask for greater action but I see some who have dissenting frowns.
I ask you, sir, to consider that other problem which has been receiving considerable discussion during the present session. Someone has estimated that it will cost the federal treasury millions through payments out of the unemployment insurance benefits fund. Surely this nation would be better served

by expending an amount to create a demand for goods and services needed in agricultural communities; a demand that would be shared right down the line through the local small businessman, the wholesaler, the distributor, the manufacturer, and all the way from the farmer on the remotest homestead right back to the industrial employees of the St. Lawrence river basin.
During wartime this nation found it expedient to put every shoulder to the wheel. Surely in peacetime we could be even more productive of the needs of Canadians for employment and the fruits of employment. This cannot and will not be done by allowing as important a segment of the Canadian population as those in agriculture to suffer only a fractional opportunity to meet their neighbours' needs in the industrial and labour fields of this nation.
The farm stabilization act can be a most effective instrument in the Canadian economy. Since 1946 legislation on the books has been used to make returns so disastrous as to chase enough people out of production of any commodity that may be reaching surplus proportions. Balance is thus swung to the other extreme, at the end of a trail strewn with the wrecked and shattered hopes of farm people. It is my belief that there is a better alternative. The use of incentive payments on commodities for which there is a demand and market will change production patterns without such disastrous and ruinous dislocation of individual farm enterprise. Moreover, it is of a more orderly nature and of value not only to the farmer but also to those who handle, warehouse, distribute and merchandise farm products. It can also be argued that incentive payments serve to reward those who are willing to risk investment where it can be used to strengthen and build the Canadian economy.
Then there is that most intriguing matter of defining or deciding just what constitutes surplus in so far as any given commodity is concerned. In the grain business with which I have lived all my life it is considered that Canada needs a carryover of anywhere from 300 to 450 millions of bushels of wheat to service our annual domestic and export markets. It is of course easier to carry grain than perishable products. Last year we had a good example in the dry skim milk market. At one time we were approaching panic. Not too much later our surplus supplies had been absorbed. When you consider that it required only about $8 million to protect the stability of the entire Canadian dairy industry for the greater part of the production in the board's hands from the years 1957-58 and
Supply-Agriculture
1958-59, it would be difficult indeed to say that we had any real or dangerous surplus of dairy products.
Another classic example is eggs. Those who were the most enthusiastic advocates of a program to discourage production must, I think, admit that by the time the new deficiency payment program was to start the market had absorbed all, or almost all of those supplies which had been considered surplus.
The prospect of fluctuating egg prices is not one that Canadian consumers would appreciate. These illustrations serve as evidence that the problems of surpluses, while considerable, are not nearly as great as some well informed people try to make out. The associated problems are intriguing and will no doubt be with us for many years. From time to time circumstances may not work out as well as they have so far, and the federal treasury may be called upon to finance sizeable surpluses of some commodities. This will be the exception to the rule if proper use were made of incentive payments and provided that floor prices were set at nonincentive levels. Of course, such a program would require the use of flat or deficiency payments, where required.
If Canada is to become the great industrial nation that her resources justify; if Canadians are to enjoy secure employment in the period leading to that objective, the reality of that objective can be enhanced and hastened by the acceptance of the role of agriculture and the farm stabilization legislation in particular as one of the protective valves in this intervening period that can cushion the needs of labour and industry, both of whom are suffering growing pains that in the years gone by were never cured by dismissing the possibilities that are in the application of sound national policies, recognizing the continued and increasing interdependence and prosperity of both labour and industry with that of agricultural people.
A little over two years ago, when this party came to power, it inherited a legacy of problems which had been shirked by the former administration. That was one of the reasons for the change of government. In almost every field of activity that affects farm people that administration ran headlong and recklessly to the destiny that is theirs today. They allowed freight rates to climb by 120 per cent without any active concern for the national railway problem which is of the utmost importance to people on the prairies and in the maritimes and to others in every part of Canada in every

Supply-Agriculture
industry, including agriculture. They allowed the freight rate problem, and that of general transportation, to mushroom into a monster, without any active concern as to its effect on the economy of this nation. The people of Canada are watching the present survey which has been authorized and are hoping that as a result of those deliberations, and above the confusion and chaos of the past many years, a national transportation policy may now evolve.
Those who produce grain in western Canada are vitally interested in this question, as are all who depend upon grain production for their livelihood. They expect the government of Canada to respect those long standing agreements which were instrumental in the building of settlements in western Canada and, incidentally, providing this nation with an item of major export significance. Wheat is one of the few commodities that has enjoyed the confidence of the export market over the years.
The economic prospects for Canada in the coming year have been encouraging. In every report that I have read no one has ventured to expect that agriculture will share fully in those economic expectations that have been forecast. Indeed, it can be shown with the use of statistics that farm costs have continued to rise in the face of declining farm income. It is true that there are fewer farmers than there were, but even this fact cannot camouflage the situation in which farm people find themselves, a situation which is calling for greatly increased capital outlay to compete successfully.
The Farm Credit Corporation will prove of benefit to many in this respect; but there are many who cannot qualify. They already have an investment at the present time. They have the experience in their chosen line, and are of an age where change of occupation is not easy, even if they were provided with training for new jobs. They find themselves embarrassed for lack of purchasing power for the very things that can be produced by Canadians in other walks of life who have been laid off their jobs for want of a market. This inequity of income under which the people in agriculture are suffering is an old story in Canada. It has always been the forerunner of rough weather for the rest of the economy.
The government is still comparatively young as governments are known. I should like to think that this government will distinguish itself in the years ahead as one which was ready to blaze new trails of security for all our people in every part of Canada.
In the short period that I have had an

opportunity to share with the rest of you this closer look at our national economy I have become prouder than ever to claim the name and occupation of farmer. It would seem to me that this industry, one of the most basic in this nation, stands ready, as it always has, with a contribution to the future of this nation worthy of much more consideration than it has received throughout the long period of years. I ask you all to take a closer look at what the people in agriculture have been able to accomplish despite the obstacles that have hampered their progress. I ask you all to consider what they could do for Canada if given a better opportunity.


Mr. Rogers:: Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to commend the Minister of Agriculture on his fortitude and his ability to withstand the pressure within and without. After all, this is a pretty tough time for any minister to handle agriculture. I should also like to thank him for the concessions that he has given and the understanding that we will get a few more.
The constituency that I represent is for the most part a progressive, mixed farming district. Supplemented as it is with the oil and forestry industries our problems are not as pronounced as many others. However, I would certainly be remiss in my duty if I did not point out that in common with many other parts of western Canada 1959 was probably one of the poorest years in our history.
While approximately 80 per cent of the crop was threshed last fall, threshing was completed under abnormal and expensive conditions and the grain, as hon. members know, was mostly tough and damp. Further the balance of the crop, which came through the winter much better than expected, has deteriorated considerably. Moreover, quite a section was badly damaged by hail. So in general the agricultural industry is not in too healthy a position.
A certain section of our farmers who are well established in mixed farming, who are engaged in dairying and the cattle industry, are doing comparatively well while on the other hand there are a number of other farmers who are not firmly established and as a consequence are experiencing a very difficult time. The main problem in agriculture, as I see it, stems from the surpluses of grain and the farmers' inability to find markets for wheat. I believe implicitly in the ability of the farmer to compete with the world if he has the market. He therefore finds himself in a very difficult position, right in the middle

of the price squeeze. In my humble opinion, Canadians as a whole must accept this situation.
I do not believe for one moment that we can subsidize farm products for export. On the other hand, I believe we must subsidize the products we consume at home. It is not reasonable to expect the farmer to produce products for our domestic use for less than production costs and a fair profit. This is not an easy problem, and most will agree that support prices tend to bring other problems. Be that as it may, I contend that the producer is entitled to a fair price for products consumed in Canada, and I would hope that the matter will eventually be resolved.
As is to be expected, I have had a number of submissions from local farm unions in support of acreage payments. I would therefore urge upon the government, at least until a fixed plan is adopted, that the acreage payment be reinstated. I think it can be said in all honesty after a brief examination of the numerous measures taken by the government to assist agriculture that the government has done a lot. The measures I speak of have been recorded on numerous occasions so it is not my intention at this time to go over them again. For my purposes I should like to discuss the Farm Credit Act.
In brief, this is a two-pronged affair, encompassing as it does (a) the replacement of the Canadian Farm Loan Act and, (b) part III, legislation for young farmers. With reference to (a), the Canadian Farm Loan Act, as hon. members know the ceiling was raised from $15,000 to $20,000 with amortization at 5 per cent interest over 30 years. This continues to serve a need for farmers who have a 50 per cent or better equity in their farms and who wish to convert or extend their operations. In passing, I would indicate that the one main criticism which prevails would be corrected and that the new management will see that a realistic approach is taken to land values as they exist today.
With regard to (b) or part III of the Farm Credit Act, this provides for loans up to $27,500 spread over 30 years at 5 per cent interest to farmers between the ages of 21 and 45. This is commonly known as the package deal and will in my opinion reach down to the source of a common problem. In other words, it will provide the funds to set up an efficient family farm unit and will permit the adjustment of production to favourable market trends.
Its success and impact on the agricultural industry will, of course, depend on its administration. Let me say that we are particularly fortunate to have Brigadier Rutherford as chairman of the corporation. Brigadier
S upp ly-A griculture
Rutherford is well known and has to a large degree been responsible for the publicly acknowledged success with respect to the rehabilitation of veterans on farms. Accordingly, with the integration of the farm credit legislation and the V.L.A. staff there will be 200 trained, experienced and dedicated resident advisers who are well employed throughout the agricultural areas of the country. I think it is most significant to observe that the corporation will provide a pre-counselling service as well as a postsupervisory service.
Both these services are paramount to the success of this forward and far-reaching legislation. To begin with, let us look at the pre-counselling service. What does this mean? It can, of course, mean much or little. For the moment let us visualize a credit adviser, with the aforementioned qualifications, calling on an applicant to assess his whole proposition, that is, the ability of the applicant as a farmer, his family, the production capacity of the farm and the stock and equipment. On the completion of this assessment I can imagine the credit adviser sitting down at the kitchen table with the farmer, his wife and family and as one of a team bringing out the factors for and against the proposition. In the first instance, if the proposition shows the potential for success the matter is comparatively simple. The credit adviser can in a diplomatic manner interject some new ideas into the farmer's plan of operations and recommend the loan. When the loan is approved, he will naturally follow up with the supervisory service required.
The big and most important factor is precounselling service where the proposition does not support a loan and, in some instances, it will even be found that the applicant and his wife will have to be told, in as kindly a manner as possible, to get into some other form of livelihood commensurate with their ability. I am sure that the credit adviser will be able to do this on the farm in a manner that will cause very little pain to all concerned.
The question is this: Do we stop there and leave the applicant and his family to their own resources? I must emphasize that this is not good enough. I would on the other hand, contemplate that this counselling service would be continued and if not by the credit adviser by someone else with the time to do so, one who is well versed in welfare work and with direct connections with industry. Yes, above all, it must be someone who is interested in citizenship to the extent that through his counselling and help the applicant and his family will be given a new start in life.

Supply-Agriculture
I have been discussing the production side of agriculture, a policy directed to the task of assisting a section of this industry in reorganizing itself into sound economical family farm units so that advantage may be taken of every technological and production line method which will reduce production costs and permit adjustment of production to fit more favourable market trends; and I would hope to follow up at a later date on the marketing side of this question.
In conclusion, I submit that we must as a government and as Canadians maintain our agriculture industry in as healthy a position as possible. Apart from the fact that we must eat, there is no better place to build character than on the farm. A child born on the farm starts out with something to do and he does it. As a consequence, he is self-reliant and is brought up more or less to stand on his own feet. Fortunately for our general economy, they do not all stay on the farm.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I should like to reply briefly to some of the speeches and remarks which have been made here today on the agriculture estimates. The hon. member for Lapointe and the hon. member for Essex East both complained that I did not make a longer speech in introducing these estimates. It came as an agreeable surprise to me to learn that the members of the opposition are so anxious to listen to my voice at length. I should like to point out to them, however, that on January 25, in the throne speech debate, I made a full length speech here in connection with agriculture and general agricultural policy. Again on February 23, which I would point out was just about ten days before the introduction of the agriculture estimates, I made another full length speech in reply to hon. members in the opposition who had introduced to the supply motion an amendment dealing with agriculture. In that connection I dealt with general agricultural policy and general agricultural questions. In view of these two long speeches already along this line, and as I am not one who likes to see endless and useless repetition, I did not think it was desirable to make another long speech of a general nature on agriculture at the time the estimates were introduced.
The hon. member for Lapointe came back to the point which members of the opposition have been so fond of quoting ever since the dominion bureau of statistics figures came out, namely that the net income of farmers dropped 7 per cent in 1959. As I have pointed out on several occasions, what they completely lose sight of is the fact that the net income of farmers in 1958 was up 20 per cent over that of 1957. Hence, when they say

that the net income of farmers in 1959 dropped 7 per cent, what they are in effect saying is that the net income of farmers in 1959 is still up over 12 per cent above the net income of farmers in 1957.
There is no doubt that the net income dropped by that amount, in spite of the fact that the gross income was up almost as high as it was in 1958 and was the third highest on record in Canadian history. However, I think we must keep some sense of proportion in regard to this matter. As I say, the members of the opposition should keep in mind the fact that farmers in Canada had a smaller drop in net income by very much than did the farmers across the line in the United States and farmers in most other parts of the world and that we in Canada managed to keep up prices and to keep up farm income to a greater extent than was done in most other parts of the world during a period in which agricultural products of all kinds have been in surplus supply and when prices were going down.
The hon. member for Lapointe went on to say that the minister should have said what long range program we have to improve the position of agriculture. Our long range program has been put before this house by myself, by the Prime Minister and by various other members time after time and I think it is well known to the hon. members of the house. I know it is well known to the farming population of this country. Certainly I do not think it is justifiable for me as minister or for other members to keep on repeating the same thing over and over again.
The hon. member went on to say that there was a serious situation in the dairy industry. I do not know of any serious situation in the dairy industry. Actually the dairy industry has been one of the better off industries as far as agriculture is concerned. The prices of dairy products in Canada are the highest in the world and they are highest by a very considerable degree as compared with those in most of the other dairying countries. The support price for butter in this country, for example, is 64 cents. In the United States it is 57 cents. On the London market at the present time butter is selling for 38 cents a pound. Just those two figures give some measure of the amount of support that Canadian dairy farmers are receiving and of the very high degree of success which the government has had in maintaining the price of dairy products. As I say, we have managed to maintain them at the highest levels of any country in the world and at levels about double the prices that prevail in most of the

other dairying countries. That is the serious situation as far as the dairy industry is concerned.
The hon. member for Lapointe went on to say that we should have a support price for dry skim milk and that the lack of this support was a very damaging thing to the dairy industry. I should like to point out to him that a good deal of the trouble which the dairy industry has been experiencing in the last two or three years arose out of the fact that the previous government-the Liberal government-put into effect a completely unrealistic high price for dry skim milk of 17 cents a pound just prior to the 1957 election for purely political purposes. As a result of that price they encouraged a great expansion in the dry skim milk making facilities in this country and a great expansion in dry skim milk manufacture, and thus created the difficulties as far as dry skim milk is concerned and many of the attendant difficulties as far as the whole dairy industry is concerned. In order to restore the dairy industry to health it has been necessary to get rid of this support price on dry skim milk. We have done that by reducing the price gradually and then Anally eliminating it some six months ago.
The hon. member went on to talk about the price spreads commission or the Stewart commission which he said-I think aided a bit by the hon. member for Essex East-was established under a Liberal government. The previous Liberal government had absolutely nothing to do with this price spreads commission, of course. I do not think they even thought of such a thing. That a price spreads commission or inquiry would be set up and carried on was one of the election promises which we made and which we promptly carried out after getting into office.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What are you going to do about it? That is the question.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We are going to take the appropriate action that has been recommended by the commission.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Are you going to follow the recommendations of the commission?


Douglas Scott Harkness: As far as possible, yes.
The hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort made a very good speech on rapeseed production. This matter of diversiAcation of crops in western Canada is an extremely important one. I should like to compliment him on his speech and on the interest he has taken in this problem. I should like to point out also that over the past two and a half years I have been making efforts to increase the use of rapeseed in various ways in Canada,
Supply-Agriculture
particularly with regard to its use in the manufacture of margarine. I managed to persuade one of the margarine manufacturing companies in this country to set up a pilot plant in order to work out procedures and so on for the use of rapeseed in the making of margarine. I trust that in the years ahead a great deal more of the content of margarine manufactured in this country will be from rapeseed oil.
As far as the tariffs on soybeans and the other sources of edible oils are concerned, I was a little surprised to And the hon. member for Essex East apparently supporting the position taken by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort. I say this because he is one, together with some of the other hon. members along the Liberal front bench who belonged to the previous Liberal government, who should be answering that question, because the previous Liberal government contracted on behalf of Canada not to put any tariffs on soybeans and these other edible oils and bound Canada under the GATT agreements not to do so. Therefore we are in the position that we cannot put any tariffs on these soybeans coming in from the United States and on other edible oils coming into this country unless we give some corresponding advantage to the country concerned.


Paul Joseph James Martin: All I was asking for was a satisfactory Aoor price.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for Essex East indicated he supported-


Murdo William Martin: I want a satisfactory floor price and so do my farmers.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member evidently would like us to put on a very high support price and encourage more United States beans to come into this country as a result of that.


Murdo William Martin: I did not say
that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is apparently what he wants. That is the situation as far as soybeans are concerned. I think Canada made a very bad bargain under the previous Liberal government as far as soybeans and other edible oils are concerned in that at the time they entered into the GATT agreements they did not ensure that there were tariffs on such products. But they did not do that and as a result we are bound at the present time, and in order to put a tariff on them we have to give some corresponding tariff advantage to the country concerned.
The hon. member for Essex East, as usual in his speeches in this house during this session, attempted to paint a general picture

Supp ly-A griculture
of gloom. If one could take all that the hon. member for Essex East says seriously he would be practically crying. We would all need crying towels in this chamber.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the situation with regard to agriculture; it is critical.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As far as the hon. member is concerned, that is the situation with everything. The picture is as gloomy as it could be with everything; there is nothing right with anything.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Under this government.


Douglas Scott Harkness: So he admits it. In other words, his whole complaint is that he is no longer in a government, and I can understand that. If the present government were to offer the member for Essex East a place in the government overnight, his attitude would change completely and he would think that everything done by the government was just wonderful.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I assure you I would never go into a Conservative government.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Of course, we are talking about complete improbabilities and impossibilities here, but the hon. member recognizes, I think, that his gloom is purely political and is used for political purposes.


Murdo William Martin: I would not agree with that. My sorrow is very genuine.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I know the hon. member's sorrow is genuine that he is not still a member of a government.


Murdo William Martin: That is true.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for Essex East said that the stabilization act has been of no benefit to Ontario wheat growers. This last year the price of Ontario wheat has been well above the support price because there was a short crop last year. That was because there was a great deal of winter killing and as a result of the short crop the price has been good. But the year before last this act was of very considerable benefit to the producers. It put them in the position where they could bargain with the buyers, and the powers that we extended to them under the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act enabled them to export at a subsidized price a certain amount of wheat to overseas markets and thus enabled the general price for Ontario winter wheat to be kept up to a reasonable level.
The hon. member for Essex East asked about an announcement concerning the sugar
[Mr. Harkness.)
beet support program. The representatives of the sugar beet growers have been down here this week, as a matter of fact, holding meetings with the stabilization board. The stabilization board has reported to me that the representatives of the growers went away quite happy as a result of these meetings. The discussion concerned particularly technical details as to how the support price was going to be applied in the three regions where it is applicable, and so forth, and I expect the stabilization board will in the very near future be making a recommendation to the government in regard to the level of support and the way in which they recommend it should be applied.
I might also say that, contrary to the hon. member's statement, the sugar beet growers last year were I think very well satisfied with the deficiency payments which they received from the government, and I have received quite a number of letters of appreciation and thanks from them on account of this payment.
The hon. member went on to say that my statement in regard to the dairy price support for the current year which I made on April 13 had misled the house and that butter scoring 40-93 represents only a small percentage of the butter produced; as a result, in some way the country had been misled.
I think there is no validity to this statement whatever. I stated quite definitely, as reported on page 3183 of Hansard for April 13 last, that:
The price support for butter during the dairy year May 1, 1960 to April 30, 1961 will be 64 cents per pound for Canada first grade creamery butter scoring 40-93, basis delivery Montreal, with appropriate price differentials for other grades and qualities.
The hon. member seems to take it for granted that we are paying 64 cents a pound for butter delivered to us which scores 4093, and a lesser price, which I said yesterday, I think, was 63 cents a pound, for butter scoring 39-92, and therefore that means we have reduced the price of butter, and so forth. I should like to point out, to begin with, that we only buy about one quarter of the butter produced in Canada and we sell most of that back again to the trade during the winter months. The great bulk of the butter produced in Canada goes directly into the trade. It does not trade at these prices but at varying prices at different times of the year. If hon. members look at the papers they will see it varies up and down from day to day. What these support prices do is to provide a floor at which we are prepared to buy the surplus packed in wooden boxes and so forth.

The actual situation is that the price of butter fat and the price of butter varies, as I say, up and down. It does not vary very much; it varies depending on the season of the year. I have the figures here for different seasons of the year and I can give as an example, churning cream. The prices paid to producers by plants in terms of cents per pound of butter fat varies, we find, from 65 cents in January at Edmonton to 63 cents, and it kept between those figures in Edmonton right through the year, varying between 63 and 65 cents. Then when we come to Winnipeg it varied from 60 to 66 cents. It varied between those two points throughout the year. I have the figures here for three years.
In London, Ontario, you have the same sort of thing. Hon. members will find that in London, Ontario the figure ranged from 65 cents to 68 cents throughout the year. In Three Rivers it varied from 67 cents to 72 cents at different times throughout the year. In other words, these are not absolutely fixed prices at which all the butter fat and churning cream sells. These are the prices at which we take over the surplus by purchase for resale from time to time later, which constitutes, in recent years, approximately one quarter, or a little less, of the production.
I might say further that the introduction of this distinction between 40-93 and 39-92 butter is something which many of the better dairymen have been asking for many years. This is the same kind of system as is in effect with regard to many other commodities; in other words, the customer pays a higher price for the better quality, and a lower price for a poorer quality. It puts the support of butter on a much sounder, more logical and more reasonable basis than has ever been the case before.
The hon. member for Kent (Ont.) spoke of the difficulty of securing farm labour. I think this is a difficult and increasing problem as far as farmers are concerned. It is one of the great anomalies in the so-called unemployment situation that such situations should arise. I know-because I was down in the hon. member's part of the country-that last year some of the sugar beets were not got up, despite the fact that in the city of Windsor in the constituency of the hon. member for Essex East there were thousands of unemployed. Nevertheless, the farmers could not get anyone to take up these beets.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hope the minister is not suggesting that our workers are not prepared to work.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am suggesting there is something seriously wrong with the unemployment figures when a situation of that kind
Supply-Agriculture
prevails, and a similar situation exists as far as agricultural work is concerned in all the areas of this country. You have farmers desperately trying to hire workers to take up their crops while at the same time there are cities not very far away which allegedly have thousands on the unemployment rolls. It is just not a situation that makes sense or which I can accept as being a true indication of what the unemployment situation is in this country.
The hon. member for Kent (Ont.) also spoke about the sales of agricultural products which have recently been made to Rumania and which were initiated and carried through to a considerable extent by Mr. Ernest Warwick of Blenheim, Ontario. I should like again publicly to express my thanks to Mr. Warwick for the extremely good work he did in this regard. I agree with the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) that we have to use improved methods as far as the sale of a number of farm products is concerned, because there is no doubt that most of them are in a surplus position throughout a large part of the world. These particular sales indicate that a certain amount of progress can be made along these lines if the right people are working on the problem.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the very question. The right people are not.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We have a lot of the right people and I expect we shall have more of them. Under the hon. gentleman's government, of course, no sales at all were made along these lines.
The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres spoke of the 25 cents per 100 pounds subsidy on milk for manufacturing purposes. He said confusion exists over this. There has never been any confusion whatever over this policy which was put into effect a little over a year ago. It has always been absolutely clear. It was discussed on its introduction and it has been discussed since on numerous occasions with all the national dairy organizations, and all those concerned with dairying are familiar with the situation. They know what it is. There is no confusion with regard to this matter whatever, and there should not have been any confusion as far as my statement is concerned.
Speaking on April 13-and I quote again from page 3183 of Hansard-I said:
-twenty five cents per 100 pounds will continue to be paid lor whole milk delivered for manufacturing purposes-
Then, later on, you will note this, Mr. Chairman:
-exclusive of milk from producers who sell a portion of their milk in the fluid, bottled milk
market.

Supply-Agriculture
I think that is as plain as English can make it. Anybody who sells a portion of his milk in the bottled, fluid market is not entitled to the 25 cents. That has been made absolutely clear, and there should have been no confusion at any time in connection with it.
The reason for that provision is, of course, that by and large the people who sell their milk in the fluid milk market-to the bottled trade-receive much higher prices than those who sell milk for manufacturing purposes. The idea of paying this 25 cents subsidy to those who sell milk for manufacturing purposes is in order to bring about to some extent an equality of price levels and to help to equalize the returns to the dairy farmer who sells to a cheese or butter factory.
The hon. member for Rosthem spoke about support prices. He suggested that support prices should be set at non-incentive levels. All I could say about that is that any attempt to fix a support price at a non-incentive level results in a price which is unacceptable to any farmer; no one is satisfied with it and, furthermore, it does not give any support. In order to have a support price which is effective, it is bound, by the very nature of things, to be an incentive price as far as a considerable number of producers are concerned and, particularly, as far as large integrated operations are concerned. If you set support prices and maintain support for a commodity by means of purchases at a price which is satisfactory to even a small proportion of bona fide farmers you will have provided in many cases-and I am thinking particularly of the poultry industry and the hog industry-a support price which is an incentive to large commercial integrated operations.
That is the very reason why this type of support price by means of purchase is not a practical means and not the best means of support as far as many commodities are concerned. The experience in the United States, particularly as far as wheat, cotton, corn and some other products are concerned, is a good example of the difficulties encountered if you attempt to maintain support by means of purchase. In the case of some commodities you can, but the method is not practical in the case of a large number of commodities; it is just not a practical or possible means of giving support to the bona fide farmer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Might I ask just one question? Does that mean there is no intention to have a floor price on corn?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It does not mean anything of the kind. Corn has not entered into this discussion so far at all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister just mentioned corn in the United States.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, in the United States. But so far we have had no support prices for corn in Canada, as the hon. member knows. If we did have a support price for corn in Canada I am quite sure we would have to make it on a deficiency payment method of support the same as for soya beans.
The hon. member for Red Deer made a very useful and interesting speech particularly on farm credit, for which I would like to thank him. I know that he has been very intimately associated in the past with the granting of farm credit and his views on this subject are, I think, very valuable to the committee. I believe with him that through the Farm Credit Act it will be possible to greatly improve general agricultural conditions in Canada.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take up certain statements made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness), with regard to the price of farm products, and more particularly dairy products, especially when he maintained that prices paid for dairy products in Canada were the highest in the world.
I do not wish to contradict the minister on that, but I must point out to him that the price of farm products means nothing if it is not established in proportion to production costs. When we speak of the sale price of some farm product, we naturally have to know how much it costs, and the minister made no reference to the production cost index.
I mentioned this in my remarks the other day, and I also said that production costs had gone up 16.9 points in the past year. If we compare the price of butter three or four years ago, and even six or seven years ago, and today, we will find that, at 64 cents a pound, the price of that produce today is not higher than when it was 58 cents three years ago. On the contrary, if we apply the same reasoning I just mentioned, butter should sell at 68 cents, in comparison to the 58 cents paid for it three years ago.
The hon. member for Joliette-TAssomp-tion-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) made some comparisons and asked questions about the price of butter. The minister told us what butter prices were in Edmonton, Winnipeg, London, and Three Rivers. For instance, he stated that in Edmonton, it was selling at 63 to 65 cents; in Three Rivers, 67 to 72 cents; and, if I understood him rightly, this was for the current year.
I have here an excerpt from the Gazette for May 3, that is, after the price change for

farm products was announced, and more particularly for butter. On the Montreal market, the price has fallen since the week of May 3. In the last weeks of March, butter was selling in Montreal at 64 to 66 cents a pound, whereas prices published in the Gazette for May 3 mentioned 63 cents and 65J cents. Therefore butter prices are down by 1 to 1J cents since the change in price of farm products was announced. Yet the minister claims that this change has no effect on farm prices.
That is what I wanted to point out for the information of members of the committee and of the Minister of Agriculture, because he does not seem to believe that this change in the price of butter will affect farmers income, since the government will surely buy the surplus production.
However, I have already stated, as did the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), that 70 per cent of butter production was graded 92. I fail to see how the minister can say that the prices of farm products will not be affected, when a reaction is already apparent on the Montreal market. And I do not doubt that the same thing will occur on other markets.
I should also like to say a few words about the price support policy on butter. The department now requires a producer to secure a registration certificate. That is a new method recently adopted by the department. Now, I am informed by some manufacturers that at the present time about one third of the farmers have not obtained their registration permit, which forces the manufacturer to pay an extra 25 cents per 100 pounds of butter delivered to him, because he does not want to lose his customers.
I am also informed that refunds are being made to the Department of Agriculture, and that these refunds are turned down because the formula is not filled in as the department would like it to be. I must point that if manufacturers are prepared to do this work free, it seems to me the department should consider this attitude on the part of manufacturers, and show better understanding when recommendations are made.
I am also informed that there are farmers today who have two or even three registration certificates. This is due to delay on the part, perhaps of manufacturers or of the department in providing permits to producers, which caused producers to file their request with the manufacturer of their choice, so that, finally, they were getting two permits.
What I am afraid of is that those permits
Supply-Agriculture
might be transferred to other farmers, as happened in the case of hog breeders. In fact questions were put on the orders of the day pointing out that some farmers often had two or three permits in their possession, in order to take advantage of deficiency payments on hogs. I am afraid that this will happen again with regard to dairy products.
The Minister of Agriculture also mentioned the 25 cents per hundredweight of milk delivered to manufacturers, who transformed it into butter, cheese and milk powder.
The minister claims that such a policy will not affect the farmers' income. Yet very many farmers in the province of Quebec are not in a position to sell all the fluid milk they produce.
They can sell one fifth of their production and the rest must be delivered to the butter, cheese and milk powder manufacturers. Therefore, the farmer cannot collect the subsidy of 25 cents per hundredweight.
Some farmers are losing $500 to $800 a year that way, and the average farmer is the one who takes the brunt of what I would describe as a segregationist policy.
Refusal of the 25 cents subsidy per hundredweight on milk delivered to a manufacture is contrary to the request made by the U.C.C., the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the farmers. The things requested are logical and, if granted, would do away with misrepresentation by some producers and avoid trouble to the department.
The minister has announced his policy. I do not think he will change his mind because each time we have made suggestions, he has not seen fit to give them favourable consideration.
Those are the few remarks I wanted to make after the speech of the Minister of Agriculture who, once again, disguises the truth by saying that the farmers' income for 1959 or 1960 will not be affected by his price policy on dairy products.
I would like to add a few words in reply to the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), who stated that, in the province of Quebec, there is a law against the sale of margarine. I will read a few lines from that act.
A section of that act does indeed prohibit the sale of margarine in the province of Quebec. We know, however, that some is being sold. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm himself said in his remarks, that as much margarine as butter is being sold in the province of Quebec.

Supply-Agriculture
Section 6 reads as follows:
In the case of Infringement of a provision of this act or of a regulation made thereunder, any dairy product substitute which was the object of such infringement must be seized, with or without a warrant, as well as the container thereof and any vehicle used for its transportation, and the confiscation thereof shall be ordered by the court for the profit of the crown.
The penalty for such an infraction is set at $2. Section 5 reads as follows:
Whosoever infringes any provision of this act or of a regulation made thereunder shall be liable, if the offence relates to the possession, for other purposes than for sale, of a dairy product substitute, to a fine of not less than two dollars nor more than twenty dollars and costs, for the first offence, and to a fine of not less than five dollars nor more than twenty five dollars and costs, for each subsequent offence.
Oddly enough, however, the second paragraph of section 7 reads as follows:
Prosecutions for infringement of this act may be instituted by the crown or by any person previously authorized for such purpose by the Minister of Agriculture; in the latter case, the prosecutors shall be entitled to one half of the fine collected.
Mr. Chairman, this shows clearly that, in the province of Quebec there is an act prohibiting the sale of margarine or butter substitutes. But to prosecute people who sell margarine, permission must first be obtained from the minister of agriculture of the province of Quebec.
It is also known that in Quebec, a butter substitute called "spread" is sold by wholesalers, and inquiry shows that margarine sales in the province of Quebec are controlled by members of the Union Nationale government.
That is, Mr. Chairman, what I wanted to say to the hon. member for Joliette-l'Assomp-tion-Montcalm. If there is an act to this effect in the province of Quebec, it should be applied and the sale of butter substitutes should be prevented.


Mr. Martel:: An unfounded charge.
(Text):


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is the minister not going to reply to some of the questions put to him, particularly as to the government's intention of an alternative program, such as acreage assistance? There is a story in today's paper-I am now looking for it- which indicates that the government intends to make an announcement very soon along those lines. If that is the case, can the minister not give us some indication today? If it is not the case, surely we are entitled, on the discussion of the agricultural estimates, to know if the government has any alternative

to the proposals made by western farmers over a year ago. It surely is not consistent with good government for the government continually to delay, now over a year, its answer to this request that concerns, not only farmers in all parts of western Canada but every member from western Canada who sits behind the government in this house.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I think all I can say to the hon. member is that he should not believe everything he reads in the papers. He should have learned that by this time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I find the press pretty reliable.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Certainly, what he has read in the paper I do not know anything about. What I would say on this question is that suggestions were made to the effect-I think it has appeared in a considerable number of papers-that the western farm organizations were asked to put in writing any alternative to deficiency payments which they wished to discuss with the Prime Minister and the cabinet, and we would then be very glad to have them come down and discuss the matter with us. Up to date they have not yet put in any alternative.


Murdo William Martin: Does the minister think it is up to the farmers of this country to provide the solutions themselves? I do not know whether they feel the assistance plan is the way by which this problem could be solved. But is it not up to the government itself, in the face of an admitted situation, to provide some plan? It seems to me it is an abdication by this government of its responsibilities when it says to the farmers of western Canada, we will not do anything unless you write us and tell us what particular proposal you have in mind to discuss with us. If that is the position of the government, if that is the final position, as now stated by the Minister of Agriculture, then he has served notice on the farmers of western Canada that they cannot look to get from him and from this government an implementation of the promises which this government gave to them.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, as usual this is an example, of which we have had plenty from the hon. member, of many words meaning little or nothing. The farmers of western Canada and the farm organizations of western Canada I think know extremely well what the situation is. The farm organizations of western Canada had no hesitation, as a matter of fact, in coming down here with demands for deficiency payments. I do not think, when they can agree among themselves on any alternative plan, that they will

have any hesitation in coming down here to discuss it with us, but up to date I take it they have not done that.


Murdo William Martin: Has the government no plan? That is the question. It is an admitted abdication by the government.


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is no such thing as any abdication or anything else along that line, Mr. Chairman. The government has all kinds of plans but, unlike the previous government, we are not trying to dictate to the farmers as to what plan they should accept, and so forth. We have asked them to bring down an alternative plan and we will be glad to discuss it with them, and we are waiting for them to do that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
2.	Information division including a grant in the amount of $26,000 to the agricultural institute of Canada, $638,410.
Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hon. gentlemen may steamroll, but these are tactics which will not be appreciated. We are a small group and we are going to fight for the rights of parliament.


Samuel Boulanger: There is an increase of $15,000 in this item; can the minister tell us what it is all about?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I am not entirely clear as to what the hon. member means but I can give him some information as to the reason for the increase. As a matter of fact, as far as departmental administration is concerned, which includes the deputy minister, and some of the other chief administrative officers, he will note that the increase is $73,000. It is accounted for largely by increases in salaries, the normal increments that take place and so on. The total number of people in the administration branch has been increased by 10. Some of that increase is due to the transfer of personnel from other branches to the central administration branch in an effort to improve the general administration. That is the explanation of that particular item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
3.	Contributions to commonwealth agricultural bureaux in a total amount of £46,384, notwithstanding that payments may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of December, 1959 which is, $123,516.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the minister explain the details of this vote and why there is this small decrease in the amount from last year?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Perhaps I had better explain that the commonwealth agricultural bureaux 79951-0-231
Supp ly-A griculture
are a group of organizations in British commonwealth countries operating under a central executive council of representatives of these countries which directs the activities of the bureaux. The main activity is the maintenance of an abstracting service. The commonwealth institute of biological control, which is located in Canada, collects and distributes information on parasites and destructive diseases. I think the hon. member wanted to know why there is a slight decrease. In past years there have been certain lapsing balances, in one year amounting to $2,900, in another year $12,000 and in another year $1,747. It is estimated that the cost this year will be about $2,000 less than last year. The real explanation is that there has been an effort to estimate a little more closely.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
4.	Economics division, $751,838.
Paul Joseph James Martin: I see that the vote for the economics division for 1960-61 is $751,838 compared with $726,986 in the last fiscal year, and I note that 146 additional persons are covered-


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, not 146 additional but 146 all told.


Murdo William Martin: There are 146 all
told or an increase of 10. I thank the minister for the correction. I am sure that these are well qualified individuals, but the purpose of employing anyone in the government service is so that they will study plans and make recommendations to the administration with regard to problems in all their aspects that exist in a particular field. I take it that in the economics division there must be individuals to whom have been assigned the task of studying the very problem which engaged the minister and myself a few moments ago namely what should be done to meet the demands of western agriculture. Is there any particular group in this division engaged in considering alternative plans or are we only to have alternative plans based upon suggestions by the farmers of western Canada themselves? The minister says he has no plans.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I did not say that.


Murdo William Martin: The minister said, "The government is waiting for written proposals by the farmers themselves and we have not heard from the farmers". The only conclusion is that unless they hear from the western farmers there will be no policy announced by the government. I say that that is a most unusual statement for a minister to make. In the light of the fact that we are adding 10 persons to the economics division I ask the minister to tell us whether

Supp ly-A griculture
any of these individuals are addressing themselves to alternative proposals to meet the kind of problem which confronted the western farmers when they made the suggestion for deficiency payments? It is not good enough for the minister or the government to say, "We are waiting for a written reply from the farmers of western Canada". That is a most unusual statement and the more often I repeat it the more incensed I become with the fact that it is possible for the government of this country to be so weak in its attitude toward these problems as to bring about the inaction which now characterizes a government that was going to do so much for agriculture.
Well do I remember how the minister, when he sat over here, berated the former administration and how he would have become incensed if the minister of agriculture of that day had dared make the kind of reply which the minister made today. The minister says, "We are not going to do anything for agriculture in the west unless we get a written reply". It is like saying to someone applying for a job, "Send me a letter with your qualifications in writing and if I think they are worth while I will give the matter consideration".
Surely that is not what the Minister of Agriculture should say to the western farmers. He now has these new employees in the economics division. Are any of them going to be employed in providing the government with alternative solutions, solutions which the government now says it is waiting to receive in writing from the farmers of western Canada?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Essex East has given us another of these exhibitions of attempting to make black appear white to which we are becoming very accustomed in this chamber. I would say that what he is incensed about is that we have not, as the previous government to which he belonged would have done, attempted to ram something down the farmers' throats and thus provide a club for the hon. member and his colleagues to beat the government with. That is what he is incensed about.
As a matter of fact, the particular group of people we are now talking about are employed all the time in doing research work on general agricultural economic questions and on specific agricultural questions. One of them, for example, did a study of the tomato situation in British Columbia, and I referred to that when I was replying to the hon. member for Vancouver East the other day. They have done economic studies of practically all phases of agriculture from

the marketing point of view, from the production point of view and so on.
With respect to alternative schemes to assist the western farmers, a great deal of work has been done by myself and also by members of the economics branch in working out schemes of different kinds. The hon. member does not need to think for a moment that the government is deficient in schemes of assistance of various kinds which might or could be put into effect. I have had a considerable number of them worked out and different people in this branch have worked on the various implications of them, how they might affect different parts of the country and so on and so forth.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private and public bills, the former having precedence, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-42, for the relief of Brenda Mary Pardy Thacker -Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
Mr. McCleave:: A week ago I suggested that if hon. members who have particular complaints with regard to some of these bills would mention the bill specifically by name it would be possible to deal with the non-contentious bills all together, as has been our practice in the past for a great number of years, and then get down to the particular ones on which they wish to speak. It seems to me that this course commends itself. I noticed the other day that we did not linger over the affairs of several insurance companies and pipe line companies but put those bills through in five minutes or ten minutes without very much debate. Perhaps we could allow that procedure to be an example for us this afternoon.


Frank Howard: With respect to that particular suggestion, Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment or two? I realize that it is a bit out of order but perhaps if you will allow me a second or two and the committee will be generous enough to do that we could deal with this particular point raised by the hon. member for Halifax.
On Friday last a similar request was made and, as you will recall, I then raised other matters that had to be dealt with and that if we were to select those which were to be considered as difficult or ones which required

some discussion and agreed to pass the others en bloc and then proceed to the next item on the order paper, we would have to concern ourselves with what happened to the public bills in private hands and so on. Following that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River suggested that perhaps the hon. member for Halifax, before making such a request, should communicate with representatives from the other two parties in an effort to work out some amicable solution. As far as I am concerned, no such specific discussions were held. Until that occurs perhaps we might just as well proceed with the bills today at least as they appear on the order paper and in that order.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, there has been discussion. I think my hon. friend is getting a little bit afield when he makes a statement like that. I had discussion with him only a few moments ago, asking whether it would be possible to take that course; and I am asking now in the chamber whether it is not possible. If he says no, then we go ahead and do as we have been doing in the past.


Frank Howard: I do not like to refer to private conversations but if the hon. member considers that to be consultation, I think he is under a misapprehension. It is true that out in the corridor he said words to the effect-I do not remember the exact words- "Have you selected any particular bills?" I said no. I think we can probably proceed with them in the order in which they appear.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I think this discussion has gone on far enough. We will now consider Bill No. SD-42.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.


Mr. Peters:: I should like to say a few words on this bill. As we note from this bill, it is a petition for the relief of a particular lady on the grounds of adultery, granted on the particulars contained in paragraph 6 of the prayer:
6. That on the fifth day of February, 1959, at 9832 Berri Street, Montreal, Richard Thacker committed adultery with one Elsa Banks of 9832 Berri Street, Montreal, Quebec.
This case has been handled again by two very well-known and certainly very highly experienced investigators, namely Mr. Etheridge who has been before us a great number of times and Mr. Brault who has been before the Senate committee on a number of occasions also. Both are experienced. As you read the evidence you wonder whether their experience is not becoming apparent even to those who are not much interested in whether connivance has taken place and arrangements have been made rather than evidence having 79951-0-2314
Private Bills-Divorce
been obtained in the manner in which it is presented in this particular case. Mr. Ezra Leithman, advocate, of the city of Montreal, appeared of counsel for the petitioner. In this case, as in many other cases, we are obliged to concern ourselves-whether we do it publicly in the House of Commons or privately when we discuss these matters with our own consciences-with the problem of the children and what the result of this particular bill will be having regard to the welfare and the future of those children.
According to the evidence the marriage took place in November of 1945 in the city of Montreal, Quebec. Questions were asked as to the religion of the wife and the husband and documents to indicate that the marriage had taken place were filed as exhibit No. 1. Then submission was made of a photograph, which was filed, indicating the likeness of the husband and the defendant in this particular case. Mr. Leithman begins his questioning of the lady concerned in this case and he asks the following questions:
Q. -do you know where your husband was born?
A. Yes.
Q. Where was he born?
A. In England.
In reading these questions and answers, Mr. Chairman, you will notice that when he asks the complainant in this particular case, "Do you know where your husband was born?" the answer is yes. Would it not be normal for her, if this evidence had not been previously rehearsed or previously discussed, to say where he was born, if she knew. But the questioning goes on:
Q. Where was he bom?
A. In England.
Q. And when did he come to Canada?
A. In the spring of 1945.
Q. And you married him in November of 1945?
A. Yes.
In others courts of law it is my contention that that question would not be allowed or that that type of questioning would not be allowed. She is not being asked when they were married. She is being told the date that they were married:
Q. And when did he come to Canada?
That does not constitute a question. It is a statement of fact. I suggest this type of questioning indicates a rehearsal of the process of questioning prior to the actual proceedings before the Senate.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Where ignorance is bliss it is folly to be wise.	'


William Arnold Peters: I do not know. I can only presume that the sponsor does not mean that quotation to apply to a lawyer. This lawyer has been before us a number of times and I imagine he has a few brains and perhaps

Private Bills-Divorce
does know where he is going. I would suggest that he also knows which side of the bread the butter is on and in this particular case I think he probably knows, if this divorce goes through quite easily, that he will get his money without much work on his part. Therefore the type of questioning taking place, while it would not be allowed in other courts of law, is being allowed in the committee at the present time.


Mr. Forgie:: May I call the attention of the speaker to the fact that 75 times out of a hundred that question is asked by counsel in divorce actions in the province of Ontario.


William Arnold Peters: That may be true but in cases gone by where the question is of importance the chairman always draws it to their attention. I am going only from the education we are receiving in this particular field from the committees which have discussed the matter before us. In each case where the question is a leading question, if it is of importance the chairman always asks that the question be reworded and not framed in such a way as to indicate what the answer is. It would seem to me that a question like, "And you married him in November 1945?" is a statement as well as a question, and I think the only difference might be the inflection of the voice.


James Moffat Forgie: The marriage certificate is produced; that is the evidence.


Robert Jardine McCleave: You cannot tell him anything.


William Arnold Peters: That may be and it may be sufficient proof. If it is, then I suggest this type of questioning is not necessary and we should so inform the other chamber. It is a very stereotyped question.
In most cases they ask the question, "And when were you married?" In this particular case the question is, "And you married him in November 1945?" That is an indication, in my humble opinion, that these cases are rehearsed. I make that statement having full knowledge of an article which appeared a short time ago in Le Devoir in which a reporter decided to check into some of these cases and when he went to one of these investigating firms-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, can the hon. member relate that to this particular case?
The Depuiy Chairman: I was waiting to see that.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I think not. I do not think I can refer it to this particular case, but the company he went to are an established firm and the part of the investigation-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. member says it cannot be related to this case and therefore it should not be discussed during a discussion of this particular case. That is elementary enough under the rules of this chamber.


Charles Edward Rea: The point is well taken. I was wondering whether the hon. member for Timiskaming was trying to make some point out of it but apparently not. I do not see how he can relate it to the bill before us so I will have to ask him to drop it.


William Arnold Peters: I will certainly bow to your decision, Mr. Chairman, and I would agree I probably did not draw attention to the reference quickly enough. The reference was going to be that in one particular case where we have both sides of the story the indication is that this is-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. member is deliberating flouting the ruling just given by the Chair.


William Arnold Peters: I will go on with the questioning.
Q. Is he still living in Montreal?
A. Yes.
Q. Is he steadily employed in Montreal?
A. Yes.
Q. Has he become a naturalized Canadian since he has been in Canada?
A. Yes.
The chairman of the committee continued the questioning on a different line. He asked:
Q. So far as you know, does he intend to remain in Montreal?
A. Yes.
Then counsel continues.
Q. After your marriage to your husband did you live or cohabit with each other as man and wife?
A. Yes.
Q. Are there any children?
A. Yes.
Q. What are their names and ages?
A. Sandra Ellen Thacker, 11, and John Richard Thacker, 7.
Q. When did you and your husband stop living together as man and wife?
A. In the spring of 1957.
Q. Would you explain to the committee just exactly what was the trouble between you and your husband?
A. Well, he became mean to live with, he was not a good father to the children and he was not a good husband. He was out a great deal and he stayed away for days at a time and he was running around. He did not give me enough money to run my home and he was selfish, domineering.
By the chairman (Senator Roebuck):
Q. What age was he at that time, in the spring of 1957?

By Mr. Leithman:
Q. And since May of 1957 did you cohabit with each other?
A. No.
Q. With whom are the children?
A. With me.
Q. Has he contributed to the support of the children?
A. He has done; he gives me $100 a month.
Q. And you have been working?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you any personal knowledge of the alleged misconduct on the part of your husband on the fifth February 1959?
A. No.
Q. Is there any arrangement between you and your husband that you should proceed to Ottawa to make this petition for divorce?
A. No.
Q. Is there any inducement or agreement between you?
A. None whatsoever.
Q. Would you take your husband back?
A. No.
Mr. Chairman, this particular case, as you will notice, in discussing what led up to this petition the conduct of the married couple was discussed, the relationship between them was discussed, but at no time did the committee of the other place go into the problem of a reconciliation. In some cases the Senate suggests that an investigation into reconciliation should be given some consideration. They inquire if social service facilities in the town in question were available, if medical or spiritual advice was sought and with what result. But in this case there is very little said to indicate why this husband was not a good husband. No attempt was made to ascertain if there was a possibility of this couple being brought together again, if not by their own wishes, through the use of agencies set up for that purpose. The answer given was:
Well, he became mean to live with, he was not a good father to the children and he was not a good husband. He was out a great deal and he stayed away for days at a time and he was running around. He did not give me enough to run my home and he was selfish, domineering.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Would the hon. member permit a question. From this extract from the evidence which he has read in full, as he has with other extracts, would he not say that, coupled with the evidence that the husband was living with another woman, there was ground for divorce? He had been living for several years with another woman.


William Arnold Peters: To answer the question, in the case of common law alliances I would suggest that this in itself, the stated relationship of common law, should be enough to establish a divorce. However, that is not the case in relationship to our divorce procedure and because of that we have to operate under the terms which the Senate has laid down for itself. We have passed a bill this session which I think will be back before us again or there
Private Bills-Divorce
will be considerable reference to this again. In this particular case it was alleged there was a common law alliance.
We find that the statement of the husband in this situation-and this is borne out by my reading of Power-that a statement based on a common law alliance is not ground for adultery, and if adultery is the only ground for divorce a common law alliance does not legally constitute an adultery charge. I agree with the sponsor of the bill that it should, but it does not necessarily follow.


Mr. Pugh:: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would give the page from Power and his quotation on that subject in the context of the rest of the chapter.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I am afraid the committee is getting back to the procedures of divorce. We are discussing Bill No. SD-42 and not divorce procedures.


David Vaughan Pugh: On the point of order, it has been suggested that the evidence presented in this divorce petition is not sufficient to constitute adultery. It is suggested that adultery has not been committed.


William Arnold Peters: That is not what I suggested. All I suggested was that Power has indicated that a common law alliance does not necessarily constitute ground for presumption of adultery.


An hon. Member:: Page.


William Arnold Peters: Unfortunately I do not have the book with me today. I like to quote from that work because it is obviously the most authoritative source, and I shall be quite happy to relate the point to another case later.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Would the hon. member permit a question? Might he not have interpreted Kent Power wrongly in this particular instance?


William Arnold Peters: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I was paraphrasing what I think the author said, and I may have misinterpreted some of the legal terms. I stand to be corrected if I am wrong. It is a very big book, and it is all new to me. It is a text book rather than a novel. In this instance I was merely pointing out, not that there might not be grounds for divorce on the basis of the evidence but that many married people may have passed through more difficult periods than were experienced by the couple concerned in this case. The accusation is that the man was running around. It is not substantiated; there is no reference to particulars.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Would the hon. member point out that part of the evidence which says

Private Bills-Divorce
the respondent was running around? Would he name the paragraph and page which would substantiate what he has said?


William Arnold Peters: I refer to page 10. Let us read the second sentence:
He was out a good deal. He stayed away for days at a time, and he was running around.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Related to this charge.


William Arnold Peters: No, Mr. Chairman, we have not reached the evidence of the detectives. We are discussing the situation as outlined in the questioning in relation to the evidence that the husband was not a good husband. I think this should be clearly pointed out to the committee, because there seems to be some misunderstanding. We are speaking of the marriage in the period from 1945 to the spring of 1957. The question was asked:
Q. When did you and your husband stop living together as man and wife?
A. In the spring of 1957.
Q. Would you explain to the committee exactly what was the trouble between you and your husband?
We are discussing that stage at which we are often assured by the questioner in the other house that some attempt has been made at a reconciliation, or that a reconciliation may be possible. It is true that what took place afterwards as contained in the evidence could be a reason for the wife to be peeved about the whole situation, and the evidence does perhaps indicate grounds for adultery to be assumed. But hon. members may agree with me that provided these other matters could be cleared up, in this case it would only mean the wife overlooking this voyage into a second state of matrimony for it to be possible, if other things were satisfactory at home, for them to forgive and forget. I am not saying the people concerned want to, or that they would, or that they could, but in most cases we have an assurance that there was some indication they attempted to do so.
I point out that this was in 1957, and that the offence which is alleged to have occurred did not take place until February, 1959. Thus we are speaking of that period of two years when in my opinion a reconciliation might have been attempted with satisfactory results.
Mr. Golding went on to discuss the case as it affects the children, and the record appears as follows:
Q. What would be your situation if you should have a divorce? Will your husband continue to pay for the support of the children?
A. 1 think so.
Q. Your situation will not be different to what it is now?
A. I work and look after my children.
Q. But so far as the children are concerned your situation will not be different to what it is now if he continues to pay?

A. It will be better. I would have peace of mind then.
Q. Yes. But so far as the children are concerned, they will be looked after?
A. Oh yes.
At this juncture I should have liked Senator Golding to have asked whether there had been a settlement in the superior court of Quebec awarding alimony or directing the support of the children. The answers which he received to the questions he did ask seem to me to hinge on a number of unknowns, and I do not think we should make too many inferences when we are handling cases of this nature. In this case we have to infer that the situation as outlined to Senator Golding is, in fact, the position. It remains that we must carry some responsibility for it.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I must rise on a point of order. It has been the ruling of the Chair from time to time in these debates that the question of the children is not a subject for debate here. There may be one or two conspicuous exceptions, but most of us know that there are laws in the province of Quebec, that the province has a civil code and other laws which most adequately look after the rights of the children. I do not see why we should bring into this debate the subject of provincial courts and what they have been doing. The law is there, the legislature passed it, and we should concern ourselves with our own affairs.


Charles Edward Rea: The Chair has made that ruling several times, and I am sure the hon. member for Timiskaming will adhere to it. Discussion of the subject of the children cannot be allowed.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order I did not discuss the children nor was it my intention to do so. I was discussing the report the senator had received. I am suggesting that he could have been more definite in his questioning. I will abide by your ruling and not discuss the children. I am interested in what the senator found out. I continue:
Q. Your children are going to school, I presume?
A. Yes.
By Senator Lambert:
Q. How old is the oldest?
A. Eleven.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I cannot allow any further discussion regarding the children at all. It is the right of the committee of the other place to ask such questions but they may not be discussed in this committee.


William Arnold Peters: Very well, Mr. Chairman. I continue:
By Senator Farquhar:
Q. Are you working now?
A. I have been working up until two weeks ago.

By Mr. Leithman:
Q. Would you condone your husband's conduct, would you take him back?
A. Never, no.
By The Chairman (Senator Roebuck):
Q. Have you forgiven him?
A. No.
Q. You say you have no personal knowledge of the adultery alleged with-. Did you do anything to bring it about-did you countenance it in any way?
A. No.
Q. It seems too bad to break the marriage at this late date. You say you have not lived together since 1957?
A. Yes, that is right, in the spring.
Q. Before that were you living as man and wife in the normal way?
A. Well, it was not a normal home life, no.


Mr. Broome:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I do not think that under our rules any hon. member is allowed to read with the extreme length and detail at which the hon. member is reading from the reports of the committee. We are supposed to be debating this bill and not reading irrelevant portions of the record of the committee. I submit he should refer to the evidence and give his own views.


Charles Edward Rea: The evidence of the committee can certainly be used in the house in any way an hon. member wishes to do so. He may read it, discuss it, or refer to it.


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


Charles Edward Rea: I certainly would not want to rule under any condition that the evidence given in a committee of the other place could not be read or discussed here. I invite the hon. gentleman to remember that such a ruling would affect all private bills and not only divorce bills.


Robert Jardine McCleave: On the point of order, should not the reading be relevant to the consideration of the committee which I think is the point that more concerns my hon. friend? We have had a discussion of the children, reconciliation procedures and other matters which do not seem very germane to an act for the relief of this particular woman. That is the point of order I raise.
My friend the hon. member for Timis-kaming as a substitution for debate has read most of the evidence on pages 9, 10 and 11 of the report but this does not strictly concern itself with the substance of the bill that is before the committee this afternoon.


Charles Edward Rea: Anything in the evidence which refers to the bill may, of course, be referred to and read. The Chair
Private Bills-Divorce
has already ruled that the hon. member cannot discuss the children and he appears to understand that ruling. I hope that straightens away the matter.


William Arnold Peters: I continue:
Q. It seems too bad to break the marriage at this late date. You say you have not lived together since 1957?
A. Yes, that is right, in the spring.
I fail to see how we can draw any inference that this was a particularly late date. To paraphrase from memory the treatise by Power, he points out there is an objection to granting a divorce after a long period of time, a period of undue delay. The alleged incident took place in 1959 and the petition was brought forward almost immediately which does not constitute undue delay any more than does the fact that the parties had not lived together for a period of two years.


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


Ernest James Broome: Now the other shift takes over. We are not going to help this hon. member. He will have to talk the whole 30 minutes.


Frank Howard: That is how little my hon. friend knows about time because it is now 23 minutes to six and I could not speak for 30 minutes.


Mr. Crouse:: Every moment seems like an hour when you are speaking.


Frank Howard: That may be so but I suspect there will be more occasions in the future that will seem like an hour to the hon. gentleman opposite.


Mr. Bigg:: Cheer up. It will be your last session here.


Frank Howard: I am having difficulty getting started but with perseverance I will make it.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: The hon. member does not really care.


Frank Howard: I see that the hon. member for Halifax has taken up a different station in the chamber which will make it easier for us to hear his questions and easier for him to hear our comments about these cases and I hope will allow us to deal with them with greater dispatch. When he sat in his former place on this side of the chamber we always considered he was on our side and by crossing the floor I hope it does not mean he is now on the other side.
There are some matters here which are not a rehash as was suggested but which require consideration. Exhibit No. 2 is a photograph of the respondent taken in 1945 as pointed out on page 9 of the evidence by

Private Bills-Divorce
the petitioner in response to questioning by the clerk of the committee. One adduces from other portions of the evidence that the respondent was 24 or 25 years old when it was taken. In February, 1959 when the adultery is alleged to have taken place he would have been about 39 or 40. Approximately 15 years elapsed between the time of the taking of the photograph and its use for identification purposes in this case. I have not seen the photograph or the respondent and do not know if it is a good likeness that would enable a complete stranger to identify him.
This is not a good practice. Photographs that are 15 years old should not be used because a person's features change considerably between the ages of 25 and 40. Frequently there is a considerable loss of hair or other significant change in the physiognomy. I am not making a great issue of it here but the committee of the other place should inquire into whether or not it is possible with assurance to identify a person on the basis of an old photograph.


Robert Jardine McCleave: We know we are not supposed to make reflections on the conduct of the members of the other place. There is evidence at the bottom of page 11 and the top of page 12 that the respondent admitted the picture was his. Why we bring in those general, abstract, abstruse theories or objections, when the evidence is straightforward, I do not know. For the life of me I cannot see the point of my hon. friend's argument.


Frank Howard: When it comes to the adultery part of the evidence given by the investigators in so far as their discovery of the situation in which the adultery took place, I would point out that perhaps in this case there is not that kind of evidence which is normally given in other cases. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that normally reference is given by the investigators to the number of beds which are in a bedroom. If it is a double bed they make particular reference to the fact that there are two pillows in the bed, each of which has been used; the pillows are indented to indicate someone has been sleeping there, and things of that nature. That is normally the kind of evidence given by the investigators and other witnesses in other cases. Throughout the evidence given by Mr. Etheridge and Mr. Brault I can find no reference to their going into the bedroom in this particular place, except they say there was one. Let me read from the evidence of Mr. Etheridge at page 11. After they had gone into this particular address he said:
We entered the house after Mr.-opened the door. He admitted he was-and that exhibit 2 was a picture of himself.
I say to the hon. member for Halifax I would have got around to clearing up the

point that he had in mind eventually, anyway. Then, the witness continued:
It was a house which was a two-section cottage, and we stepped into the living room, and on the right-hand side past the living room was the bedroom.
Then he answers an inquiry from Senator Roebuck:
Q. Was there only one bedroom.
A. Only one bedroom.
Then he refers to other parts of the house, which I intend to come back to in a moment and make some other comment. That is the sum and substance of the reference to the particular bedroom. There is no indication whether there were twin beds, bunk beds, a couch or any other type of sleeping accommodation. I point out that this is a variation from the evidence given normally in this type of case.
Perhaps the question posed by the hon. member for Halifax when the hon. member for Timiskaming was speaking on this matter can be referred to. If I can paraphrase his question correctly, if not he will correct me I am sure, he asked whether or not this divorce should be granted on the ground that it was a common law relationship. I submit this is precisely what has occurred and that this is perhaps what has led the members of the other place to recommend that this bill be proceeded with.
They have recommended that the bill be proceeded with on the basis that adultery was proved by this common law arrangement between the respondent and the corespondent and that this was admitted in the presence of Mr. Etheridge and Mr. Brault and that they gave evidence to this effect. I submit that this is the basis or the reasoning of the committee of the other place in recommending that this divorce be granted on the grounds of adultery, even though it is not adultery in fact that is necessary as evidence, the only evidence that would normally lead one to believe that it could take place. This does not come within that sort of necessary test, because you can assume all sorts of things.
The fact that they were living together as man and wife and had been living together as man and wife ever since May, 1957, as was given in evidence by Mr. Etheridge of what he was told by the respondent, is the basis upon which this divorce was recommended by the committee of the other place to the other place, and I am sure it is the evidence which the committee of this house and the house itself later on will consider as the predominant factor in granting or not granting the divorce.


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


Frank Howard: Certainly.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Would the hon. member not agree that a continuing common law relationship would be a much better type of evidence on which to base a divorce action than a single instance about which there has been some complaint in the past few weeks?


Frank Howard: I do not know whether my hon. friend is talking about court proceedings or proceedings before the houses of parliament.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I am not referring to either in particular; I think the evidence is the same. What I am asking is, is it not more acceptable evidence of adultery if a continued cohabitation over a period of time is proved, because a single instance, which the hon. member has been complaining about, is much less potent?


Frank Howard: I gather now what my hon. friend is getting at? I am not in a position to answer about the basis of a case in a court of law, because I am not that familiar with what is acceptable and what is not; but this is the point I am trying to get at. Our normal practice is to say that there were reasonable grounds to assume that adultery took place. The investigators take all steps necessary to try to prove that by making reference to the clothing and to pillows being indented and so on.
In this case there is no reference to that. This is what the divorce in this instance is being granted on, and frankly I think the question asked by my friend is a good one and this is what I am trying to get at. There is some reason to accept the circumstances in this case as being grounds for a divorce. We hear of someone knocking on a hotel room door, or a motel door. Normally, we have that motel type of case, which in many cases is arranged beforehand and everyone knows what is going to happen. In this instance we have far more reason to accept the grounds for granting a divorce than we have in cases of the other sort. This is the point I was trying to get at.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: In that case would my hon. friend admit that we should pass this bill and get on with another one?


Frank Howard: With this slight exception. There are one or two other points here that make one raise some doubts as to whether it should be granted, and doubts as to the evidence itself.
My hon. friend from Halifax may laugh. I do not know whether he is laughing because he has a headache, as he had before, or at what I said about some other points here. If I make this particular one perhaps he will be able to provide the answer. I know he 79951-0-232
Private Bills-Divorce
will be able to provide an answer, but in my mind it may not be the answer, but perhaps he can give us an assurance that there is an answer to it. It is with respect to the evidence given by Mr. Etheridge on page 11. It is the second question of Mr. Leithman. His first question was about photographs, and then he asked this question:
Q. Have you had occasion to investigate Mr.- conduct, his mode of living.
A. That is right. You retained our services in the matter during the month of June, 1959 and as a result of our investigations on the morning of Thursday, February 5, 1959,-
This is the point that is in my mind. I can assume what has occurred but in fact I do not know because the printed evidence shows that it is June and that they were retained about four or five months after they discovered certain things.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Does the hon. member want an answer? It was obviously June in January.


Frank Howard: That is what I mentioned earlier. In my own mind I can come to an assumption of what it was but I do not know for sure. It may have been June,
1958	but this is not clear from the evidence. We can assume that it may be a typographical error. We can assume that when Mr. Etheridge gave his evidence he meant January when he said June. It may be that he said
1959	and meant 1958. These things we do not know.
In any event, it is a point in the evidence which is in conflict and yet we are supposed to base our reasoning upon that and come to some conclusion. Perhaps in respect of this particular case also the hon. member for Halifax might avail himself of the actual transcript of evidence taken before the committee and see whether or not it is June, 1959 or January, 1959 or June, 1958 or what is the actual date set out in the transcript of evidence because typographical errors can creep in.
This is one of the things I wanted to raise, and there is another one. I refer again to page 11, the evidence of Mr. Etheridge, and the answer to a question asked by the chairman, Senator Roebuck, as found at the bottom of the page.
Q. Was there only one bedroom?
A. Only one bedroom. There was an upstairs section of the house, but it had been closed off from the cold of the winter. They did not use the upstairs during the cold of the wintertime.
I do not know how Mr. Etheridge happens to know whether they did or did not use it during the cold of the winter, whether thej did not use it during the summer or if thej ever used it. Nevertheless he volunteers the information. He was not asked any question

Private Bills-Divorce about it. He just comes out point blank and says of his own volition that the respondent and the corespondent did not use the upstairs during the cold of the winter, that it was closed off during that time. He points out how it was closed off. Wood was used to stop the hot air from going up into the top section.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Perhaps we need that here.


Frank Howard: Perhaps this may be the sort of thing we require here but I am sure my friend would not want to spoil the architecture and appearance of the chamber by doing something of that nature. In any event, if I were to continue along that line you would call me to order, Mr. Chairman. Here is an indication that Mr. Etheridge knew about this beforehand. He gave no evidence about how he came to know how they did not use the upstairs during the cold of winter or what the wood was put there for or when it was put there. He is not questioned about it. He volunteers the information very graciously and generously of his own volition. He was simply asked if there was one bedroom and he only had to answer yes or no as the case might be but he went on and pointed out that they did not use the upstairs during the cold of winter.
I think one is entitled to assume from this that Mr. Etheridge is either not disclosing the full content of the discussion he had that morning with the respondent and corespondent or he knew and had had some discussions with the people who lived in the house or had been in the house himself. Possibly in his part-time work he was hired as a carpenter to board it up for the winter so that it could not be used during that period. These are assumptions. I do not think the last one could be the case because he is fairly well taken up with his work in these cases. That was more or less a facetious comment, but apart from that how did he know that the respondent and corespondent, living together as man and wife, did not use the upstairs during the cold of winter. I think we are entitled to assume that somebody told him that, that there was some prior discussion with the respondent who had lived in the house since May of 1957 and had been there during the winter of 1957-58 and again during the winter of 1958-59. I think we can assume that some discussion took place.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Frank Howard: Yes.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Would he mind explaining what point he is making at the present moment?


Frank Howard: I am making the point that the upstairs was boarded up and Mr. Etheridge knew about it beforehand and had had some discussions with these people. He had undoubtedly been there and made arrangements beforehand. There is another case which supports that view. Just after the June in January or June in February mix-up Mr. Etheridge had this to say, which shows either careful planning beforehand or pure coincidence:
-at 1.15 in the morning I drove up to where Mr.-was living at-on my way home-
Just coincidently he happens to be driving by on his way home at 1.15 in the morning. He then says that later at 7.15 that morning he met Mr. Brault on the particular street in question. One would assume that he had not staked out the place as private eyes are prone to do and watched it day after day. One would assume that in this instance he knew what was going to occur. One would assume that he also knew about the upstairs being closed off in the wintertime. If we are going to accept the fact that there is a common law arrangement, and that is what the Senate has done, then I think we should not clutter it up with evidence of this nature to try to prove that very vague point about adultery. I am sure that what has happened in this case is that some discussions have taken place. I am sure that Mr. Etheridge knew beforehand about the closing off of the upstairs to keep the cold out in the winter or the hot air downstairs because there had been prior discussions, and the reason there were prior discussions was that Mr. Etheridge, being familiar with the process of parliament granting a divorce and knowing from past experience what he would have to prove before parliament, made this arrangement-


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Dumas:: Mr. Speaker-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of any front bench Liberal member would the leader of the house inform us what the business of the house is for Monday?


Armand Dumas: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister can tell us whether the order of business announced last night will be applicable on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am interested to see this unusual competition on the other side of the house between the two parties. The business as announced for Monday and Tuesday will stand. On Wednesday we will continue with the Tuesday items if they are not finished.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:
Supply-Items Passed

[Stage Direction]
Administration branch-
1.	Departmental administration, including advisory committee on agricultural services, $777,657.
2.	Information division including a grant in the amount of $26,000 to the agricultural institute of Canada, $638,410.
3.	Contributions to commonwealth agricultural bureaux in a total amount of £46,384, notwithstanding that payments may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of December, 1959 which is, $123,516.
4.	Economics division, $751,838.
79951-0-232^
[Stage Direction]
Monday. May 9, 1960