1961-03-23

Mr. Speaker:: Order. By leave of the house may I table the cablegram which has been received from the president of the chamber of deputies of the parliament of Italy in acknowledgement of the cablegram which I sent in pursuance of a resolution unanimously passed by this house last Friday, and read to the house a translation of the cablegram dated Rome, March 22, 6 p.m.:
Hon. Roland Michener, Speaker of the House of Commons, Ottawa.
The telegram of greetings expressing the best wishes of the parliament of Canada on the occasion of the centenary of Italian unity was particularly welcome to me. On behalf of the chamber of deputies of Italy and in my own name may I request that you, sir, who are the honourable the Speaker, do accept the expression of sincere gratitude and most heartfelt good wishes for the prosperity of the Canadian people. I am, with highest consideration,
Giovanni Leone,
Speaker of the chamber of deputies.


STANDING ORDERS
[Stage Direction]
Eighth and ninth reports of standing committee on standing orders-Miss Aitken.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make an announcement to the house with regard to the municipal winter works incentive program. As of March 21, the latest figure which I have obtained from my department based on estimates submitted by more than 1,924 municipalities across Canada indicates that this program has exceeded by a substantial margin the target of jobs announced last fall.
At that time we expected to provide direct, on-site employment for some 83,000 persons and indirect employment for approximately the same number. I am pleased to be able to inform the house that as of March 21 this program has provided direct, on-site employment for more than 105,000 men, according 90205-6-206
to the figures supplied by the municipalities, and off-site employment for an estimated equal number of men.
This program, through intensive co-operation at the federal, provincial and municipal levels, launched municipal work projects during the winter months of a total estimated value of $259,520,713. It has become one of the most effective public works programs of its kind ever undertaken in this country, through co-operation at all levels of government. It is a program well accepted by everyone and given enthusiastic support.
As the house may be aware, the government has received a number of representations from individual municipalities, as well as the Canadian confederation of mayors and municipalities, requesting the continuation of the program beyond the cut-off date of April 30. As the house also knows, the program this winter commenced on October 15, six weeks earlier than usual. I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that ini recent weeks there have been severe storms accompanied by heavy snowfall in many parts of Canada, and this has affected the ability of municipalities to carry on their winter works projects.
In order that there will be no curtailment of employment as a result of untoward weather conditions, I am pleased to announce that the government has decided to extend the period for the municipal winter works incentive program to May 31.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have an announcement to make which is supplementary to that made by my colleague the Minister of Labour. I am pleased to inform the house that it has been decided to extend the winter works program in the national parks from March 31 to May 31, 1961. This will provide employment for 1,800 men at a cost of $1.6 million.
During the current season projects in the various national parks under the winter works program have involved an expenditure of $4 million. The program involves the construction of new picnic grounds, camp sites and other improvements to accommodate the increasing numbers of visitors to the parks.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, may I on behalf of this group say how pleased we are to learn that the expectations for the winter works program

Inquiries of the Ministry have been exceeded and that it is being extended. We hope that the Minister of Labour and the other ministers in the government will soon find it possible to bring in a program for the spring, summer and fall in addition to the winter so as to provide full employment for those who need it at the present time.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Jack Mclniosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour arising out of the statement he just made in regard to the winter works program. Will the extension of the date for the winter works program exclude any of the projects now authorized under the program? I understand that on a previous occasion when the program was extended certain projects were eliminated. The reason given was that these projects would reasonably be carried out during the period covered by the program.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, offhand and without checking I would say that I see no reason why projects now under way that would carry over into the extended period of May should be eliminated. I should think they would be included.


Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour based on the announcement he made earlier this afternoon about the winter works program and the suggestion that 105,000 jobs had been provided in on-site and 105,000 in off-site work. Can the minister tell the house the length of employment on these jobs? How much work are we talking about? Has the minister's department the complete figures?


Michael Starr: This represents 4,636,972 man days of work.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of fhe Opposifion):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister is in a position to give the house any information on the serious situation in Laos as reported in the press this morning.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as the house knows, the situation developing in Laos is such that it commands the attention of people all over the world. I am aware of recent developments in the Laotian situation, and the government has been in continuing touch with

the other governments concerned. While Canada is not a member of SEATO, the regional collective security organization whose interests are most directly affected by developments in Laos, Canada has a particular interest in the Laotian problem arising from her membership in the international supervisory commission established under the Geneva agreement of 1954 and adjourned in
1958.	Mention has been made in the press of naval dispositions which are taking place in the Far East. I do not believe that they reflect anything more than normal measures of readiness in the situation as it exists.
Now I might say something regarding Canada's position on the particular problem itself. Canada is prepared to serve on a reconvened international supervisory commission should the governments concerned agree that conditions exist which would permit the commission to play a worth while and effective role. The reason there has been no decision so far to reconvene the international supervisory commission for Laos is that other possible alternative arrangements are being considered, such as a commission of neutral nations or an international conference as proposed by Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia.
These alternatives are still under consideration. Whatever type of international instrument may eventually be agreed upon, Canada continues to hope that circumstances will permit a negotiated settlement which will maintain the independence, the unity and the neutrality of Laos.


O.E.C.D.-CANADIAN POSITION AT FORTHCOMING CONFERENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. I wonder if the Prime Minister would care to give the house any information on the position which Canada may take at the forthcoming conference of O.E.C.D., particularly in the light of the statement by President Kennedy that certain proposals for long term economic assistance will be put before that conference by the United States.


John George Diefenbaker: I think during recent discussions in the house full information was given on this matter, information as full as the government could then give. There is nothing in particular that I can add at this time which would in any way amplify what was said then.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister tell the house whether Canada will be putting forth any specific

proposals at the forthcoming conference with regard to economic assistance?


John George Diefenbaker: Canada's stand on economic assistance and her record have been admirable. I know the hon. gentleman will not agree with that, but I think Canadians as a whole feel that the contribution which Canada is making in connection with measures to raise standards in other parts of the world is the equal of that of any other nation in the world. When I say that, I think our contribution to the Colombo plan, with the increases in the last few years, and the contributions in other fields to which Canadians have given their support do not require on the part of Canadians any attitude of uncertainty or lack of pride concerning what is being done.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister received a communication from local 200 of the united automobile workers drawing to his attention lay-offs by the Ford Motor Company of qualified machine repairmen, while at the same time large machines from the plant have been sent to the United States for repair? If so, is the minister in a position to use his good offices to have this work done by Canadian workers presently laid off?


Michael Starr: Today I received a copy of a letter from the people to whom the hon. member refers which had been addressed to the Minister of Finance.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question,
Mr. Speaker. Will the minister look into the situation and see if there is any way in which he could arrange to have some of this work done here in Canada by Canadian workers?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out, this letter was addressed to the attention of the Minister of Finance, and I received only a copy of it. But I will follow up the matter to see what reply is given by the Minister of Finance.



GLEN EXELBY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether as a result of the offer he made in the letter he tabled on Friday last the employment service has yet found ,a job for Mr. Exelby of Hamilton.
90205-6-2064
Inquiries of the Ministry


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I am relieved to say that I have not been keeping track of that case of late.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister be good enough to inquire and inform the house tomorrow?


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister inquire and inform the house tomorrow?



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received any report from the Canadian National Railways concerning the question of that railway taking over from the Cumberland Railway Company the 4-mile spur line from Springhill to Springhill Junction. The minister will recall that this question was asked on February 17, at which time the minister indicated that he would refer the matter to the management.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to report at the moment, but I will investigate.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Walter Pitman (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Would the minister substantiate reports that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is recruiting personnel in the United Kingdom. If so, could the minister indicate the reasons for such recruitment at the present time?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to send me notice of this question a short time ago. I have been unable to obtain the information from the corporation. However, I have grave doubts about recruitment taking place in the United Kingdom other than in respect of highly specialized personnel. I will obtain the information and advise the hon. member on this matter as soon as possible.

Inquiries of the Ministry ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE



ONTARIO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister received any request from the attorney general of Ontario for the assistance of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in investigating alleged charges that Mafia gambling interests have succeeded in bribing and corrupting provincial and local law enforcement officers?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Not
to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Nipissing, as reported at page 2542 of Hansard of March 1, as to the number of starts made in the month of February, may I say we now have received the figures for housing starts up to the end of February, in municipalities of 5,000 population and over. These amount to 3,967 for the month of February, which is an increase over a year ago of 86.2 per cent for that month. These are the latest figures for 1961; up to the end of February, 7,861.
The hon. member and other hon. members of the house will be glad to hear that the figures up to March 17 for N.H.A. requests for loans have now increased to 9,937. In the corresponding period a year ago the figure was 1,473.


John Richard Garland: In view of the announcement made by the minister I wonder if I might put this question to him. The figure for last February was one of the lowest on record, at an annual adjusted rate of about 60,000, I believe, for that period. In view of this fact, and in view of the legislation recommended by some hon. members on this side and implemented a few months ago, does the minister not think he should go the full distance and reduce the N.H.A. interest rate, which is the main deterrent at this time?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, the record this year-and all we can control are the National Housing Act loans-has been almost unprecedented. We are having a magnificent year in housing compared with any other year except one.


John Richard Garland: Compared with last year.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member went a good deal further than he should have gone with his last supplementary, and a further supplementary would be out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the Minister of Public Works mean by "on the contrary" that the interest rates should be increased?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate would stick to yachts he would speak with greater authority.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The usual politeness.


John Richard Garland: Since the Minister of Public Works has the figures now for February, can he tell us the number of bank loans made in that month?


David James Walker: A magnificent record has been made in housing in spite of the fact that we have had little or no participation by the banks. Therefore the banks can use their money for commercial loans in the regular course of their business.


John Richard Garland: A supplementary question. Does the government contemplate taking any action which will encourage the banks to get back into the housing field?


David James Walker: If by that the hon. member means are we seeking to increase the borrowing rate from 6 per cent to 6| per cent, the answer is in the negative.


John Richard Garland: I mean lowering the N.H.A.
interest rate, as the minister well knows.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has his attention been drawn to the decision of the United Kingdom government, announced today, to continue trade preferences to South Africa after her withdrawal from the commonwealth, and does the government propose to follow the same course here?


Hazen Robert Argue: We hope not.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I did notice what had taken place in the British House of Commons and the statement made by the Prime Minister and I think as well by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. I do not know whether it was inherent in the question that Canada might follow the lead of the United Kingdom in that regard. I would say

that when and if a decision is made in this respect the house will immediately be made aware of it.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I can ask the Secretary of State whether he is yet in a position to provide the list of unfulfilled returns that was asked for some weeks ago?


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of State):: believe it will be ready maybe tomorrow or next Monday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I send to the Secretary of State a partial list that one of my friends prepared for me, to help him in the preparation of this material?



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 1, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Ap-pelle)-Mr. Rea in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the Minister of Agriculture to enter into agreements with provincial governments or agencies thereof for the undertaking jointly with those governments or agencies of projects for the alternative uses of lands that are marginal or of low productivity, projects for the development of income and employment opportunities in rural agricultural areas, and projects for the development and conservation of the soil and water resources of Canada; for the payment to the provinces of contributions in respect of the cost of such projects undertaken by a province or agency thereof; to authorize the Minister of Agriculture to undertake programs of research and investigation in respect of these matters; to provide for the establishment of advisory committees and the appointment of their members, and to provide for other related and incidental matters.
Mr. Horner (Acadia):: When the resolution was last before the committee I had summarized in what directions productive acreage could be increased. In fact, after looking at our import and export position with regard to field crop production I find that without the export of wheat Canada would be a net importer of agricultural field and vegetable products.
If one takes a close look at the resolution before us, one finds that it readily breaks down into three categories. These categories are (1) projects for alternative use of land, particularly marginal land; (2) projects for the development of income and employment opportunities; (3) conservation of soil and
Marginal Lands
water resources. I find the resolution very interesting because of the fact that about half of the land area in my constituency is included in what is called the "special areas". These areas consist of a number of municipalities in the centre of the Palliser triangle, and they went bankrupt in the early thirties. At this time the whole area was taken over by the provincial government and administered from Edmonton. About 70 per cent of the land is what is known today as tax recovery land. The heart of the policy followed in connection with this area is the refusal to sell either crown or tax recovery land. This, coupled with the stipulation that cultivation leases are to be issued only for special feed needs, has made the area a cattle raising area.
In most respects this policy corresponds to the policy that will be possible under this resolution, but recently the provincial government began to shift their view with regard to the whole area. The provincial government has done this, first, by increasing the forage value on lands, in some cases to the extent of doubling the value, and placing the whole area in a group with land to the west along the foothills. The interesting thing is that here we have the federal government bringing in a resolution which would set up an area similar to that which I have described, yet recently the provincial government has begun to shift its views with regard to this whole area.
The premier of the province told a few ranchers in the area that he thought the whole of the special areas should be turned into a county. Last fall the provincial government set up a commission to study the administration of the special areas. One of the purposes of the commission was to ascertain whether conditions had been altered sufficiently in the special areas as a result of agricultural practices, technological advances and increases in the size of farms, to warrant the establishment of local municipal government. I suppose the reference is to a county system. In addition, the commission was to see whether conditions in the special areas were of a sufficiently different character to warrant a different type of administration from that of any other area in the province.
I mention these two terms of reference of that provincial commission because they are closely linked with the thought in this resolution. Here is an area consisting largely of submarginal land which has been subjected to rules and governed by an administration of the type that has had much to do with shaping the development of the area. The heart of the policy was the refusal to sell either crown or tax recovery land for culti-vative practices. These lands have been largely

Marginal Lands
leased by the farmers from the provincial government for cattle raising. Today we find that the provincial government of Alberta has reached a stage in its thinking where it believes this policy should be reversed, while the federal government introduces a policy which, in a sense, endorses the legislation which has applied to this area in the past. As a result of my experience in living in this area, I commend the federal government for introducing this measure under which alternative use of the land will be encouraged, one way or another.
I should like to speak for a moment on the other two points in this resolution, namely projects for the development of income and employment opportunities and projects for the conservation of soil and water resources. The minister said that, in effect, this measure would enlarge P.F.R.A. to cover the whole of Canada. Most of my constituency lies within the old boundaries of the P.F.R.A. areas, but that part which is not included at the moment will certainly welcome the news that it will qualify for assistance under P.F.R.A. Another point that should be considered is the statement by the minister that cost sharing arrangements of the past will be carried forward into the future in connection with any projects undertaken under the new legislation or under the old P.F.R.A.
There is one question, however, I should like to ask about this measure. Who can apply for assistance in connection with these projects? Many towns in my constituency are finding themselves short of water which hinders their development, thus reducing employment opportunities. Can the town or municipality act as the agent of the province? I hope so. What I have in mind is not a dugout for water to be supplied to a small town, but a medium sized dam or canal to channel the water into these towns and thus help the towns develop industrially, thus creating greater opportunities for the citizens now living in the towns to earn increased incomes as well as creating greater employment opportunities for new citizens. I know a great many towns in my constituency that would welcome assistance along these lines.
The last item I wish to mention is soil and water conservation. As I have mentioned before, the whole area in my constituency would welcome assistance under this particular measure. We have received considerable assistance in connection with the conservation of soil, but our water resources have not been developed to the extent that they could have been developed. The Red Deer river flows through the central part of Alberta and through my constituency. This river has been talked about for a number of years, going back as far as 1918, when William

Pearce envisaged the possibility of damming this river to create a greater water supply. I am sure the citizens of this areas would welcome assistance in the development of this particular project.
A number of people might think that I am advocating greater irrigation areas. This type of development may occur in some small areas in the east central part of Alberta, but by and large the development envisaged would create greater water supplies for the towns and for the cattle raising industry.
Last summer was a particularly dry summer, as well as the year before that, in some areas of east central Alberta. A number of farmers and ranchers had to sell their basic animals because of the lack of water in their pastures. The proposed project which has been talked about for many years, will bring about greater development and will industrialize the area. It will be accompanied perhaps by some small irrigation projects to assist in bringing about greater use of the submarginal land for stock raising purposes.
It is estimated that perhaps 40 acres out of each township, on the average, is adaptable for irrigation. A great deal of land, as hon. members will realize, is not suitable for irrigation because of the varied types of soil. I point this out only to indicate, to those individuals who think we have enough irrigated land at this time, that this is not another solid irrigation project that is envisaged in that area, but rather a project which will help to conserve water and bring about greater development of the area in general.
I welcome the introduction of this resolution. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will be willing to co-operate with the province of Alberta in this regard, and that he will realize that the development of this east central part of Alberta is necessary to maintain the livelihood of the agriculture element in that growing area of Canada.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the principle and purpose of this resolution which, from our point of view, is quite sound. We hope the future will disclose that the administration of the legislation founded on this resolution, and the co-operation extended by the provinces, will be equal to the hopes that are raised by the introduction of the resolution.
Before proceeding I might say that the C.C.F. party throughout the years has urged long term planning and action on the part of federal and provincial governments to protect, restore and conserve our renewable natural resources along the lines indicated in this legislation. On that account I have no hesitation whatsoever in congratulating the minister



19B1

[Stage Direction]
and the government for giving effect to at least another aspect of C.C.F. policy throughout the years.
This is a very interesting subject to me because I have lived very close to nature all my life. Anyone who reads the pages of history will realize that man has made a bit of a mess of the Lord's earth since he inherited it. I want to bring to the attention of this committee certain quotations which I have found while reading the scripture on Sunday mornings. I was looking up a few quotations which I remembered in the old testament, which had reference to the very problem that we are discussing this afternoon. We find that man awakened to life on this earth embowered in a garden of trees surrounded by fertile soil and unpolluted water. After thousands of years of life look how we have treated our heritage. I find in Genesis 2:8-9 the following:
And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the men whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
We have learned a lot about evil but very little about how to care for the garden. Ever since man was driven out of the garden of Eden he has done two things very successfully. First, he has tried to destroy his fellow man and continues to do so. Second, he has ravaged the earth; and no one can deny that.
I was looking up this question and now realize that rehabilitation and conservation is not something new. This subject goes back thousands of years. In fact the first instruction to conserve and care for the things on earth is to be found in the Bible. I quote from Revelation 9:4, as follows:
So protect the bounty of the earth, for nature is the work of God.
And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree-
We have certainly broken what I would call the eleventh commandment throughout the ages. Man continues his devastation today. We find signs of this in the history of the valley of the Euphrates and in the valley of the Nile; we find this in Europe and in Asia.
I then turned my attention to the history of rehabilitation programs, and found that after wasting resources for centuries man found that he had destroyed many of the things he had inherited, and was instructed in Leviticus 19:23 as follows:
And man realizing his loss, must set out to clothe the land with trees.
And when ye shall come into the land, and shall have planted all manner of trees for food, then ye shall count the fruit thereof-
Marginal Lands
I mention these quotations from scripture to indicate how ancient and long standing this program of rehabilitation is. Even the present minister is not the first one to develop a rehabilitation program, but we give him full marks for being the first one in this house to do so on this scale. I have no hesitation in giving him credit for seeking to have this problem studied as the result of a national conference, and as a result of this resolution being brought to the attention of the house.
Man has gone on since early ages ruining the land, destroying the forests, polluting our waters and diminishing our wildlife in all sectors of the world. It is only in comparatively recent years that rehabilitation programs on any scale were attempted. I find from my reading that the first program of any scope was introduced in Europe about 1865, and then in Great Britain in about 1880. A program has only been introduced in Asia in very recent years; in fact one is under the Colombo plan, to which the people of Canada are contributing in an attempt to restore the areas which have been ravaged and denuded as the result of man's pollution of rivers and destruction of forests.
In this virtually new country of Canada we find that the destruction of natural resources has taken place at a tremendous pace from almost the days of early settlement. I have been reading in regard to this problem, and I notice that one of the first studies was made by the commission on conservation which was appointed by the government of Canada in 1909. I know that the father of the Minister of Justice was a member of that commission in its initial stages. I obtained a copy of the Trent watershed survey which deals with this problem. I mention these things to indicate our lack in foresight in the establishment of programs in connection with the preservation of our natural resources. I wish to quote from this book entitled "Trent Watershed Survey," because it is very interesting to me and I think will be of interest to some hon. members, and will show how grave this problem was as far back as the middle of the nineteenth century. This report was written by Messrs. C. D. Howe and J. H. White. At page 97 is found the following paragraph:
The impression received daily throughout the season's investigation was the dreary hopelessness of attempting to secure returns by agricultural activities, from a soil inherently adapted only for forest use. The amount of human energy unavailingly expended in this attempt, represents an incalculable asset lost to the province. It is but another example of past misguided or rather unguided occupancy of townships which should never have been thrown open for settlement, and of the lack of appreciation by government of its obvious duties.
[Stage Direction]
Marginal Lands
This, mind you, was in 1865. The report continues:
Early advice-That this was not done through ignorance of conditions is shown by various reports of the early commissioners of crown lands and of parliamentary inquiries. Extracts from two of these will suffice to show that, even in those days, there were men who were aware of the necessity of segregating agricultural from absolute forest lands, and the setting aside of the latter as forest reserves. As early as 1855 a committee of the House of Commons, Hon. A. T. Galt, chairman, reported, among other things: "It appears from the evidence that settlement has been unreasonably pushed in some localities quite unfit to become the permanent residence of an agricultural population. Especially has this been the case in some of the free grant roads and adjacent country, lying between the waters of the Ottawa and lake Ontario. Your committee would refer to the evidence and recommend that the government should, in all cases, ascertain positively the character of the country before throwing open any tract of land for settlement, so that such lands that are really not fit for profitable cultivation may not be thrown upon the market. There being considerable diversity of opinion among the witnesses in regard to some of the localities adverted to, it seems to the committee that the government should have an examination made by some thoroughly competent and reliable officer, whose report would be available in any further consideration of this subject."
Again, in 1865, the Hon. A. Campbell, commissioner of crown lands, in his report for that year, stated: ..."It needs a careful discrimination between pine lands exclusively and lands fit for settlement, to place it in the power of the government to conserve this valuable source of national wealth".
The report goes on to point out the completely uncontrolled destruction of forests in eastern Ontario and the need for some action on the part of governments to change these circumstances, to control the settlement of land and so on. Yet it is obvious that although consideration was given to these matters over a century ago, very little was done to correct the situation until recent years, and nothing has been done in the nature of a co-ordinated program as suggested by this resolution.
I wish to quote briefly from the recommendations of this commission, which are found on page 15 of this report. There are two recommendations which I think are most interesting in light of the present circumstances:
Nobody who has studied the conditions presented in this report will hesitate a moment in agreeing that the bulk of the country involved should be placed in, and managed as, a permanent forest reserve for the growing of timber. The only question can be: How this is to be brought about? There are at least five interests to be considered or reckoned with and to be brought into co-operation in building up such a territory-the dominion government, the provincial government, the municipalities in which the territory is situated, the private owners of properties and of timber licences, and the public at large.
Later on in the recommendations it is said:
The co-operation of the three administrative agencies, the dominion, provincial and municipal
[Mr. Herridge.l
governments, is especially needed to develop anything like a permanent forest policy, for forest growth is slow, and financial results from timber growing, the only incentive for private enterprise, are slow in coming, so that only persistent entities like governments can be expected to carry on the business of timber growing.
And I might add, to carry out the recommendations mentioned in this report. Those were very sound observations which apply just as much today as they did at the time of that commission's investigation and report. I am very pleased to again say that according to the terms of the resolution the minister is actually proceeding along the lines recommended in a government report of many years ago.
While this is a subject of immense importance to our country as a whole and to the welfare of human beings, throughout the years only a very small percentage of the population has been far sighted enough in this regard. Socialists have been in the vanguard in this respect in every country in the world. If you read socialist literature you will find that they had the foresight to realize man's dependence upon the conservation of natural resources, their proper development and so on, and others have followed suit.
However, it has taken a long time to build up a social consciousness on this question, and I admit quite freely that complete consciousness does not exist even today. I have been talking to men who have been concerned with the proposed building of dams, and so on, in my constituency. I must explain that these men are not resident in my constituency. I have on occasion talked to these men, who seem to have no appreciation of the necessity to do what is in the best interests of the country as a whole and the public at large. They would be just as shortsighted as some capitalists are in providing nothing but an immediate job without any idea of the project's influence on the welfare of future generations.
Throughout the years socialists have influenced governments and public opinion, and our province has had a fairly high percentage of these people. It is interesting to note that although this matter was investigated in Ontario over a century ago and a report was made to the government of Canada, no action was taken until recent years. Do you know that in British Columbia, after the election of a number of C.C.F. members who became the official opposition of that government, because of their insistence in the legislature on the necessity to protect our forest industry, our forest resources and other natural resources, within eight years the first royal commission on forestry in British Columbia was appointed.

There is no question in my mind that socialist minded people had a great influence on public opinion and, as a result, on the government of the day. We had a similar situation with respect to conservation in Ontario. I refer to the report of the select committee on conservation set up by the Ontario government. There has been literature published on this subject, and in recent years professional organizations have taken a leading part in this matter.
I refer to such organizations as the Agricultural Institute of Canada, the Canadian forestry institute, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the Canadian forestry association. I cannot mention these organizations without referring to the good work carried out by a number of professors in the universities across this country. I would mention particularly Dr. O. M. McCoukey of the Ontario Agricultural College who retired a few years ago. This gentleman has spoken often on this question, he has written on the subject and has published literature on conservation for many years. He has been a guide and stimulus to many people in Canada in this respect.
With a hurried summary of the situation, since the garden of Eden until today, I say that we cannot but recognize this is a long term program. This is not going to give work to large numbers of people immediately. We know that. However, it is a program that should have been commenced a century ago. Because it is a sound program we are supporting it, and we are glad to know that even at this late date a start is being made in this connection.
If there is to be success in this program it will require the co-operation of federal, provincial and municipal governments in some cases. It will require the co-operation of organizations across this country which are interested in this problem. It will require the co-operation of the public at large. This means that the public relations educational program will have to be extensive. In my opinion there is an opportunity here for our younger people in the high schools and senior grades of public schools to build up their esprit de corps, an interest in the fact that this is Canada, this is their country, and they should be well acquainted with the efforts of government and organizations to give effect to a program such as this, in order to preserve it.
I suggest that not only will funds be required to make this program effective, but funds will be required for extensive research, because conditions are so varied in different parts of Canada.
I have had some experience in the conservation of forest resources, though I find
Marginal Lands
that my experience has been very different from that of people in the Ottawa valley and other places. A great deal of educational and public relations work is required. I suggest to the minister that this does offer an opportunity to arouse the interest of our younger people in the universities, high schools and public schools through an educational program which would promote a desire on their part to participate in something which will bring increasing dividends to Canada as a whole and to them as individuals throughout the years.
Before concluding I do want to say there are some wonderful opportunities in Kootenay West for the application of this program. I cannot conclude without making some reference to my constituency. We have thousands of acres of undeveloped land in my constituency which could be brought under cultivation through the application of this program. We have thousands of acres of other land, now improperly cleared for other purposes, which could be replanted and turned back to forest growth.
There are wonderful opportunities, for example, in the Slocan valley, a valley 30 miles long with a paved highway 20 feet wide running through it. A beautiful river three times the width of this chamber flows the full length of the valley; power and light have been provided and all that is needed is co-operation between the federal and provincial governments to instal irrigation and drainage to make this an area of the most fertile possibilities where thousands of acres could be brought under cultivation. I could take hon. members to one spot where they could look down over 12,000 acres of land as level as a billiard table. All that is required to make that area habitable and suitable for cultivation is the lowering of the water level by three feet as a result of the deepening of the Duncan river, and the building of 20 miles of road. The same opportunities are available along Kootenay lake and in the valley of the Columbia river between Castlegar and Revelstoke.
This is a program in which we should get people interested, and young people particularly. I am confident that if we could get them to see-I was about to say "the vision" but I do not want to be misunderstood; however, I mean it-if we could get them to see the vision in a national way and then apply it to the circumstances in which they live there would be no difficulty about enlisting the time and energy of people who wanted to take part in this great development.
That is all I intend to say. My remarks have been somewhat general. However, I hope the measure which will follow this resolution will satisfy our anticipations in
[Stage Direction]
Marginal Lands
every way and that when it is passed the minister will enjoy the co-operation of the provinces in the development of this forward looking long term plan so long advocated by the party to which I belong.
Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: In speaking on the resolution for the second time I feel I should tell the committee that of all people in this chamber I, perhaps, appreciate more than most the honour which has fallen upon me in bringing in this legislation. Like the hon. member for Kootenay West, I know full well how long people have talked of conservation; how long people in the universities have proposed ideas, and how long organizations across this country have made representations to governments at local, provincial and federal level with respect to it. I agree with the hon. member that the significant thing is that at long last something has been Started.
I should like to discuss some of the observations which have been made during the debate on the resolution. I think I should be doing only justice to posterity if I omitted some of the comments made, because I think they are better forgotten. I think the only remark which has achieved national publicity across this country, and which is negative with regard to this legislation, is that it is long ranged. At the very outset I want to make it perfectly clear that I agree that this is a long range program. No one wants to pretend it is anything else.
The criticism which went across the country after the introduction of the resolution was to the effect that it was not going to do any good now; it did not affect prices or the shortage of income in agriculture, but was just a long term measure. Fortunately this first public information which went out from the house with regard to this measure has not been able to take hold. The common sense of the farmers and of the people who live in our towns and cities, as well as the tremendous, almost fantastic support that this resolution has received from newspapers and editors, from farm organizations, from the great weeklies across Canada and from newspapers in general in their news columns and special articles, have brought to the attention of all segments of the population the achievements of which this measure is capable. I think the thanks of all Canadians are due to these agencies of public education.
I am very glad to have the support of the knowledgeable members of the C.C.F. party in connection with this measure. I think it takes the bad taste out of one's mouth when one considers some of the things which have been said by various members about it. If any person tries to divorce this from the
[Mr. Herridge.l
over-all agricultural policy of the government, that person does a great injustice to what we are attempting to do here.
This is part and parcel of a national program for agriculture which is a logical, co-ordinated attack on the fundamental weaknesses we see in agriculture. It is just as important as the stabilization act; it is just as important as crop insurance will be some day; it is just as important as this new power which is being put into the battle on behalf of farmers, the farm credit corporation. It is part of a program for agriculture which is the basic cornerstone of a national development program.
Perhaps I may say something now which is not altogether new. When I was in the United States last week I discussed with the secretary of state for agriculture and the secretary of state for the interior of that country something of what we are doing here. Because of the great interest they took in the outline of our thinking we realized we should have more time to discuss this question, so I invited them, along with the head of the food for peace program, to visit us in Canada for two or three days to sit down and discuss the philosophy and principles of our respective agricultural programs and see whether we could not only bring agriculture and other resources together in our respective countries but also understand better the relationship of resources between the two main countries on the North American continent. I think it is hopeful for the future of all of us in Canada that the interest of these three men is as great as it is.
I should like to say a few words now on the general necessity for the agricultural rehabilitation and development bill, to be founded on this resolution. It is, first of all, to fill a most important gap which has grown up over the decades in our agricultural industry. It is a gap which has defied all attempts to get at the agricultural problem on the economic side. The people primarily the concern of this measure live on marginal and submarginal land. The policies of price stabilization, of crop insurance and of farm credit do not get at the real difficulties of these people who live on marginal and submarginal lands.
We do not know how many of these people there are. I have tried to get at the number by estimating those whose annual production is less than $1,200 a year. In essence they represent about 30 per cent of our people who, through the decades, have been occupying land which has slowly been becoming an agricultural slum. To get at their problem is one purpose of A.R.D.A. and, in my opinion, its main purpose. I cannot get

away from the fact that we are not using to the full the human resources of these 120,000 family farms. I put this forward as the No. 1 purpose of this program.
The second purpose is more general, and is somewhat along the lines of the remarks .made by the hon. member for Kootenay West, the hon. member for Kent (N.B.) and other hon. members on this side of the committee. This measure represents an attempt for the first time on the part of any government to look at agriculture as a unit and not to regard the various commodities separately. This is an attempt to look at the opportunities for the intelligent use of land and water not only in the field of agriculture but also in the field of the related resource industries.
I recently heard one person express this in a highly dramatic way. He said that if we ever departed from the thought that the forest industries of Canada and the agricultural industries were not related, we were doomed. He said not only were the forests and farms of Canada twins but they were Siamese twins, and to separate them would be fatal to both.
This is the approach I have in mind as the second great purpose of this program, namely to attempt to look at the interests and needs of our forest and other resource industries and the various aspects of our agricultural industries and relate them, to plan policies that would permit taking advantage of the opportunities in both fields.
I spoke earlier of the tremendous response to this program on the part of many people throughout the country, I spoke of the warm response of many people who have worked in this field for many years, of experts in various departments of agriculture across Canada, of experts in resource departments and branches, and I included in that reference the editorial writers and newspaper people whose attention had been drawn to this program. The clippings I have on this subject could be numbered only in the several hundreds.
I wish to place on the record some of these editorial observations to indicate to the committee and those who in years to come read this record that there is now general support across this country for this program. The following is an editorial from the Calgary Albertan of February 2, 1961 under the title "Rural Development":
Agriculture minister Hamilton's rural development program got a cooler reception than it deserved when it was introduced in the House of Commons last week. Opposition spokesmen, particularly the C.C.F. leader, Mr. Hazen Argue, condemned it beeausfi it promised to bestow no immediate benefits on Canadian farmers. We doubt-
Marginal Lands
and certainly hope-that Mr. Argue's attitude is not shared by the majority of the farmers for whom he presumes to speak.
I think it is not shared by farmers generally. I continue:
Mr. Hamilton's program has three main facets. One objective would be to take marginal land out of cultivation by using it to grow trees or grazing grass (depending on the location and economic possibilities). The second would be to promote economic diversification in rural areas through the encouragement of local industry, the development of recreational facilities and the provision of technical training opportunities. The third, involving an expansion of the activities of the existing prairie farm rehabilitation administration, would be the development and conservation of water and soil resources.
Obviously, these are not the sort of measures from which either farmers or the nation can expect immediate returns. Their purpose is to strengthen Canada's agricultural economy and thus gradually overcome or reduce some of the difficulties farmers now face: crop losses due to inadequate moisture, soil wastage caused by the planting of land that should never have been put to the plow, excessive dependence on too few crops, lack of employment opportunities for the sons and daughters of farmers, and so on.
A great many questions remain to be answered. Since agriculture is a constitutionally joint federal-provincial responsibility, Mr. Hamilton proposes to operate his rural development program as a co-operative venture. That means that it will not get off the ground unless the provincial governments take a more positive view of it than does Mr. Argue. Administration will be complicated both by the complex nature of the program itself and by the fact that Ottawa and the provinces must work in harmony; yet success will depend on enlightened, flexible management capable of taking varying local circumstances into account. Finally, the active support and willingness to take the initiative of rural people will be absolutely essential, and a deplorable number of Canadian farmers seem to be all too ready to "let George do it."
Nevertheless, Mr. Hamilton's program is pointed in the right direction. Let his political and other opponents pick on the flaws of detail if they wish; but let them do so constructively, with the object of improving upon the minister's design, not of ripping it to pieces and consigning it to the wastebasket.
I do not think what I have to say could be expressed in better words than those of this editorial. I need not tell hon. members from western Canada that the Calgary Albertan is not known as a Conservative newspaper. I also have in my hand an editorial from the Toronto Globe and Mail of January 28 entitled "Rural Rehabilitation", only the last two paragraphs of which I shall read:
As to the first charge, a scheme of this sort must be very general at the present stage; partly because the full extent of the task is not yet known and partly because agreements have to be reached with the provinces on the specific measures to be taken. As to the second, it is surely the merit of the project that it is a long term approach to long term problems. It is designed to pay economic dividends for the future, not political dividends for the next election.
This last criticism, indeed, comes rather oddly from the Liberals. During their long tenure of office they did almost nothing about this problem of submarginal lands and submarginal living; that

Marginal Lands
is one reason why it has grown to its present proportions. They are hardly entitled to demand immediate solutions now.
Having read those two editorials, one from a business paper in the east and the other from a city and farm paper in the west, let me say I think they are indicative of the type of support that has been given to this program. We all accept the fact that it is a long term program but, because it is, I hope that people across Canada will not fail to realize its immediate advantages.
If we throw enough effort into this program in the next five or ten years and, getting at the alternative use part of the program, shift the people on the farms to alternative types of production where they may receive greater returns, not only will we increase their returns almost immediately but there will be as a result of the shift an immediate impact on the farmers who are now on the better land. The farmers on the better land will be those who will receive the immediate benefits of this program in so far as the alternative land use aspect of it is concerned.
I hope this point will be carried by every hon. member into all ridings in Canada. As the program develops and as the money is spent in the poorer land areas of our provinces, it should be driven home to all those concerned that the immediate benefits go to the farmers on the good land. I hope this point will in some measure meet the criticism that the program is long range.
I wish now to express sincere thanks and appreciation to the many hundreds of people who have written to me as the minister in connection with the suggestions I made relating to tree farming, forest farming, wood lot development, and related subjects.
I have been quoting figures as part of my educational program. I have said it is possible on many farms in eastern Canada to raise one cord of pulpwood per acre per year. I gave that figure with some timidity because I was not an authority on this subject. I examined what had been done in silviculture programs by various organizations across the country and selected the figure of one cord per acre per year. Many farmers are writing me saying they are doing a lot better than that. One I think of in particular wrote to say he started out with three quarters of a cord per acre per year and has now raised production to one and three quarters cords per acre per year. Therefore the figure I had been quoting as evidence of the extra income which could be derived from using land for this purpose is apparently a very conservative estimate.
One farmer, not in the east, not only wrote to me but wrote to the Winnipeg Free Press under date of November 26, 1960. That was 
before the legislation was introduced in the commons. Let me read one paragraph from that letter:
Today the need to rehabilitate the marginal farm, and the need for off-season employment, again direct attention to the need for tree farming. Let us not overlook the fact that, wisely developed, farm forestry can make employment on the farm during the off-season for field crops the most remunerative portion of the year. If given a fair chance, too, it can re-establish the attractiveness of rural life.
I do not know this farmer, but I have read a good deal about him since. A Free Press editorial dated November 12, 1960, dealing with the same subject, had this to say:
The important aspect of all this for the individual farmer is that lumber, and its by-products, are readily marketable. Converted to forestry, the uneconomic marginal farms could return a profit to the owner. To the province at large, there would be additional gains in conservation of wildlife, transformation of scrubby, desolate areas into scenic beauty, with all the attendant implication for the tourist industry, and the provision of additional employment opportunities.
As Mr. Dawson rightly suggested, the responsibility for encouraging farmers to grow trees lies with the province. The provincial government is currently engaged in taking stock of its assets and liabilities in these very areas that would be best suited to tree farming. It should not, in its studies, overlook the possibilities in forest farming.
Here we have examples from all across the country, the east, the west and the centre, speaking of the type of program that I have been talking about under this resolution. Not only are newspaper editors doing it, but others are talking in the same vein. Here is a clipping from the Toronto Globe and Mail dated February 8, 1961, with the heading:
Jaycees urge northern study, regional plan.
The article goes on:
Creation of a commission to study the problems and assess the potential of the northeastern part of the province was recommended yesterday by the Ontario junior chamber of commerce in a brief to the cabinet.
I am leaving out a couple of paragraphs. The article continues:
Besides calling for a commission to survey the area, the brief urged that a regional plan be drawn up to direct development and that a regional planning office be established to implement the plan and provide leadership.
This is the same thing we envisage under our rural development program. In the Edmonton Journal of January 17, 1961, I find the following headline:
To spend $500,000 for seven pastures.
This is a program of the Alberta government to spend this amount of money in the next 10 years to build pastures on a total of 185,000 acres that will give the farmers in the dry land areas and in the irrigated areas a diversified use of their land that will

increase their income. This is one of the types of proposals that we are thinking about in the west.
Here is a story from the Rural Co-Operator of February 28, 1961. The headline reads:
East asks land use plan.
The article reads in part as follows:
The eastern Ontario development association has asked the provincial government for a conference in the east to set up an area program of land use. The request is contained in a 54-point brief to the government.
Specifically addressed to the Department of Agriculture is a request for more encouragement of tree planting on submarginal land, of which the east has much. The brief asks for expansion of export markets and research to find alternate uses for farm products.
If I may, I should like to head down to the maritimes for a moment and take an example from the Charlottetown Guardian of January 27, 1961:
No estimate can be made now on what share of cost the federal government will assume in each type, but spokesmen for the Shaw government have already indicated their desire to co-operate, and their belief that the program can be put to good advantage in this province. By helping low income farmers, our whole economy will be benefited and our basic industry placed on a less precarious footing. Not least significant is Mr. Hamilton's assurance that it is not the purpose of this legislation to reduce the number of farms.
I think this is sufficient to indicate that the support for this program across the country by individuals, by organizations, by university people and by the newspapers particularly, has been gratifying.
I should like to conclude my remarks by putting the proposal that I have made into its simplest terms. I am asking the support of the committee for this resolution, which will permit us to spend money to achieve certain purposes. These purposes are first of all to give some sort of opportunity for additional income to the 30 per cent of our people who live on the marginal and submarginal lands; and second, to use this program as a vehicle to start on the over-all conservation approach to the use of our resources. These two purposes, although they are long run in their application, will bring about immediate benefits to all agriculture and to the country.
May I give in conclusion a set of figures to indicate the size of this program. I should like to give the committee the actual figures of income of farms which returned less than $1,200 a year. The reason I do this is that on January 25, when I introduced the resolution, I gave the percentage of farms in each province that had a gross production of less than $1,200 a year. On reading some of the editorials and accounts across the country
Marginal Lands
I saw where one province gloated over another province because their figure was lower, which they said indicated that they must be better off.
In order to prevent any misunderstanding I am going to give the figures for gross income in 1950; this means the amount of cash income the farmers received. I am going to give it to the committee province by province. The first set of figures quoted on January 25, 1961 were figures of the total production of the farms in each province with incomes less than $1,200. The production includes the amount of food that goes to family living on the farm. The figures that I am going to give now are for the total cash income of farms, province by province. Therefore any province which was particularly proud of the fact that its percentage was less than that of another province may find these figures interesting. They are taken from the 1951 census and apply to the farms in 1950.
This is a table giving the percentage of farms with gross incomes below $1,200 in 1950; this is the way the farmers measure, by income, not by production:
Newfoundland	
88.8	per	centPrince Edward Island	
48.1	"Nova Scotia	
72New Brunswick	
69.7	"	"Quebec	
47.3	"	"Ontario	
29.3	"	"Manitoba	
28.7	"	"Saskatchewan	
26	"	"Alberta	
29.6	"	"British Columbia	
54.5	"	"
That is an average for all Canada of 37.9 per cent in that wonderfully prosperous period of 1950. Thirty seven per cent of our farmers in that period had a gross income of less than $1,200 a year. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that with respect to the type of program we have outlined in general, this table alone is sufficient evidence to warrant the support of this resolution by all hon. members.


Mr. Racine:: May I ask a question? Is the minister in a position to tell the committee whether he expects those new regulations to take effect before the end of 1961?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The timetable I had in mind was to have the resolution introduced before Christmas. It failed to get that introduction. Following the introduction of the resolution in January I thought there would be a debate for two days. Then I intended to go to each of the provinces, see the provincial governments, sit down with them and work out the general framework for a series of agreements that I thought we should work toward, especially the areas where research has to be done before agreements can be completed. Following that meeting with the provinces there will be a time

Marginal Lands
lag, as they work on this, in some instances of three or four months. I want to discuss with them the terms of the bill to see if it is broad enough to cover the various types of agreements we have in mind. Second, I want to go to the farm organizations, who have been most co-operative and helpful over the years in suggesting this idea, show them the legislation and ask if they have any ideas for broadening it. I do not believe anyone would want to narrow it.
With these facts in mind, I could come back to the house-this is now March and I am three months behind schedule-by May 1 with a series of more definite ideas which will enable me to indicate to hon. members the type of agreement into which we will be entering. When hon. members see the bill they will notice a section that protects the right of parliament to express its will before agreements can be put into force. In answer to the question may I say that keeping in mind the amount of work that has to be done, I would hope there would be at least a pilot agreement in operation in almost every province before the end of the year.


Mr. Boulanger:: I should like to ask the minister a question. This resolution indicates a long range policy. Will he have a short range program to aid the farmer?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: During the last three years we have been putting forward these various aspects of a national agriculture program. First of all, there were the tremendous efforts that were made in connection with sales. Then, there was the stabilization of prices, which is in effect now and the results of which are showing in the income figures. The third item was crop insurance, and the fourth item was the farm credit corporation which commenced operations only last April. These items are designed to help the farmer immediately, and to help the 70 per cent who are on reasonably good land.
Our desire is to bridge the gap that exists between those farmers who are on reasonably good land and those farmers who are on poor land and cannot be helped by these measures or who are producing something that is in surplus. This measure would enable such farmers to take the land out of that type of production and put it into a new type of production. There is, therefore, an immediate effect there. The whole agricultural program is co-ordinated and long range. There is, however, no program for additional subsidies to take up the slack immediately, excepting those that are already in effect.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: I should like to ask the minister one question. However, before doing so I might say I am rather disap-

pointed, as I am sure all members will be, to hear that what we have before us represents the complete program of the government for meeting the problems that face agriculture.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Someone says "Nonsense". This term, then, would apply to the words of the minister because what I have said arises from his statement that this program, together with the others that have been proposed earlier, represent the complete program of the government with regard to agriculture.


Mr. Cardiff:: An absolutely false interpretation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend, who is a keen interpreter of words, says that is a false interpretation. I have just listened to the minister say that, and the minister does not quarrel with what I am saying.
I had been under the impression that the minister proposed, once this resolution was passed and the bill had been introduced, to .send the bill based on this resolution to the provincial governments as well as to certain national farm organizations. I believed that after these organizations had had an opportunity of examining the contents of the bill, the bill would then be given second reading. This procedure had suggested to my mind that the bill, in final form, would not be disposed of this session.
A few days ago the minister corrected that impression and said that was not his intention. I welcomed that statement. But can the minister now give the committee an assurance that the government will bring this legislation forward at the earliest possible moment so that there will be no delay and so that this measure can be enacted before the end of this session? Next Wednesday we shall be adjourning. Is it the intention of the government to bring this measure forward immediately, say tomorrow, so that there will be no delay in passing the resolution and obtaining first reading of the bill before the Easter recess?
If we wait until after the Easter recess, then of course the minister runs the risk of not being in a position to bring the legislation back into the house and dispose of it this session. Will the minister give us an assurance now that there is no doubt he proposes to take steps that will ensure the passage of this bill before this session of parliament terminates?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am sorry the hon. member was not in the committee when I gave the explanation. I made it quite clear that the timetable upon which I was working envisaged the passage of this resolution today.

As a matter of fact. I think there is good reason for believing it could go through today. Then I could take the bill to the farm organizations and the provincial governments and return with the bill to the house about May 1. The reason I set May 1 as the date was that I did not believe it would be humanly possible to have conferences with 10 provincial governments and several of the main farm organizations in any shorter time. I certainly should not like to bring this bill forward for second reading unless I had consulted with the provinces and the farm organizations.
I will give this assurance to the hon. member: unless there is a filibuster on the part of the opposition, the bill will be passed before the end of the session.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There will be no filibuster, but I am afraid you are delaying too long.


Mr. Michaud:: I should like to ask the minister a question. In his remarks he used the term "30 per cent" a couple of times. I was not clear what he meant by that term and I wonder if he would repeat the reference to 30 per cent of the population. Does that refer to the farm population affected by this measure?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: When I introduced the resolution, I presented a series of figures taken from the 1956 census. There was a tabulation of the farmers who had a production value per farm of $1,200 a year or less. The number of farmers who had this production value ran from 78 per cent in Newfoundland right down to 4 per cent in Saskatchewan and the total for the whole of Canada was 21 per cent, if I remember the final figure correctly.
Because of the fact that these figures were quoted widely across the country, and some provinces took delight in the fact that their percentage was, say, 9 per cent as opposed to that of another province which was 20 per cent, I thought I should pick a better year, namely 1950, and use cash income as the term of reference since most farmers use this term. It seems that 1950 was a better year financially than 1956, yet 37.9 per cent received $1,200 or less in that year. The figure I quoted on January 25 was 21 per cent, and this 30 per cent figure that I have been using is about halfway between the 38 per cent and 21 per cent. In numbers of farmers across Canada, this would represent about 120,000.


Mr. Best:: I want to speak about this measure that is before us today. First of all, I should like to congratulate the minister. He has received congratulations, of course, from
Marginal Lands
all across Canada and I think it has been stimulating to hear the commendation this resolution has received. The minister has read into the record the favourable comments on this resolution made by various newspapers and farm organizations across this country. This resolution, which is now being called by the name A.R.D.A. has been welcomed with optimism and confidence. I think that many of us will remember that the hon. member for Essex East criticized the Minister of Agriculture for his optimism during the agricultural debate about a week ago. I believe that the farmers across our country need optimism, understand it and welcome it. I suggest that forecasts of doom and gloom such as those made by the hon. member for Essex East will not be satisfactory to farmers and certainly are not what they want. I am certain that those farmers need a measure of optimism and confidence such as that expressed by the Minister of Agriculture.
This resolution is in several sections. One is to allow the Minister of Agriculture to enter into agreements with the provinces for alternative land uses, employment, and conservation practices. The second involves the payment to provinces of contributions toward these projects, if initiated. The third measure authorizes the minister to undertake research programs which might give assistance to the over-all plan. The fourth measure will establish advisory committees to co-ordinate research and the program itself, at various levels of government.
What briefly is this problem with which we are faced? It has been repeatedly stated by others and by the Minister of Agriculture when he brought it to our attention on January 25, 1961, that the problem is varied. The Minister of Agriculture mentioned certain figures in his statement of January 25, 1961. Those figures show that, according to the 1956 census, 21 per cent of the farmers in this country have farms which produce less than $1,200 worth of produce annually. Many sets of figures and statistics exist in this regard, but we are not happy about any of them. In the last three and a half to four years we have dealt with various specific measures in agriculture to aid this industry in Canada. Some of those measures are deficiency payments, aid to western farmers, and the outstandingly successful farm credit corporation which distributed a greatly increased amount of money under its authority. There have been other specific measures giving aid to different sectors of our agricultural economy, such as those for the fruit and vegetable growers. I am very happy indeed, as I am sure are many people across Canada about the Resources for Tomorrow conference to be held this autumn in Montreal. I feel that

Marginal Lands
this conference will be very stimulating and will have a favourable result.
It was stated by the Prime Minister some years ago that the specific measures for agriculture were to be followed by one which would be very basic and fundamental. It was stated that this would go to the roots of our agricultural economy and the roots of our problems which we inherited from the previous government. The measure now before us is optimistic and goes to the heart of the problem. Criticism has been raised by the agricultural critic of the opposition-I am confused as to whether he is No. 1 or No. 2 critic-some weeks ago regarding the long range aspect of this measure. At that time I felt that the hon. member for Essex East was just raising straw men and blowing them down in order to present some sort of objection to a measure with which he fundamentally agreed. I think he agreed with this measure because, if one glances through his speech, one finds that very little constructive criticism is brought forth.
The Prime Minister some time ago dealt with the intention of the government in bringing out the sort of measure we have before us today. As recorded at page 4345 of Hansard for August 30, 1958, he stated that various specific measures were needed and also a more general and basic measure to attack the agricultural problems with which we were faced.
Of course during the last few decades previous measures have been taken by this house directed to various sectors of this problem. I speak of measures such as the National Parks Act, the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, all of which to some extent have had a favourable effect on the various parts of the country. Although these measures were brought out, some of them by the previous government, at different times with the intent of solving this general problem, they are in many cases contradictory. They certainly are not co-ordinated as an over-all plan in an attempt to solve the basic and fundamental problems of agriculture in this country.
This problem as we see it is a varied one, as has been stated by many people and organizations, some of which I will mention in passing. They include the Agricultural Institute of Canada, an association of professional agriculturists and others. In the Nov-ember-December, 1960 publication of the A.I.C. we find comments regarding the technological revolution in agriculture and the need for basic solutions to the problems of the agricultural industry. In view of the

many different problems we of course must have many different solutions.
Land use in Canada is a matter which has come forcibly to public attention only recently. I think many of us have been surprised, in travelling overseas to various countries of Europe and Great Britain, by the tidiness of the farm lands. Those areas of course have been faced with different problems than we find here in Canada. We possess a large amount of agricultural land and we have been wasteful. Perhaps the tidiness of land overseas is accounted for by centuries of good husbandry. Our Canadian farmers are famous for livestock and in the production of various breeds and strains which have been exported to other countries of the world, but we are less famous indeed for our land use, and I think with justification. Farmers in Britain and northern Europe have solved their many difficulties over centuries by research in husbandry and, by the evolution of perfected techniques and meticulous care have preserved their lands for generations to come.
I feel that the resolution before us today is fundamentally addressed to another facet of the problem as well. I believe it is addressed to land, water and air-although air is not specifically mentioned as a national resource-that is our material resources. In addition this measure is directed to our human resources, to technological change, education and relocation, if desired by the people of various areas, something which is perhaps even more fundamental than is the problem of land use.
The difficulties which face our agricultural industry are common of course to the country south of us. These difficulties have been courageously stated by various leaders in this country. I should particularly like to commend the former minister of agriculture and other individuals, such as the minister of agriculture for the province of Ontario, who have recognized and courageously announced the difficulties facing this industry. To deny that these difficulties exist in the agricultural industry in various parts of this country is the same as denying that great industrial cities are faced with slum and rehabilitation problems, and it would be obviously incorrect to do so. These problems do exist and solutions must be found for them. Nevertheless in backward agricultural areas where the average annual income is low through a combination of reasons, such as climate, soil, lack of capital and markets, there is still a great attachment to the land. Perhaps through one or several generations of settlers and their dependents, these people have worked this land. They have grown to know each other and have developed a

community spirit. To say, as did the hon. member for Assiniboia, that this resolution means that these people are to be moved or taken off the land is to fail to recognize the human values, the human problems and the community problems which this government recognizes and which do exist.
I believe we intend through this measure to give voluntary inducements to farmers in various areas to take advantage of its provisions, through the various matters and results worked out with the provinces and perhaps the municipalities, whereby these people may help themselves. We have no such socialistic tendency, doctrine or intent to move vast numbers of people off various sections of the land. I am sure that is not the intent of the government.
The problem has been studied by various people and of course by many organizations throughout this country and indeed throughout the world. I have looked, as I am sure have many hon. members, at the interesting study of the scientific conference on conservation and utilization of resources of the United Nations at Lake Success, New York, in 1950. This conference received various papers on the world resources situation and made many comments on this aspect of the situation. For instance, they said that use of material resources increase in a geometrical fashion, that the problems we face with regard to oil, water, minerals and so forth, really jump by leaps and bounds and would come on us very fast in the future.
World population is a problem and an area which is not unrelated to the resolution with which we are concerned today, because the measures that this government or any government in Canada must take are of course related to our export markets and the need and demand for Canadian agricultural produce around the world. It appears that in many countries mechanization, for instance, is not necessarily an answer to a food shortage. Real utilization of the present large labour force in countries in Asia and perhaps Africa is the greater need.
We have a critical shortage of foods in various parts of the world. It may be that Canadian agriculture can fill the gap here, or it may be that certain means of transportation, or indeed of preservation of foods, improving their keeping qualities, and so forth, will have to be brought about before any tremendously increased demand for certain Canadian agricultural products can be achieved even in these areas which need them today.
This conference pointed out the great likelihood that the demand for forest resources and forest products would increase tremendously in the decades immediately ahead.
Marginal Lands
This is a good thing, because it is the intention of the minister and of the government to increase our output of forest products as a method of alternative land use. As well, the increase in community pastures, different crops, and so forth, is commendable.
The problems in agriculture have been set out in many publications. I have here the publication "Outlook on Agriculture" published by the Imperial Chemical Institute of Great Britain. Included in this publication are certain comments on a meeting at Cardiff of the British association for the advancement of science on September 5, 1960. The world food problem was studied by this body. As I say, this bears a relationship to Canada's agricultural program and the demand for our various commodities. We know, of course, that the number of farmers is decreasing each year in this country. On an average the figure has been approximately
10,000	less each year.
The committee of the other place on land use has studied problems and solutions put forward by a variety of witnesses. These very interesting documents provide perhaps as useful and as large a source of information in this field as any publication or series of publications in this country. Among the areas studied were the effects of the rural rehabilitation program in the United States. The problem in the United States is still present, but it has been attacked and a solution was begun a number of years ago. In its last volume, I believe, this committee studied the United States program to rehabilitate some of their people under the rural development program.
It was found that after about three years of operation the program was going ahead in some 200 counties and 30 states, and in Puerto Rico. For instance, in the United States some two million farms produce 90 per cent of the farm products, and about 2.7 million farms produce the remaining 10 per cent. This situation is perhaps not entirely analogous with what we have in Canada, but it shows that this problem is international in its nature and is not confined to our country.
The three main aims of the United States program were evidently to help those who wished to stay in farming to get the necessary tools, credit, information, and so forth, to widen farm opportunities of employment and to assist farming people to obtain better training and better health schemes. This program came into effect in June, 1956, when the needed legislative authority was granted by congress and the funds required by the federal government for the carrying out of the program were appropriate. It is interesting to note that the amount of money spent

Marginal Lands
in this program by the federal government in the United States was very low indeed. Appropriations specifically earmarked for the rural development program were $2 million in 1957 and $2.5 million in 1958. These are incredibly low amounts for the size of the country and the magnitude of the program.
The basic principle of this measure in the United States was the co-ordination and cooperation of self-help at many different levels, with municipalities, state governments, the federal government, the church, industries and every facet of the local economy playing some part.
This United States program has come under some criticism because of the speed with which action has been taken. For instance, the Eisenhower administration believed that this measure should be carried out at a certain pace, but the National Planning Association of the United States-and I am now quoting from the Christian Science Monitor of December 16, 1959-felt that much more massive federal aid would be necessary.
However, it would seem that however this program works out both in the United States and in Canada it is essential, no matter what proportion of funds comes from what level of government, to have intense co-ordination and co-operation from all levels of government, and indeed of the community. It will be seen, therefore, that the solution of this problem is complicated indeed. May I refer members to the report on land use by the Conservation Council of Ontario, the economic survey of eastern Ontario by the provincial department of economics, the Saskatchewan Royal Commission on Agriculture and rural life, and the Gordon report.
In concluding I should like to point out two or three specific examples of what has been happening in my own province of Ontario and across Canada. In our county of Halton we have parts of four river valley conservation authorities. There are some 20 odd of these authorities in the province of Ontario, and they are doing very successful work. They are at various stages and ages, but they are accomplishing work and focusing the attention of the public on the conservation of soil, land and water, and providing park areas, flood controls and many other benefits.
In our own county we have parts of the Credit Valley conservation authority, the Grand River conservation authority, the Sixteen Mile Creek authority and the Twelve Mile Creek authority. In such organizations as the Sixteen Mile Creek authority, the present chairman, Mr. Robert Marshall and the vice-chairman, Dr. Carl Martin are examples of pioneers and dedicated citizens playing their part in many river valley conservation authorities throughout Ontario.

I might say that in my own riding we have certain historic land masses. The escarpment runs north and south throughout my county. It is an unusual area, one which provides timber, the rising of streams, and a natural conservation area, and it is falling to our local conservation authorities to play some part not only in water conservation and reforestation, but in the preservation of historic and important sections such as the escarpment ridge for generations yet to come.
An interesting example comes from the Globe and Mail of Saturday, January 28, 1961. Here is an example of co-operation and self-help on the local level in Manitoba. I am reading a headline here: "Farmers, Business, Work Together". This was the Brandon area development association, formed to help farmers increase their income, find new markets in the Brandon area, raise the standard of their products and finally develop new industries allied to the district's agricultural enterprises. This is just the sort of local example set in recent months in Manitoba which is envisaged on a larger scale by the resolution before us today. This resolution, for its effectiveness and success, will be very dependent on local planning and the sort of action taken in Brandon, Manitoba.
I should like to mention certain specific recommendations before I sit down. It would seem-and of course, it is part of the resolution itself-that a co-ordinating group or committee between various federal departments involved in this over-all plan should be set up. I imagine this would be implicit in this measure when it is spelled out in more detail. I think the departments would include those of agriculture, forestry, health and welfare and trade and commerce. In order to have a co-ordinated over-all attack on the problem, such departments, and indeed others, would have to play their part. A joint federal-provincial committee for each province wishing to participate in the scheme would seem necessary at some stage. This matter of liaison within the federal government and between federal and provincial governments together, probably, with representation from municipalities and so forth, would seem most important.
I think-and I must stress this-that a thorough examination of financing and credit methods in connection with tree farms and reforestation would seem in order. Increased reforestation, to be more attractive and to be given incentive, might come from the expansion of existing facilities under the farm credit corporation or some new body might have to be set up to perform this function.

But in any case, if we are to make it attractive for people to go into this reforestation and tree farming business, further measures will be necessary.
I have spoken of the need for co-operation with the provinces, and perhaps this co-operation should first of all begin with specific areas. Perhaps pilot schemes or pilot areas will be necessary. It is difficult to know where to start in our country and it would be wise to select certain areas in a province which have expressed an interest in this scheme and to see how it goes there first of all.
I was interested in the speech made by the hon. member for Essex East the other day. I thought it was a little empty and windy but the hon. member did stumble on one specific matter in connection with land use surveys, and soil surveys but he failed to develop it fully.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I only had half an hour.


Charles Alexander (Sandy) Best: I thought this was a matter which should have been gone into in a greater degree. We should complete our soil surveys right across this country and, following that, there should be a land use survey such as that which was done in Britain by Professor Dudley Stamp and which, of course, took many years. This seems to me a basic prelude to the implementation of any scheme envisaged by the resolution before us.
On another specific question, I think when we go into reforestation and tree planning we must remedy any deficiencies which now exist in our tree breeding and seedling production. We all know that within white pine or red pine seedlings, for example, there can be as great a variation as there is between a good and bad example of any one breed of livestock. It is evident that although a good deal of breeding and research has been done in the past, something in the nature of a crash program may be needed in order to produce more vigorous and fast growing tree seedlings for the benefit of farmers entering upon these schemes.
I have mentioned the hon. member for Essex East. I should like to comment briefly on the hon. member for Assiniboia who on January 25 made some arguments about this measure. He thought that getting farm products to market was the imperative matter and that support prices, priority prices and so forth were much more important, and that this resolution was only a sideshow. I submit that this is the sort of basic measure for which Canadian agriculture has been looking. It is interesting to examine what might be the result of the policy of the hon. member for Assiniboia in advocating
Marginal Lanas
high support prices, more money and greater security for farmers in respect of specific commodities.
There are only two results which one can expect from his policy, in my opinion, and the hon. member does not seem to have spelled them out to farmers as he should. One is that we shall have disastrous overproduction with the consequence that the government will step in to market the goods or to play some part which farmers do really not want. The second thing which may be implicit in high support prices is severe production controls. Why does the leader of the C.C.F. group in this house not mention this when he talks to Canadian farmers? Severe production control limiting each farmer to a certain specific unit of production would be necessary. This does not go with Canadian agriculture in general and I am sure Canadian farmers would not be happy with this sort of procedure.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the minister's remarks this afternoon and his criticism of the opposition for not having passed the resolution some time ago. Is this not a problem in respect of all legislation? The house leader appears to have had to juggle this resolution from time to time. If the minister were to stay within the call of the House of Commons we could have proceeded with this in a more orderly fashion. If we did not jump around from month to month with respect to this resolution it would eventually pass. If we are accused of prolonging the discussion, let it be remembered that much confusion could be eliminated if the Minister of Agriculture would pursue one piece of legislation to the end before starting half a dozen other things.
We must view this measure through the eye of the farmer. The farmer will remember the Conservative vision of a few years ago on which the Conservative party campaigned. The farmer will remember that this same hon. gentleman, the present Minister of Agriculture, put before the Canadian people the vision of northern development. He spoke of glorified solutions to the problems of developing the north. He spoke of a city encased in a bubble of glass on the very rim of the Arctic circle. There was no truth or sincerity in that vision. It has not come to pass nor will it do so for a long time.
Some of the minister's suggestions concerning solutions for the problems of agriculture are just as much a pipe dream and a vision as were his suggestions regarding northern development on which the Conservative party campaigned not long ago.
Hon. members of the C.C.F. have always been interested in the advantageous use of agricultural lands. We and all farmers know

Marginal Lands
that much of the land in Canada should never have been put into agricultural production because of unsuitability. It was cleared and developed for agricultural purposes because there was no control or regulation of land development and no advice was given concerning the suitability of land for agricultural use.
Changed conditions have come about. We all know that the accessibility provided by our waterways and transportation systems was a feature in the development and exploitation of some land. It is a tragedy that, because of lack of government supervision and control, much land which should have been left in forest production has been wastefully exploited. This is true of many parts of the Ottawa valley, my own area and parts of northern Manitoba and of other provinces. The government should have given leadership in this regard; and because of our failure to provide leadership in the past we perhaps deserve what has taken place. In my area it is now possible to receive provincial government assistance in putting land into production but the cost of putting such land into production is more than the land would ever be worth.
It is no solution to agricultural problems for the government to say it has a vision of trees growing throughout Canada on land not suitable for agricultural production. The results envisaged by the government will not come about overnight for the simple reason that many people who now depend on revenue from woodlots are not receiving any more income from land put to this use than they would receive if the land were devoted to any other type of agricultural production. In many cases such farmers fall into the category of the 29 per cent who receive less than $1,200, to which group the minister referred this afternoon.
The government has referred to this wonderful solution to agricultural problems but it has taken a strange position. The government has said in effect: "We have a wonderful solution but let us not do anything about it; we will let the provinces do something about it. Let them decide what they will do and we will assist them put it into effect". This government does not have half the guts, vision and authority of the former government which did not have those qualities in too large proportion either. The Liberal administration enacted the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act relating to various phases of agricultural development including community pastures. That government did not ask the farmers, municipalities or provincial governments to contribute to the
fMr. Peters.]
program. That government gave something to agriculture from the federal purse through this program.
In the annual report of the Canadian Department of Agriculture for the year ended March 31, 1960, we read that there are now 64 operating pastures including a total of 1,814,544 acres. By agreement with Saskatchewan and Manitoba, large areas of land unsuitable for cereal crop production are leased to the federal government for the establishment of pasture facilities. Reference is made to individual pastures but little would be gained by such detailed reference here. It is indicated that the number of pasture patrons increased by 496 with 6,331 farmers and ranchers making use of the pastures in the 1959-60 season. Each patron pays a certain amount to the federal government to pasture a certain number of cattle or other animals on the community pasture. The former government inaugurated this program to assist western farmers and develop pasture.
The report also indicates that eight construction and three water development crews carried out an extensive construction and maintenance program on the pastures. In addition to 80 maintenance jobs, the water development crews erected 32 new windmills, dug 38 wells and established 21 dams, 31 dugouts and 16 springs. It is also indicated that regrassing, the construction of stockwatering facilities and irrigation development were the main types of work undertaken in the open plains pastures during 1959; 11,030 acres were regrassed, 14 dug-outs and 19 dams were constructed, and further irrigation development was carried out on eight pasture irrigation projects in southwestern Saskatchewan.
The former federal government inaugurated this program and did not expect the municipalities or farmers to take the initiative. In view of the fact that the present government has not altered the program one may conclude that, on the basis of this government's philosophy, it is not opposed to programs of this nature. It is therefore difficult to understand why the government expects the municipalities, provinces and farmers to take the initiative in respect of the program dealt with in the present resolution.
Let us take an example of what the present government has done. It introduced crop insurance legislation. Under this legislation what did the federal government give to the farmer? It donated 20 per cent of the cost of the program and the balance must be provided by the provinces, municipalities and the farmers. We need badly what is envisaged in the present resolution but we should tell

the farmer he is not going to get much out of this measure. He is going to have to pay for it. He is not going to get any particular assistance from Ottawa. Therefore, I suggest right now we can guarantee that the federal government will probably pay the administration costs of this program but the provinces, the municipalities and the farmers themselves will have to pay a great share of the cost. This is not what should be done. The government should not say, "We want to talk to the provinces and see what they are going to do." The federal government should go out and say, "This is what we will do, and we will do it for any province, any farmer, or any municipality that wishes to meet the terms of the program that we will present to them."
This reutilization of submarginal land through agricultural reforestation is not something that will solve the unemployment problem. If under the program farm land is purchased and the farmer is removed from the land we shall eliminate that farm land from agricultural production and put it into forest production. That will take the farmer oil the land, but it will put him into the evergrowing and increasing ranks of the unemployed. It will bring about two things. It will take the farm out of agricultural production and it will take the farmer out of farming and put him into the ranks of the unemployed. From the short range point of view, this program will not do anything to solve the problem of agriculture or to help the Canadian farmers, particularly the 37 per cent whose average income is less than $1,200. This is particularly true of the next three, four or five years.
May I say I think the minister has not been completely honest in his presentation of this program. I do hasten to congratulate him on having the foresight to assist in two things. One is the setting up of the Department of Forestry. Certainly he is a very influential member of the cabinet, and I think this is going to have a great influence on agriculture. The second is the bringing forward of this particular program, even though I do not think he has shown very much courage because he has not introduced it on a national scale. Instead, he is asking the provinces and the municipalities to do all the initial implementing of the program, with government assistance. He has shown some leadership in this field.
In the winter works program the Department of Labour has asked the municipalities and the provincial governments to do the major share of the work. This is also true of the tax agreements. The federal government has been willing to assist, but it has never been willing to give the initial leader-
Marginal Lands
ship in these things. As to what can be accomplished-and this is not new-I hold in my hand an extract from the Country Guide, which was published last month, I think. There is an article headed:
Managed woodlots earn $15 per acre.
New Brunswick's tree farm program has turned wood into the province's most popular farm cash crop.
The article goes on to talk about a man who has assisted in the operation in New Brunswick. As I say, this program is not new; it has been going on in the province of New Brunswick for some time. I quote from the article written by Don Baron. He is speaking about John Torunski of the University of New Brunswick forestry extension service, and he says:
When he joined the program, he was visited by John Torunski of the University of New Brunswick forest extension service. Torunski is a young man who knows forests and trees thoroughly. He was raised in Quebec and graduated in forestry from the University of New Brunswick. He has studied woodlot management practices in Europe (where certain species of wood are worth up to $300 per cord) and in several provinces across Canada. He is a pioneer in his own way, preaching the gospel of woodlot management with all the zeal any agricultural representative ever brought to farm extension work.
Torunski sees woodlots as an ideal farm cash crop. "Once a well managed woodlot in New Brunswick is in production, it can produce over a cord of wood per acre, worth $10 to $15 annually,'' he says. "One man can look after 100 acres and do the work himself."
He visited a particular farm and discussed the program with the farmer. The article goes on to say:
On this visit, he also inquired about Dunphy's farm program, because the woodlot and the farm must complement each other if they are to be successful. He talked over long term goals with Dunphy.
The article goes on:
"No two woodlots are the same," Torunski explains, "so no two management plans can be the same either."
I shall leave out a paragraph or so:
Commenting on his province's tree farm program, New Brunswick's deputy minister of agriculture, Reg. Gilbert, who played a big part in its success, says that woodlots offer the best hope for many farmers to boost their income. "Woodlots are the most overlooked cash crop I know of," he says. "The average woodlot produces only one quarter of a cord of wood per year-yet it can be made to produce several times that much."
Mr. Chairman, I will not quote any further from this article. I recommend that every hon. member read it and the recommendations which are included in it. They are brief and I should like to read them:
Recommended Woodlot Practices
Walk through every area in the woodlot at least once every 10 years to see what is there. Harvest trees that are ready, especially overmature and dying ones.

Marginal Lands
When working through an area, cut down dead trees as well as those severely infected by disease, even if they can't be sold.
Build a good road system through the woodlot, to save time hauling out wood. Roads should be 12 or 13 feet wide to carry trucks.
Get out and find a market for your trees. Take a few days every year to find out what kind of wood is selling and who wants to buy.
Consider leaving healthy trees standing for a few years, if the market for such species is not good. Markets change quickly, and such trees could be in demand in a few years.
I believe this is the program that has been put into effect. I am sure the minister is familiar with it and has given some consideration to it.
Previous speakers have mentioned that this measure is not going to do anything for the farmers. This article indicates that for a farm to be successful it must be 500 or 600 acres in extent. This program is going to mean that farmers will have to be moved from one area to another, and this can be done successfully. The farmers who remain will be integrated into a woodlot operation and other types of agricultural production. If this program is to be successful it will have to be supplemented with other types of agricultural operations. This type of development is seasonal and a part-time operation in many instances, and it is meant to supplement other types of farm income.
The hon. member for Halton who just took his seat pointed out that this should not be done. He might be interested to know that under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, in 1959, the federal government carried out a rehabilitation program. I shall read from the annual report to the minister, which I recommend to the hon. member:
Where resettlement was necessary to rehabilitate farm families, farmers were given assistance in moving to irrigated land in Alberta. During 1959, three Saskatchewan farm families were moved to the Hays district of the Bow river project, completing the present phase of the resettlement program. There are now 162 farm families resettled on this project.
I would presume the reason they are being settled there is that the federal government purchased the land and developed it. They are now in a position to say that the land is resettled and production has begun.
This will also have to take place in Ontario, Mr. Chairman. Many of our farmers own farms of 160 acres, with 20 or 30 acres cleared, and they are trying to earn a living from the bush operations as well as from general farm production. These farmers are being penalized as a result of their inability to move from these farms and go into areas where other forms of agriculture are possible. Some incentive to move from such areas will be provided by this legislation. I would suggest that the incentive take the form of expropria-

tion of the farm so the farmer could be paid for that land and the land could be brought under government control. At least we would then be able to plant trees and eventually bring the land into some type of production.
The situation to which I have referred does not apply to those areas in which wood-lot operations are now in effect. The province of Quebec has been doing this type of work for years. The agriculture representatives in that province have gone to the farmers and advised them about these operations. However, in Ontario it will be necessary for the federal Department of Agriculture to set up experts in woodlot operations who will be able to give the farmers advice in silviculture and pest control and other forms of assistance in connection with these operations. This will have to be done on a federal basis. No longer will it be necessary to request the government of a province to undertake such a program, even with federal assistance.
There is another form of assistance that can be given, and that is in connection with the growing of Christmas trees. In 1957 Canada produced 12 million trees which were exported to the United States. These trees had a total value of $6,240,000 or an average of 52 cents per tree. Consumption in the United States had a total value of something over $45 million. It seems to me that many areas of Canada are in a good natural position to take advantage of this market for trees. However, this form of assistance will not be given by merely telling the farmers they can plant as many trees as they like because the trees will be supplied free. The December issue of the "C-I-L Oval" contains an article outlining the methods to be followed in planting these trees and in running such a plantation. The article states:
Under the plantation method, trees are planted in rows six feet apart, that is approximately 1200 trees to the acre, and they are ready for harvesting when they reach a height of six or seven feet. However, special types of trees must be chosen for growing in this manner.
The article then goes on to outline the different types of trees that should be used.
Many of the farmers in northern Ontario, Mr. Chairman, are now engaged in the business of pulpwood production. The hon. member for Halton said that we did not need government controlled marketing boards. He said we did not need government interest in this particular aspect of the problem. Let me tell him that if the government is not interested in this aspect of the matter I would strongly advise the farmer to stay out of pulp-wood production because he is not getting anywhere near the value of his production. The manager of one of the larger paper companies in Canada said that it was costing his

company $40 per cord for pulpwood delivered to the door of the mill from the company's limits. At the same time the farmers in the surrounding area were being paid only $12 to $18 per cord for delivering their pulpwood to the door of that same mill. It seems to me that before we ask the farmer to take part in this large reforestation program we should be able to assure the farmer that he is going to receive a fair price for his products. Perhaps the farmer should be given some type of cooperative organization through which the producers would be able to get together and assure themselves of a much better price for their products than they are receiving now.
I have always been told how backward Ontario was in the development of agriculture. Perhaps the politicians have been saying this. I was surprised, therefore, to find that, according to the figures the minister quoted a while ago, 47 per cent of the farmers in Quebec received less than $1,200 a year as compared with 29 per cent of Ontario. These figures would indicate to us that the farmers in Quebec were not getting a very fair deal either. I am told that the province of Quebec has established government boards which market the pulpwood for the farmers. As a result of this procedure the farmers have been receiving as high as $28 per cord for their pulpwood in the area of Quebec which is just across from my riding. This price should be compared with the $12 to $18 per cord received by the farmers in northern Ontario.
It is all very well, Mr. Chairman, to say that this really does not matter and that this is not a field into which the federal government should enter. This resolution, however, does something for which we have been asking for a long time. This program can be advantageous to the farmer. I feel it is the responsibility of the federal government to do something to ensure the farmer of a market which will give him a reasonable reward for his effort in producing his crops. The minister will have to give consideration, first of all, to the need for the extension of services to woodlot operators. At the moment we have no federal agricultural representatives engaged in this type of educational program. We need agriculture representatives who will go around to the farms to discuss problems that will arise in connection with these operations, much as the provincial agriculture representatives do. The provincial representatives have set an example which the federal government will have to consider.
I believe the minister will have to reorganize his department. I understand the deputy minister will be moved very shortly
Marginal Lands
and there will be a shake-up in the department that will permit the reorganization of that department. This reorganization should be done bearing in mind some of the better things that have happened in the provincial departments.
In addition, I believe that we need to supplement this reforestation program with a program for agricultural production. This is not a short term program; it is not something that will solve the problems of agriculture in Canada tomorrow or even 10 years or 15 years from now. The reforestation program has to be supplementary to good farm practices in other fields of endeavour. It could be supplementary to dairy production, for instance. It can supplement all the other forms of agriculture that farmers are now depending on. This can be an additional form of cash support. If we hold out the idea to farmers that they are going to be able to combine their farms with their neighbour's farm under one woodlot and make a living next year, I think we are misleading them.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Chairman, in introducing this resolution in the house on January 26 last the Minister of Agriculture detailed three types of operations which would be the basis on which the federal government, in co-operation with provincial governments, hopes to make agricultural rehabilitation and development a reality. Briefly they are projects for the alternative uses of land which are presently classified as marginal or of low productivity; projects for the development of income and employment opportunities for rural agricultural areas; and projects for the development and conservation of the water and soil resources of Canada.
This is just another step forward in the government's agricultural program as enunciated by the Prime Minister in 1958. Personally I believe this is a very important part of that program and I believe this view is shared by most hon. members in this house, because we are beginning to realize that rural development and conservation is one phase of our national life that we Canadians have been prone to disregard, even though it involves our most important national resources of soil and water.
Though we consider ourselves as a highly developed nation, with the knowledge and the techniques available to a modern society we continue to neglect to a great extent the lessons learned from past civilizations which refused to recognize the impact that

Marginal Lands
neglect and exploitation of these two resources had on their survival. There was some excuse, perhaps, in the early settlement of the nation for cutting down some of our magnificent forests in order to populate our vast country, or for putting to the plow thousands of acres of natural pasture-land in the scramble to settle our western plains. There is no excuse for continuing this practice in this enlightened age, or for neglecting any opportunity to restore nature's cover to our natural forest and grass areas. The incidence of flooding has been rising notably in the past decade, and many of our fertile valleys, and even some of our industrial areas, are subject to recurrent floods because the natural cover, which in the past had slowed up the melting of the snow in the spring break-ups, has over the years been destroyed.
As important as the soil is to our society, water is probably the most abundant and and widely distributed natural resource throughout the world. Used intelligently, these two great resources complement one another to the greatest benefit of mankind. But in spite of the great abundance of water and our absolute dependence on it for survival, it is today our most wasted, most polluted, and most generally abused natural resource. Fortunately it cannot be destroyed. We cannot destroy it, but that does not mean that we do not have the responsibility to protect, control and conserve it.
One of our western farm papers, the Manitoba Co-operator, described the need for conservation in a recent editorial entitled "Conservation Need Grows". This article reads in part as follows:
The need for soil, water and forest conservation is becoming more and more apparent each year, and is one of the major responsibilities facing the people today. A very impressive amount of work on conservation projects has been done and is being done, but far too many do not realize the ever growing importance of such undertakings. The work is not only for the practical and technical men who are engaged in the various conservation projects, but must receive wholehearted support from people in all walks of life. All must fully grasp the importance of such undertakings to arrest deterioration of soil, water and forest resources. They must realize a nation lives off the land, and play their part by helping to publicize and urge greater efforts in conservation work.
The article continues briefly as follows:
History has long revealed that the wealth of any nation deteriorates with its soil. Once fertile lands along the Mediterranean coast of northern Africa are now desert wastes. Lebanon's cedars went with the soil. Eroding soil is reducing productive areas in many sections of Africa. Australia's black blizzards in the war years were comparable with those that swept out the dust bowls of the south west United States and western Canada in the drought years of the disastrous 30's. It is difficult for people in Canada, particularly those who did not experience the 30's, to visualize such scenes in

this country for future generations, as those that existed in once productive areas now laid waste in other parts of the world. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that soil deterioration in particular in many parts of Canada, is now occurring at a rapid pace. The area of productivity can diminish speedily.
Hon. members will know, of course, that with the exception of our navigable streams, water is a provincial resource, the prime responsibility of the provinces. But, if we are to meet this problem of conservation of our land and water resources as it applies to rural development and diversification of industry, it must be a co-ordinated effort of all levels of government, municipal, provincial and federal and with the federal government, with agencies set up under this act, and perhaps in the western provinces through prairie farm rehabilitation, supplying advice, technical and financial assistance to provincial and local administrations.
In the province of Manitoba, though we have abundant supplies of water, the larger portion of it is in the northern half of the province, remote from the major concentration of our population. Even in the case of the relatively smaller bodies of water in the southern more populous areas, we quite often find the most likely source of water many miles from the desired point of use. Owing to our geographical location and climatic cycles, we have been accustomed to receiving our natural water in varying rates and volumes, both annually and over cycles of years. As an example, the Assiniboine river, one of our major but typical southern streams, can have as much as 35 per cent to 40 per cent of the total annual flow pass a given point on the river in a single month in the break-up period. It also has had as little as 1 per cent pass the same point in the single month of February. Also during the five-year period 1952 to 1957 over seven times the volume of water flowed through this river as flowed in the same length of time between 1936 and 1941. The same situation can be said to prevail on the Souris, the Pembina and other lesser streams. Thus under natural conditions we have floods in the spring and low water, or perhaps no flow of water, during the fall and winter.
As our population increases it is becoming increasingly more difficult, under those conditions, to provide modern sewerage facilities in our rural towns even though recent developments in disposal systems such as lagoons have made it financially possible to dispose of our sewage and industrial wastes without polluting our natural streams. This situation also makes it difficult, or almost impossible, for our rural communities to take advantage of any industrial development, in spite of the fact that there is no lack of

other facilities such as power, roads, transportation, communications, excellent schools and hospitals, and a potential labour force. With only one sixth of our urban population enjoying proper sewerage facilities, a long step forward in correcting this situation was made in the recent budget when funds were made available toward helping finance sewerage installations and proper disposal systems.
I submit that it is of equal or even greater importance that the federal government, in co-operation with our provincial and municipal governments, impound our flood waters, control our streams and provide reservoirs for sewage, industrial development and recreation. Owing to Manitoba's topography in relation to other parts of the continent, water flows into that province from Ontario on the east; from Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota and Minnesota on the south; and from Saskatchewan and Alberta on the west. All this water is on its way to Hudson's bay and the Atlantic ocean.
Since almost all Manitoba's flood control and water conservation projects involve either interprovincial or international waters, participation in these projects involves all levels of government. The federal government has participated with the provinces in a hydrometric service measuring and recording stream flows and lake levels. This is done in order accurately to determine actual water resources and so that watershed development programs and works can be properly planned and designed.
The federal government has also assisted rural development and rehabilitation through the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, in constructing small agricultural dams and dug-outs and in the development of community pastures. I would hope that under this new rural development scheme this phase of development will be continued and expanded to include dams for industrial and recreational purposes for our smaller rural centres.
The rural areas are now requiring water in increasing volume for town supply, for diversification and production through irrigation of crops that would decrease the acreage sown to cereal grains, for food processing, industrial plants and many other purposes. Without it, diversification of industry will remain only a dream to be realized some day in the distant future. Without adequate water supplies and proper control of this important resource, rural development and conservation will be a slow process indeed.
A recent economic analysis made for the Manitoba government, covering south central Manitoba, sets out in detail the agricultural and industrial potential of that region, 90205-6-207
Marginal Lands
as well as recommendations for its development. The 104 page report is entitled "Economic Survey, South Central Manitoba" and is, I believe the first comprehensive survey of its kind made in Canada.
Since it is relevant to the subject under discussion, I should like to quote briefly from the document as it relates to the industrial development, agricultural potential and water conservation for the area. The report states:
Analysis of the productive capacity of south central Manitoba indicates considerable increase in industrial development is possible. Compiled data indicates that the products of increased economic activity are marketable. There is every indication that the people of the region desire such development. It is therefore recommended that the several communities within the region, working individually and in co-operation with one another and with the provincial and federal governments, embark upon a co-ordinated development program.
Such a program will have as its goals the increase of primary agricultural production, the increase of manufacturing and processing, and the orderly economic and physical assimilation of increased population and physical facilities. This, in turn, will require improved patterns of land use, improved and developed conservation and use of the water resources of the area, improved social and administrative organization, and improved urban land use planning.
Feasibility studies of irrigation in Manitoba are now under way. In some areas, especially along the banks of the Red and Assiniboine rivers, some irrigation has been practised successfully. Experiments at the Morden experimental farm have similarly demonstrated satisfactory results from irrigation. Producers of canning crops in the south central region have suffered some drought losses and canners have been somewhat disturbed by quality fluctuations caused by temporary rainfall shortages. As a result considerable interest has been stimulated in the possibility of supplemental irrigation for certain areas of Manitoba, most of which lie within the south central region.
The Pembina triangle-Red river district presently suffers from a shortage of water for domestic, municipal, industrial and agricultural use. Even as late as last week a disastrous fire in the town of Winkler, one of the growing industrial towns of the area, swept through a good part of the main business section. Though three or four fire engines from neighbouring areas came to help the Winkler fire service, they ran out of water-they were pumping from the artesian wells-and the result was that instead of the fire being confined to one or two buildings the whole of one side of Main street was practically burned down.

Marginal Lands
The report to which I have referred goes on to state:
It is anticipated that between 6,000 and 10,000 acre feet per year of water in excess of present use will be required by 19B1 for domestic, municipal and industrial water supplies. During the same period, a demand for water for irrigation may be created. The engineering feasibility of conservation of the waters of the Pembina river has been established, and water from this source would be adequate to meet the anticipated demands. If these demands are not met. the economic development of the Pembina triangle area will be impeded. Control and conservation of the waters of the Boyne river are essential to the development of the town of Carman in the surrounding community.
Should large demands develop at Carman for water to be used either for industrial or agricultural purposes, a proposal has been made to divert water from the Assiniboine river into the headwaters of the Boyne. Further on, the survey states:
The possibility exists of the development of a major tourist resort in the Spruce woods forest area north of Holland, Manitoba, if the proposed dam on the Assiniboine river is constructed.
In summary, the survey indicates that if the proposed development of water resources is carried out the area can expect a population increase of 50 per cent in 20 years and the establishment of at least 40 new industries.
I would respectfully submit to the minister and the government that the P.F.R.A. administration or an agency established under the present measure be given an active role in assisting provincial and local governments in making available to our rural areas adequate supplies of water together with a proper system of flood control. Many of these projects would be financially self-liquidating and though beyond the immediate resources of the communities directly concerned would become a tangible national asset. The intangibles would be in human betterment.
The success of any rural development program depends more than anything else on what we do with our two greatest resources, soil and water. Our hopes for the success of such a program is the recognition by the leaders in our rural areas of its importance. They are looking to all levels of government for co-operation, assistance and guidance in its fullest development. This measure recognizes the importance of conservation to our national well-being and gives us an opportunity to face up to the very urgent problem of rural rehabilitation. It should provide us with the incentive to nurture our natural resources not only for our own advantage but for the benefit of future generations.
In the interests of our national well-being, I hope that with the passage of the bill based on this resolution these objectives can be realized.


Hazen Robert Argue: We listened to the minister when the resolution was first debated on January 25. We listened to him today, and as far as I can tell he has yet to divulge the main features of the bill which will follow the passage of this resolution.
There is a need-and no one has disputed it-for a redevelopment program for agriculture in Canada. The minister has emphasized-correctly, I think-that there are large parts of the agriculture industry which live at a subsistence level. I submit that this particular legislation will do very little as far as they are concerned. It is a long term measure. It may result in the long run in an improvement of the incomes of people in the lower brackets but I suggest the main reason why this may be accomplished is that the government will succeed in what is the unstated purpose of this resolution, namely moving a large proportion of these people off the farms. They are being squeezed off in the ordinary course of events. Probably this measure will accelerate the movement of farmers from the farms because it is designed to bring about more economic units and that in turn will mean a smaller farm population.
Before the resolution passes I should like to ask the minister whether he will give us some idea as to what proportion of the moneys involved will be paid by the federal government. I think that is a fair question. I think it should be answered. I think the committee has a right to know before this motion passes at least the general range of contributions which the federal government is prepared to make.
Under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act which was passed some 25 years ago for precisely this purpose, as far as the tremendous development of community pastures is concerned, almost the total cost has been paid by the federal government. We wonder whether the present measure will mean the removal by the government of this kind of proportionate payment. I express the hope and I make the request that the government will do much better under this scheme than it did under crop insurance, because unless the federal government is prepared to pay more than 20 per cent this will be in a large degree a window-dressing measure designed from the beginning to have very rough going. I hope this is not another instance of the federal government trying to slough off a substantial part of its responsibility on to the provincial and municipal governments.
I think it is an affront to parliament for the minister not to give us this kind of information. He wants us to pass this motion, so he tells us, and then he wants to go carpet-bagging across the country talking to the ministers of agriculture and working out

some kind of formula or scheme. Then, presumably, he is going to put this into a bill and ask parliament to approve it. I think the minister owes it to the committee to tell us at least in general terms what he hopes to put before the provincial governments.
I think this matter has not been handled in the best possible way. I think the government's method of handling the crop insurance scheme was the worst possible way, because, before they had discussed it with the provinces at all, they brought in a measure and said to the provinces, "If you want to cooperate you can do so". It is not a measure which has done very much to aid in the field of general crop failure protection. The fact of the matter is that a very small proportion of farmers qualify to come under that scheme. One of the main reasons for that is that the federal government is bearing such a tiny proportion of the cost of the scheme, namely 50 per cent of the administrative cost and 20 per cent of the premium, but not even 20 per cent of the losses or 20 per cent of the liabilities. So I ask the minister if he will tell us whether the government is going to do better under this program than they have done in connection with crop insurance.
Another thing I should like to hear from the minister is this, and I am sure he will be able to answer this question. I want to know whether this measure will in any way supplant the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. I wish to know whether the community pastures will be maintained in future as they are now. I also wish to know whether the stock watering schemes and the building of dugouts and stock watering dams will be continued under that act. I ask those questions for what I think is a good reason. Under the legislation to which I have referred the federal government has assumed the major responsibility. The provincial governments initially provided the land by one means or another. In some cases the municipalities provided the land or the farmers provided it by exchanging land for certain other land.
The federal government set up the pasture scheme, put in the fences and seeded some of the land to grass. The whole scheme is now operating under the federal government. It is operated very much like a crown corporation. The scheme may not be entirely self-liquidating and may not recover all its costs but certainly the major part of the expenses are covered by revenue.
I have in my hand the report of the prairie farm rehabilitation branch of the Department of Agriculture for 1958-59. On page 80 it sets out that in 1958-59 there was an area of 1.8 million acres in pasture. The total construction cost had been $5.5 million. There were carried some 117,332 units of livestock.
90205-6-207i
Marginal Lands
One unit of livestock is defined as one head of cattle, one horse or five sheep. It is stated that the average charge to farmers per unit of livestock was $4.64. This is a good scheme and the farmers have supported it. I hope it will be maintained intact and will not be interfered with by the program under discussion.
I do not wish to be unfair but we must keep in mind that the government has attacked some other crown operations. The Canadian wheat board has been attacked by the feed mill policy of the government. Trans-Canada Air Lines has been attacked by the government allowing Canadian Pacific Air Lines to move in on some of their flights. There is a report that the government is considering ways and means of making it more difficult for Eldorado to operate. Rumours persist-and they are not denied in this chamber-that the government has not yet defined its policy so far as the successful operation of Polymer Corporation is concerned.
I am expressing the hope that nothing will be done by the minister to interfere with the good work of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. I ask him again to give the committee some information on the points I have raised.
I also wish to have the following information before the resolution is passed. I want to know the minister's estimate of the cost of this measure within the coming fiscal year and I should like him to give a forecast of the cost for the years ahead if he can make that projection.
It has been reported in the press and elsewhere that the minister is much disappointed about the amount of money he expects to get for this measure, that he is not going to get large sums of money, that not much money will be put into the scheme. The minister at this time should be able to give us some idea of the amount of money that will be forthcoming by projection in the next year or so under this measure.
When we pass a resolution preceding a money bill we do so under a practice that has grown up because it has been felt necessary for the government, before asking for such a vote, to give the committee some indication of the amount of money involved. This is a money resolution. The minister has said little or nothing about the question of cost. Before the resolution is carried I hope he will give the committee some information on the points I have raised.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, as a quick answer to the points raised by the hon. member for Assiniboia let me say this. In answer to the first question about the amount of money that will be put into these proposals by the federal government, let me first point out that there is a great variety of

Marginal Lands
agreements envisaged between the federal government and each of the provincial governments.
As I have made clear in the past, both governments I know will be happy under some of these agreements to co-operate in putting into effect many of these schemes which are entirely self-liquidating. An example of that would be community pastures where the operating expenses are met by the farmers themselves. The farmers like to carry their own load if they are able to do so.
Under another type of scheme for rural development we can refer to the experience in the United States. Neither level of government put in any money or made any contribution beyond that of professional advice and research efforts that went into helping a local development group implement ideas for their self-help programs.
With respect to the alternative land use part of the program where heavy costs are envisaged, this will depend almost entirely on the rapidity with which the provinces wish to push this program. Other factors to be considered are the necessary research that will have to be undertaken and the question of assessing the market possibilities for various alternative uses for the land. All these questions will decide the cost-sharing arrangement between the two governments.
As for the physical projects referred to in the third part of the resolution, I think the usual expectation here is that it will be on a 50-50 basis. Let me read to the committee the recommendation of the minister of agriculture of the province of Saskatchewan, Hon. I. C. Nollet, who gave evidence before the special committee of the Senate on land use in Canada on May 6 and 7, 1959. This may be found at page 218 of the report of that committee. In giving evidence, Mr. Nollet said:
It is suggested that as a basic principle of soil and water conservation programs, the general approach should be on a shared cost or earned assistance basis for the whole cost of a completed project including maintenance in succeeding years.
In our opinion, the federal-provincial agreements now in effect for the construction of the trans-Canada highway provide a form of inter-governmental agreement which could be the general basis for agreements contemplated under the legislation and policy we recommend.
It is also respectfully suggested that a proper role for the senior government would involve mainly:
1.	Provision of financial assistance in connection with agreed upon projects, on an approved basis.
2.	Making top level technical and professional advisors and consultants available, as requested by the province.
This, in essence, is the type of financial agreement I think we may expect, as put forward by the minister of agriculture of the province of Saskatchewan.

The second point raised concerned community pastures, dugouts, et cetera. I do not think there is any question about this. In the alternative land use portion, this program has as its purpose not only the carrying out of the present program under P.F.R.A. but also the carrying out of a program which will accomplish as much in the next two or three years as was accomplished in the last 25 years under P.F.R.A.
In other words, in the last 25 years, under P.F.R.A. 1.8 million acres have been put to community pasture in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. We are thinking of proposing to the western provinces at least an additional 1 million acres in the next two or three years. If we can get more and there is use for it I would certainly go after it because, as the hon. member for Assiniboia and other hon. members know, there is tremendous overcrowding on the pastures that now exist.
The farmers want this type of diversified use of their land. It enables them to diversify their wheat economy, by being enabled to pasture their cattle on community pastures. As the hon. member said, the cost to the two governments is divided in this way. The provincial government buys the land. We pay the capital cost of preparing it for pastures, providing the bulls and so on. The costs of the operations of the pastures are borne by the farmers. The farmers find this a very acceptable arrangement. They hope that it will not only be continued but will be tremendously stepped up in pace.
I might point out that so far as dugouts are concerned, last year some 4,000 dugouts were built. This year we expect the construction will be about the same, probably 4,000. This is a tremendous program.
The final question was, what was the projected cost of the whole program? I do not think a living person, either in Ottawa or in any other place in Canada, can give an accurate estimate. I have used figures of $300 million to $600 million for the next 10 years to 20 years. I have no way of knowing whether these figures are accurate because I have no way of knowing on the physical side, and on the alternative land use side, the number of projects that will be brought under this plan.
This brings me to the final statement, and this has to do with philosophy. It was suggested by the hon. member for Timiskaming that we should just go ahead as a government and ram these things down the throats of the various provinces and municipalities as we were supposed to have done under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. This goes against the grain entirely of myself personally and I think of most people in Canada. The idea

here is that property and civil rights belong to the provinces. The provinces have the responsibility for their farmers in those areas. All we are doing is going to the provinces and suggesting that we enter into a co-operative program. They know the needs of their people as well as anyone. If we can share this program in any form and work out an arrangement that will be satisfactory to both of us, we will do it. I think the idea that is spreading across Canada of a centralized force under the Minister of Agriculture to impose things on people that are good for them, whether they want them or not is a philosophy that is foreign to myself and to most people in Canada.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the last statement of the minister I would suggest that what I said was not to ram these things down the throats of the people. Now may be the time to talk about what happens to agriculture in Ontario, for instance. The farmers in Ontario have needs similar to those of the prairie farmers in so far as community pastures are concerned. We get no benefit whatsoever from that type of legislation. Frankly, we would not suggest that this type of thing be curtailed in the west, but that it be extended into Ontario.
What I contemplated, Mr. Chairman, and what I would ask the minister to consider, is the government buying up certain lands in Ontario which are now very cheap. There are farms in my part of the country consisting of 10,000 acres which could be bought in a block. The cost of that land would be probably less than one tenth of the initial cost of clearing it. The government would own the land and have control of it and would supervise the putting of it back into production for the benefit not only of itself but of the country in general.
Community pastures made up of this type of land seem to have worked very well; they worked so well that the minister now indicates that he is willing to double them. What I am suggesting is that this land was put into community pasture because it was of no value to anybody else and nobody was able to make a living on it. There is a great deal of land in Ontario at the present time that is not being lived on; no one wishes to do anything with it. Crops have not been grown on it. Even those areas that have not been deserted very long are in this position. Even the hay is not being cut and no pasturing is being done on it. This is the type of program that the federal government could go into.
If we are going to ask the farmers of Canada in general to support something that
Marginal Lands
the minister as a federal member will recommend but will depend on the provincial governments to decide whether it is going to be put into effect or not, it may well be that the government of Ontario would not be interested in the scheme. It may well be that the province of New Brunswick, which already has this type of development, would be willing to put a concrete area under control and into this type of agricultural reforestation and that the people of New Brunswick may get a very large benefit from it, and yet the people of Ontario, who would like to see something done about the reclamation of land which is not being used for agricultural purposes, would get no benefit at all simply because the provincial government will not go ahead with it.
Certainly we want to protect the property rights of the people. I am not sugesting that the land be expropriated. The land of which I am speaking has a very low sale value at the present time and expropriation, as conducted by the government now, would take this fact into consideration. Large tracts of land could be bought up for national utilization, and this would entail no hardship to anybody. This land would be put into production on a national basis, and full consideration would be given to all provinces. Other provinces would get benefits that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act gives to the western farmers. Those benefits would be much more evenly distributed if the federal government were willing to participate in the scheme.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the minister for the information he gave the committee just before six o'clock.
. While it was not particularly specific, he did give us some idea of his own thinking. We learned from him that it is his intention-at least, I took this from his statement-that the cost of alternative land use will be divided between the federal and provincial governments on roughly the same basis as the cost of the trans-Canada highway. This would mean, I take it, that it would be on a roughly 50-50 basis.
I am not completely clear as to what is going to happen to the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, the organization under that act and the work that has been carried on under that act. The minister seemed to infer, at least in one place in his statement, that this

Marginal Lands
new legislation would supersede the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and that future projects which would have come under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act would come under this new legislation. I feel the committee would like some clarification of this point.
The minister also said-I took down his words and I may not be completely accurate, but he will correct me if I am wrong-that the provincial and federal governments would be happy to put up the money for such self-liquidating projects as community pastures. I wonder whether the minister would be more specific. My understanding of the way in which community pastures were operated under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act was that the provincial governments put up the land rather than money. I do not know whether or not the minister's words mean that there will be some alteration in his approach to community pastures. I would hope that they do not. I should like to make a plea that the work carried on under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act be maintained on the same basis as that on which it has been in the past. I do not believe this government need "junk" the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act; I do not think they need to terminate the act.
The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act was a good one. We have suggested improvements. We have suggested that the coverage of the act be extended to all parts of Canada but it was, nonetheless, a good act. The attitude of this government seems to be this. If the former administration had a good act, this government comes along with another act that supersedes the old one and the government representatives go across the country saying that this is a brand new act and a brand new policy. This government then does not have to give any credit to the former administration. This is what happened in so far as the agricultural prices stabilization act was concerned. In that case the producers got a pig in a poke. The act was represented as meaning a great deal to agriculture producers, but in my judgment the way it has worked out has been to give the producers lower support prices than they had under the former act. However, Mr. Chairman, we will not get into that argument.
Many people believe the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act should be maintained. If it is going to be amalgamated with this new legislation-and I protest that being done- I suggest that the government should maintain all of the beneficial provisions of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and should not use the new, broader act as a means of taking away some of the advantages the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act contained. I think the minister owes it to the committee to clarify,

if he will, the position of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act after the legislation forecast by this resolution becomes operative.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Perhaps the hon. member would allow me to answer these questions right away. First of all, in connection with the finances I may say that the recommendations I read from Mr. Nollet's testimony dealt with the conservation aspects and not the alternative land use aspect. Financial arrangements will have to be worked out with the provinces in connection with the alternative land use. I have no idea what the percentage will be because I suspect a tremendous variety of proposals will be considered.
In so far as the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act is concerned, the intention is to keep the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act in force for use in the western provinces but to extend the operational borders of that act to include all agriculture land in the west and the Peace river area. The idea behind keeping the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act is, first of all, that the machinery is there and it is working. In the meantime, as the other provinces come in with various agreements that deal with the physical part of the program, machinery will be created in those provinces that will correspond, in essence, to the P.F.R.A. machinery. When this machinery is set up in all the provinces, I hope then to meld it with the P.F.R.A. machinery. In the interregnum, before all this machinery is set up, the P.F.R.A. will continue to operate in the western provinces.
In so far as the suggestion that this government does not think well of the P.F.R.A. is concerned, I would say that we do think well of it because we brought that act into force.
The last question concerned community pastures.


Hazen Robert Argue: How long did you operate that act?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: We started in 1934, and it was operational in 1935.


Hazen Robert Argue: But the government ceased to be operational.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Unfortunately that was the case and for 22 years this country suffered without us.
The third point concerned community pastures. There will be no change in that respect except for an increase in the pace of our activities. The provincial ministers indicate they are quite willing to go along with a rapid extension of community pastures.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have just one question in connection with the extension of community pastures. Will the extension of community

pastures on the prairies be undertaken in the immediate future under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act or under this legislation? Again, I thank the minister for having made the intention of the government clearer than it has been at any time since this discussion commenced.
Before we conclude the discussion on the resolution I want to warn the minister and the government against taking away any of the benefits that now exist under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Racine: Mr. Chairman, we listened very closely to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) this afternoon. In reply to a question of mine, he said he hoped the bill ensuing from this resolution would be brought before the house around May 1, if there was no filibuster on the part of the opposition. He actually used the term "filibuster".
This afternoon, we, members of the opposition, refrained from speaking because we endorse the object of the resolution under discussion. However, I cannot say so much for government members and f must point out particularly that the delay in passing this resolution is entirely due to the government members themselves.
As I was saying, we endorse the object of this resolution which deals, for instance, with the alternative uses of lands of low productivity. Among other aims mentioned are the development of income and employment opportunities in rural agricultural areas and the development and conservation of the soil and water resources in Canada.
I was particularly interested in hearing the minister state this afternoon that in my own province, 47 per cent of the farms will be able to take advantage of this legislation.
We have been hearing about this legislation before, and if we refer, for instance, to page 3869 of Hansard for May 13, 1960, we note that the predecessor of the present Minister of Agriculture said this:
(Text):
I do not think we can over-emphasize the importance of the introduction of a rural redevelopment scheme in Canada. We have been working on this now for the last year and a half to two years and we hope to be in a position some time before the end of this year to be able to make some definite proposals as far as instituting a rural development scheme in Canada which would be adapted to Canadian conditions.
(Translation):
Those words were spoken by the predecessor of the Minister of Agriculture on May 13, 1960.
Marginal Lands
I should not want to blame the minister too much for having delayed the introduction of his resolution until today. He told us himself this afternoon that he had hoped to introduce the resolution before the Christmas recess.
I assume that unforeseen circumstances forced him to delay the introduction of the measure. Nevertheless, I think we cannot help but be somewhat surprised, especially when we read the editorials in some newspapers. And here I am going to imitate him, for he read editorials this afternoon to back up his resolution. Being the second member from Quebec to speak on this resolution it will be remembered that the publication Terre de Chez Nous blamed Quebec members because too few had taken part in this discussion-I will read to the Minister of Agriculture some of the points raised in am article published in Terre de Chez Nous on March 8, 1961. The article is entitled:
The new rural rehabilitation policy.
And the headlines read:
To be enacted during this session or just before the election?
And there was a question mark. There are more question marks right through the article.
Well, Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the house had the same reaction this afternoon when several government members noticing our co-operation began to filibuster, to use the very word of the minister.
But I am not going to follow the example set by the minister. I will only quote a few excerpts of this article which says among other things:
Since he became federal Minister of Agriculture a few months ago, the Hon. Alvin Hamilton has taken every opportunity to set out the new policy on the utilization of renewable resources and improvement of the rural areas, which is intended to be the main undertaking of his department and even of the government of which he is a member. Everybody welcomed that stand.
And, incidentally, so do we-
And the legislation that was to materialize this was eagerly awaited.
And further on, I find this:
We realize that it takes time to get such a far-reaching program going, but since the situation calls for emergency measures, we had anticipated some initial move in the very near future.
We appreciated the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture. While we congratulate him for wanting to consult provincial authorities and the different agricultural organizations, we regret however, like the

Marginal Lands
minister himself, that this legislation was not introduced before the Christmas recess.
And again following the example set by the minister, I will quote another part of the same article:
It is in fact our impression that the introduction and the passing of this legislation enacting Mr. Hamilton's good intentions will be postponed until the next session.
The minister told us that he intends to introduce the bill based on this resolution about May 1. But we doubt-and I am convinced that we are right-that, in spite of his goodwill and his known co-operation, he will be able to introduce this bill by May 1. Therefore it is most unlikely that the farmers will be able to take advantage of this bill in 1961.
The article goes on:
Otherwise, the bill will be introduced only on the eve of an election ... and that may dangerously delay the beginning of application.
I do not know who wrote that article, but apparently the results of that legislation would be forthcoming only on the eve of an election. Since I am not the Prime Minister's spokesman, it is rather difficult for me to foresee when this legislation will be of any help to the farmers, as I do not know when a general election may be called. And let me add this statement also found in the article in question:
It must be noted however that only one representative from the province of Quebec has taken part in the discussion so far. and he was a member of the opposition.
Mr. Chairman, at this stage I should like to congratulate my colleague the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) who has displayed remarkable intelligence in this debate. If he ever needs a salesman, I suggest that he hire the Minister of Agriculture who, when the occasion arises, proves to be the best salesman of government policies.
I now wish to quote the last part of the article:
Why are some of our representatives in Ottawa, who are so anxious to run down their compatriots and to scorn them as intellectuals, or to attack those of our people who work for agencies such as the C.B.C., so remiss when the future of tens of thousands of our farmers and their families is concerned?
Mr. Chairman, it seems that this debate will be on for some time yet, because, as I understand, members of the government want it that way. I hope several members from Quebec will contribute and lend a helping hand to a just cause, that is, the cause of farmers. As far as I am concerned, I hope that the discussion will be concluded

as soon as possible, in order that the minister may, as he suggested, meet with provincial authorities and farmers' organizations. I wish to say to the credit of the Minister of Agriculture, that this time he has introduced a resolution that will be welcomed by a great many farmers, even though it is a long-term measure. It is not a matter of criticizing the length of the term, but to see whether the legislation will bring the results expected by the farmers.
(Text):


Mr. Jorgenson:: The hon. member read quite extensively from an article. I wonder whether he would give us the name of it.


Jean-Paul Racine: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I was referring to Terre de Chez Nous, of March 8, 1961.
(Translation):


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Racine) permit a question? When reading the newspaper report, the hon. member mentioned that hon. members did not take an active enough part in the discussion, and he also asked that the resolution be passed as soon as possible. Would he not think that his remarks have delayed the passing of the resolution?


Jean-Paul Racine: The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) has, to my mind, a quality which I shall recognize, that of opening doors.
I do not believe that by speaking five minutes this evening, I have in any way delayed the resolution. However, having been in the house all afternoon, I realize that the official opposition was ready to pass the resolution, whereas I noticed, as did several of my colleagues, that hon. members on the government benches were drifting away from the matter at hand, and I think I was right in taking five minutes this evening to put things in their proper perspective.


Mr. Ricard:: It should be kept in mind that we have four times as many members as you have.
(Text):


William Arnold Peters: A great deal has been said about the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and its relationship to the present resolution. I am pleased to note from the remarks of the minister that there is to be a continuation of prairie farm rehabilitation, and also that there is a similarity and even the idea of assimilating the two measures to keep them in relationship one with the other.

I am pleased to hear that. It will mean that this assistance which has been given to western farmers in relationship to community pastures will, with the joining of the two programs, be given to farmers in northern Ontario and they will receive some advantage from this legislation.
I should like to ask the minister what is his hope in relationship to the program as it affects the provinces? What is the contemplated contract or agreement with the provinces? Who is going to own the land that is put into reforestation? Is it going to be owned by the municipalities or the provincial governments, as it is owned under the community pasture scheme? Is it going to be leased to the federal government under a similar program?
Is the farmer going to have his own wood lot on the basis of this land being added to his present farm in the form of additional acreage? The minister has said outside the house that it is quite possible there will be an assembly scheme. This was my understanding prior to today. I understood there would be an assembly scheme under which the federal government would assemble a large block of non-productive, agricultural land. This land would be put in charge of the farmer either as an employee of the government or as a person hired for the purpose.
I understood this land would be operated as a unit, the farmer receiving wages or some other compensation until the time the wood lot was self-sustaining. Is that the intention of the minister, or is it the intention to work toward negotiating agreements with the provinces which will mean giving the provinces a sum of money, as has been done in connection with other forms of assistance to the provinces such as the winter works program?
I point out to the minister that I do not think this procedure will be at all satisfactory. Under the winter works program we have asked for winter works to be developed to the amount of $197 million up to December 20. At the same time the contribution by the federal government will amount to only $24 million. I should like to know what the minister contemplates in this regard, because I am not at all in agreement with the idea that the federal government should go to the provinces and ask them what they want to do about it.
I am of the opinion that the federal government should take something upon themselves, under their own initiative, and should make recommendations regarding what they want done. I think the federal government should act as they did in the case of hospital insurance. In that case the government told 90205-6-208
Marginal Lands
the provinces they were willing to go so far if the provinces were willing to meet certain conditions.
I would be very reluctant to accept the type of plan which would allow only those provinces which took the initiative to benefit from this rehabilitation of agricultural land and undertook to do it themselves with federal money and federal support. I am quite sure that provinces such as Ontario, which have been very reluctant to enlarge their conservation programs in other respects, would look at the large timber limits they have already allotted to pulp and paper companies, and at the large timber limits which some of the other companies hold, and would come to the conclusion that if this plan is to be used as a supplement to the forestry industry itself it is not needed in that province. This would defeat the purpose which I think we are trying to accomplish.
It is my opinion that this purpose has been partially aocomplished by measures such as the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. I am sure that if the eastern farm representatives talked about the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act there would be a hue and cry from the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, to say nothing of the maritimes, for a similar type of legislation. If we develop this measure in this manner it may produce a favourable result in the prairies, where the provincial governments are used to co-operating in this type of scheme. However, we have not that history in Ontario and I am afraid that unless the minister outlines exactly what he hopes to accomplish by this measure and gives some information of the stereotype agreement the government is willing to negotiate, this will leave it pretty well to the provinces to decide. In my opinion this would be shirking the duty of the federal government, and I think that more leadership and direction must be given.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I should like to answer the hon. member briefly. I think some of the hon. member's questions would more properly be asked in committee.
The hon. member asked who is going to own this land. This is one thing you cannot tell until the final agreement is reached. I think there will be four or five different types of ownership. In some cases they will want to revert some of these lands back to crown lands; that is provincial ownership. In other cases there will be county ownership. My own philosophy in this matter is that there should be the maximum private ownership by the individual farmer to increase his income opportunities, rather than ownership by the county or province.

Supply-Agriculture


William Arnold Peters: Am I not correct in presuming that the previous intention of the minister was, to some extent, that certain areas would be assembled? If I remember correctly, on one occasion the minister referred to farms in the Ottawa valley which are not too far from Ottawa and which are not producing anything at all at the moment, where 500 acres, 600 acres or 1,000 acres could be assembled into one unit and a government supervisor could probably operate the land on a salary basis. The federal government would have some control over this area, in somewhat the same respect as the experimental farm itself.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No, Mr. Chairman; on that example of the Ottawa valley, or I should say the whole ten eastern counties where there are these vacant farms and there are privately owned units of 200 acres, 400 acres, 600 acres or 1,000 acres, my hope is that as far as possible these will be given to a farmer who needs an income opportunity. He will be able to augment his income by looking after these forest areas.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-77, to provide for the rehabilitation of agricultural lands and the development of rural areas in Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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



DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Administration branch-
1. Departmental administration, including advisory committee on agricultural services, $911,098.
(Translation):
Mr. Clermont:: Mr. Chairman, I represent a substantially rural constituency, and agricultural production makes up a large portion of our economy. I therefore wish to take the opportunity provided by consideration of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture to comment briefly on the problems facing the farmers in the constituency of Labelle, and in view of the fact that agricultural production is quite diversified in my area, I would say that the same problems exist throughout the province of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, I find the following statement in the 1959-1960 report of the "Union catholique des cultivateurs du Quebec":
The 1960 crop year will be remembered rather bitterly by many farmers. The downward trend

of agricultural prices took a turn for the worse. Developments in the support price policies with regard to pork and eggs discouraged many producers. The prices of milk products also showed a decline over last year's figure. The constant rise in costs, coupled with a gradual decline in sales prices put the squeeze on the average farmer, through a constant reduction in his net profits per product unit and in his hourly income.
Mr. Chairman, in view of this, I am surprised at the government's lack of concern for agricultural problems. In that connection, I should like to quote the only part of the speech from the throne where reference is made to this serious and important problem.
As an additional step in the national agricultural program, you will also be asked to approve enabling legislation to authorize the federal government to join with provincial authorities and local groups throughout Canada in comprehensive programs of rural rehabilitation and development. My ministers believe that as farming is a basic Canadian industry it must be made more stable and remunerative. Widening the uses of Canada's farm lands and water resources will be necessary for this purpose.
May I now quote from a speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) at Massey hall, Toronto, on April 27, 1957;
We shall see that the farmer gets a fair share of the national income by maintaining a flexible program-
And I stress the word "flexible".
-of price supports, in order to provide him with adequate parity of agricultural prices, based on a fair ratio as between sales prices and costs.
I should now like to quote the preamble of the Agricultural Stabilization Act, passed by parliament in January 1958:
Whereas it is expedient to enact a measure for the purpose of stabilizing the prices of agricultural commodities in order to assist the industry of agriculture to realize fair returns for its labour and investment, and to maintain a fair relationship between prices received by farmers and the costs of the goods and services that they buy, thus to provide farmers with a fair share of the national income.
There is no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that the farmers have not forgotten the words of the Prime Minister or the preamble of the Agricultural Stabilization Act.
However, referring to the latest figures published recently by the dominion bureau of statistics and particularly to the table entitled "Net farmer income from farming operations for each province", I find that in 1960, the net cash income of Canadian farmers was $2,783,753,000 as compared to $2,789,-
348,000	in 1959. In 1958, the figure was $2,794,615,000. Operating and depreciation costs in 1960 showed an increase of $13 million over 1959. Those costs showed an increase of $110 million in 1960 over the 1958 figures.

The total net revenue of Quebec farmers in 1960, according to the preliminary report, was $188,756,000 compared to $189,728,000 in 1959 and $203,699,000 in 1958, a decrease of $1 million between 1959 and 1960 and a decline of $14,900,000 as compared to 1958.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, we have a diversified farm production in La-belle-namely dairying, hog and poultry raising, and the growing of potatoes and other crops.
We have seven farm co-operatives with a very substantial turnover, research centres, farmers' associations and other groups devoted to the farmer's well-being. There is an agricultural college at Mont Laurier.
Much of our farmers' income is derived from dairy products and the farmers are concerned-and rightly so-with the decline in butter consumption from the levels of a few years ago.
Here is a table, Mr. Chairman, showing a stronger decline in butter consumption since 1958:
Per capita consumption
1954		 19.19
1955		 19.21
1956		 19.50
1957		 19.38
1958		 18.32
1959		 17.37
It will probably be less than 17 pounds in 1960.
In a speech he made in Toronto on December 1, 1960, Mr. Pierre Cote, chairman of the national council of milk producers, said that butter supplies on that date, including butter oil, reached 150 million pounds, most of them owned by the government and that at the present rate of consumption, that figure exceeds by some 80 million pounds this country's needs.
He added:
In I960, our consumption will be 36 million pounds less than in 1957. In other words, even if our population has increased by one and a half million since 1957, monthly consumption is down by 3 million pounds compared to that year, while our consumption of butter substitutes in 1960 will exceed that of 1957 by more than 38 million pounds which is a presumed increase of 91 pounds per capita, in so far as butter substitutes in 1960 are concerned.
Considering that butter consumption in Canada had at one time reached 32 pounds per capita and that, in 1948, it was still 26.55 pounds, while it has now gone down to about 16 pounds per capita, while consumption of butter substitutes has increased to the point 90205-6-208J
Supply-Agriculture
of reaching 9h pounds per capita, we readily realize the difficult situation in which the dairy industry was in 1960.
It would seem, Mr. Chairman, that the price of butter is too high for the consumer as compared to that of its substitutes. I am not suggesting any reduction in the price that the producer is now getting for butter fat. On the contrary, I support the request made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, in which it asked the government, in section 24 of its brief, to maintain the support price at 64 cents at production level. I do hope, Mr. Chairman, that it will be possible for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) to seriously consider the recommendation of the Quebec C.C.U. and of the C.F.A., that is (a) the granting of a subsidy to the consumer so as to bring butter consumption to a proper level; (b) the assurance that such a subsidy would fully benefit the consumer.
I should like to join the farm associations in asking the government to set the support price on Quebec cheese at the same level as in Ontario. Quebec cheese producers are now getting half a cent less per pound than in Ontario.
Mr. Chairman, when the support price on eggs was introduced in 1959, it had a twofold purpose: (a) to stop integration; (b) to allow small producers to remain in business. Under the support price program little more than half of the egg producers have received deficiency payments and they were of so little help to those who got them that the payments did not cause production to increase or decrease.
Various associations have recommended to the government that the support price on eggs be calculated on a regional rather than on a national basis, in order to be fair to producers all over the country. Those associations have also recommended that deficiency payments be paid on grades "A medium" and "A small" eggs; that the quota of each producer be increased accordingly, in order to avoid the substantial losses that farmers are liable to incur as a result of the great price spread between grades getting the payments and those that do not.
The C.F.A. has also asked the government that compensation prices on hogs be calculated on a quarterly rather than a yearly basis, and on a regional or provincial basis,

Supp ly-A gricu Iture
and that the premium for grade A be increased to $4. In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me add that a great many farmers in my constituency have to resort to forest operations to supplement their inadequate income from the sale of farm products.
(Text):


Mr. Forbes:: Mr. Chairman, my first words in speaking on the agricultural estimates are to express my appreciation to the former minister of agriculture for the important legislation that he was responsible for implementing during his term as minister of agriculture. I also wish to compliment the present Minister of Agriculture on his appointment to this important post. It was my pleasure a few years ago to attend a conference with the hon. gentleman and at that time I was intrigued by his knowledge and understanding of the problems facing farmers. I am particularly pleased that he now occupies a position which will enable him to implement some of the ideas he gained from that conference.
My remarks at this time will pertain to the agricultural conditions in western Canada with which I am quite familiar and I hope hon. members will not think that I am being sectional in my outlook because we have hon. members from other areas in Canada who are well qualified to speak of the conditions in the regions they represent. While reference has previously been made to measures taken by this government to reduce the disparity between costs of production and prices received by farmers for their products, I think I could enumerate a few of them again without being accused of boastfulness. For instance, there are the increase in compensation to livestock producers for cattle slaughtered in the control of contagious diseases; cash advances on farm-stored grain free of interest; the amendments to the Veterans' Land Act to enable veterans to obtain increased loans; the greatly improved Farm Credit Act; the long-awaited amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, which have removed many of the inequities in the making of payments and broadened the coverage; the acreage payments to western farmers amounting to over $82 million; and the provision of funds through the Colombo plan on long terms to assist India and Ceylon to purchase wheat and flour.
I feel I should also make reference to the recent sale of wheat to China and the opening of an office in Tokyo, Japan, whose main function it will be to promote the sale of grain; and the announcement by the Prime Minister that jurisdiction over the Canadian

wheat board and the board of grain commissioners be transferred from the Department of Trade and Commerce to the Department of Agriculture. I feel certain that this action on the part of the government will prove to be of inestimable value to grain producers in the coming years owing to the fact that the marketing of grain is so closely associated with the Department of Agriculture.
I have referred to only a few of the items of legislation that have been enacted by this government to assist agriculture. I am certain that western farmers are encouraged by the action of the government to implement a comprehensive agricultural policy that will enable farmers to help themselves. However, farmers are still confronted with the cost-price squeeze. This particular kind of squeeze has come about because the farm industry's costs are rising steadily and the prices which farmers receive for their products are still falling; hence the squeeze. As hon. members know, I have not made many speeches in this chamber and I am only prompted to do so now owing to the inequitable position in which agriculture finds itself. It is reasonable to expect that the financial position of farmers in the federal constituency of Dauphin is similar to that of farmers throughout the prairie provinces.
The present position of agriculture is not one that has developed since this government took office; rather it is the result of steadily increasing costs of production and the low prices for agriculture produce received by farmers since world war II. The problem had its beginning during world war II partly as a result of the British wheat agreement entered into by the Liberal government. A paragraph from the Searle Grain News of May 7, 1958, explains the situation as follows:
The unwinding of the wheat marketing problem in the future is going to require not only the patience, courage and understanding of all concerned, whatever their personal views, but also a willingness on the part of the Canadian taxpayer to accept, if necessary, any temporary financial burden that may arise. Such a burden, since the early days of world war II, has been shouldered by the western wheat grower, for the benefit of the Canadian people at large. Before long, perhaps, it may be necessary for the population as a whole to assume some part of it.
Another problem closely associated with agriculture is that of unemployment which is so frequently mentioned in this chamber. It seems to me that when we are looking for markets for the products of our factories to help the employment situation, we are overlooking our most important market here at home. By increasing the purchasing power of our farmers, we would create employment all

along the line from the mines to the railroads to the factories back to the transportation systems and offices, et cetera.
While farmers are usually regarded as producers, they are also the largest purchasers of goods of all kinds of any segment of our society. As further evidence of the recognition of farmers as an important market, I will quote from a submission made to the government on June 25, 1958 by a delegation of unemployed from Ontario and Quebec. They suggested an imaginative trade policy for moving wheat that would include long term credits to enable such countries as India, Asia and Africa to buy Canadian grain. In their brief they went on to say:
Call it subsidization if you will, but at least it is priming the most necessary pump-our farm economy. Restore purchasing power to the farmers, and you have gone a long way toward restoring it across the nation.
Let me refer to a statement made by the Prime Minister as quoted on page 42 , of Hansard:
Those of us from western Canada know something of what the result was when the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta were devastated when drought hit us to such an extent that there was no purchasing power among the farmers, that there were no jobs in eastern Canada.
The farmer is sometimes underestimated in his value as a market for industrial products which find their way into his operation. According to the economics division of the Canada Department of Agriculture there are more than one million cars, trucks and tractors on Canadian farms and their annual expenses, excluding depreciation and financing, are more than $400 million. About 11,000 tons of pig iron go annually into the making of agricultural implements, and the implement manufacturing industry gives work to more than 10,000 employees, with a payroll of over $42 million. Farmers use $20 million worth of electric power annually and pay nearly $200 million for hired labour. They buy 900,000 tons of fertilizers valued at nearly $70 million, and they use over 600,000 tons of limestone. The cost of pest control each year amounts to $20 million. Farm operating expenditures and depreciation total $1.9 billion annually.
Moreover, an estimated one eighth of the total revenue from motor transport of commodities and about one fifth of the revenue from all carload freight involve agricultural products. The combined revenues total more than $225 million. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent annually on the construction, maintenance and furnishing of half a million homes owned by farmers. With 17 per cent of the population living on farms, additional hundreds of millions are spent for clothing, recreation, health and education.
Supply-Agriculture
In 1958 there were over 9,000 establishments with more than a quarter of a million employees processing products of Canadian farm origin. The value of products from these establishments amounted to more than $4.5 billion, and the payroll of the employees was $763 million. While the number of farms declined from more than 700,000 to fewer than
600,000	between 1924 and 1958, this reduction was about equal to the increase in the number of employees processing or manufacturing products of farm origin. In addition to these, there are about 70,000 engaged in the food wholesaling and retailing.
I mention these statistics in order to indicate to hon. members the potential market we have in Canada if farmers have the purchasing power. I have had a large number of requests from farm organizations during the last few years for the government to take some positive action to reduce the disparity between costs of operation and prices received for agricultural produce. My own experience as a practical farmer indicates to me that these requests are fully justified. We frequently hear complaints about the costs of support for farm produce, and I would suggest to those who complain that the cost of supporting secondary industry in this country is high by protecting industry through tariffs. In a study of tariff costs made by a Yale economist for the Gordon commission on Canada's economic prospects, the cost of tariffs to Canadians was estimated at from $610 million to $735 million annually. When Canadians are willing to spend such a large amount to support industry, they should not complain about the small amount the government spends in assistance to agriculture.
As further evidence of the importance of government assistance to agriculture, I wish to quote at this time a statement by Prime Minister Macmillan of the United Kingdom, on June 21, 1960:
A system of price guarantees is not a subsidy to agriculture. It takes the place of tariffs by which manufacturing industry is helped by the government. British farming prosperity has been built up and will be sustained in the future by price guarantees. No country can be truly prosperous without a strong and healthy agricultural industry.
Let me repeat that there are many signs that the decline in western farm income has been a significant factor in causing the unemployment situation in the rest of Canada. I hope that this government will make whatever provisions are necessary to ensure that adequate returns are received by the farmers in the future in order to enable them to share in the general prosperity of Canada.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a very brief reference to the new system instituted last year in connection with the deficiency payments on hogs and eggs.

Supply-Agriculture
While we realize the difficulties confronting
the government under the offer to purchase method which created surpluses, the deficiency payment method has not provided the stability in western Canada that was expected. At intervals during the year the price would fall below the prescribed price, but owing to the higher price prevailing in eastern Canada the western producer would not qualify for deficiency payments. Now that the deficiency payment method has been in operation for over a year, I would recommend that the minister take a close look at the disparity in prices prevailing in western Canada with a view to working out a more equitable system in establishing floor prices for these products.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, during the past year or so some hon. members, particularly those from western Canada, have disparagingly referred to the fact that I personally and others did not represent a farm area; the reference was particularly to me. I was not sure how extensive was the farming area I represented until the other day I decided to send an inquiry to all the farmers in my riding. I found that, rather than representing a very small farming area, I represented one of the very large farming areas of the country and close to 1,400 farmers. Therefore, in the future I shall make no apology whatsoever for the agricultural speeches that I shall be called upon to make.
Sometimes we forget the extent of the agricultural industry in some of the ridings in Ontario which are not normally considered to be agricultural areas. The other day I spoke to a gentleman who was surprised to learn of the topography of northern Ontario. Probably it would be wise to inform the committee at this time of some of the topographical features of northern Ontario. For years some parts of northern Ontario, particularly the Timmins and Timiskaming areas, were represented by representatives of the mining industry, and a great deal was heard of that industry. Particularly from the managers' point of view and from the company operations side of the picture, and very little was said about the farming areas themselves. One of the reasons why I want to mention the topographical features is a desire to interest not only hon. members and the government in a conservation program for my area and for northern Ontario but also to mention the need for certain conservation measures before a condition develops in that area similar to that which has developed in southern Ontario.
The riding of Timiskaming covers almost entirely the little clay belt. This little clay belt contains about a million and a half

acres of probably the best clay agricultural land in Canada. It is a very level area. The little clay belt resulted from the receding waters of a glacial lake which covered the area from James bay almost to the lower end of the Ottawa river valley. The deep part of the lake, which is now called the little clay belt, is an area extending approximately 100 miles from north to south as far as Cobalt where the triangle narrows very greatly to an area from 100 to 125 miles in width. This land is similar to the prairie lands. It is table land which stretches out for many miles with a very slight elevation. You can see from 70 miles to 80 miles from a given point of land. Because the land was created by a lake and later by a river bed it rises in steps which are probably 200 feet high. In this area, as I have said, there are from 1,200 to 1,400 farmers.
There have been many more. Many of the farms in my area are not being operated at all. Many of these farms could be given over to programs such as the one we were discussing a few minutes ago under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and the community pasture program. Hundreds and hundreds of acres of agricultural land which have been cleared at great expense by the original owners are lying idle. This land could be put to use as community pastures because there is an exceptional opportunity in northern Ontario for beef production.
During the last 10 or 12 years the beef industry in Timiskaming has increased greatly. We are now favoured by having several large community sale barns which are providing a great impetus to the increasing beef production. In this respect, I should like to ask the minister if it would not be possible for the department to send a government grader to these sale barns during the time the feeder sales are taking place. In this way a farmer who has bought an expensive bull to improve the standard of his herd could be given an opportunity of obtaining the premium price that should flow from the purchase of the very best animals. The farmers are to be congratulated on the amount of money and effort they have expended in attempting to make this transition from the poor grade of beef that was produced a few years ago, mainly as a result of the disposal of dairy cattle, to the situation we have now where we have some exceptional beef herds. Many of these herds are registered under the pedigree act, and each year they are increasing in stature. I feel that it would be advantageous if the department were to send at least a grader or two to these feeder sales so that the farmer could get the benefit of the premium price for his cattle and the buyers from

southern Ontario would be able to assess the grade of cattle that was being produced in this area.
The numerous dairy farms in this area, Mr. Chairman, supply a market of between
100,000	people and 200,000 people. The market is a limited one, but there is some hope that with new equipment for handling dairy products the market will be extended to include the Sudbury and North Bay areas. In this area we have a creamery that has been operating for 25 years and in every one of those years has received not less than the first grade for all the butter that has been produced. I believe this is an enviable record and one that is difficult to equal or to better. All the other facets of agriculture that go with mixed farming are found in this area. A considerable number of mixed crops are grown in this area. Timiskaming has produced some of the best timothy seed that has been produced in Canada and ribbons and awards can be produced from the various fairs across the country to prove it.
The other seed producers of the area are plagued by the lack of markets and a lack of facilities which should be afforded to seed grain growers for disposing of small seeds. We have a great need for some new thinking in connection with agriculture in my area. The farmers are pleased to note that the government is giving consideration to the extension of woodlot operations and the reclaiming of land to be put into pulpwood production. This is one of the areas in which this type of development can be used to great advantage. The present practices in connection with the disposal of the bulk of the products from these woodlots cause us to be worried about the future. We have found that there has never been any equalizing of the costs of production in so far as the pulp and paper companies and the saw mills themselves are concerned and the prices those companies will pay farmers for their products from the woodlots.
No assistance has been given to farm woodlot operators through research into the utilization of wood products that would come from the farm. As a result, very little secondary industry in the woodworking field has been established in the area. We have seen the disappearance of the large operators in the bush industry, and this leaves only the farmers' woodlots from which to draw these wood products. The lack of a market for these products has led some of our entrepreneurs into the plywood and chipboard industries. These people hope they will be able to utilize the resources of the farming communities, and this would provide the farmer with a cash crop that would be advantageous to him.
Supply-Agriculture
I should like to thank the previous minister of agriculture for answering the call of the people of Timiskaming by treating the outbreak of rabies that plagued the farmers of the district. There was never very much for which I could thank the former minister, but I should like to give him credit for this much. The minister did make the facilities of the department available for the inoculation of pet dogs, cats and other domesticated animals. He made the serum and the facilities available and inoculations were carried out in that area. I am very happy to report that the results have been satisfactory. I would recommend to the new Minister of Agriculture that when there is an outbreak of rabies immediate attention be given to it. A program of inoculation should be carried out by the department in connection with all domesticated animals. I am quite sure the minister will find, as we found in northern Ontario, that the response of the farmers will be very good. Most of the citizens were willing to take their pets for inoculation when it did not cost them anything. This procedure did result in the elimination of the outbreak which could have reached serious epidemic proportions.
It is interesting to note that the outbreak was so serious that more than 40 people in that area had to be treated as a result of contact with animals suspected of having rabies. I understand also that there is some considerable difficulty with rabies in some of the counties of southern Ontario. The federal government is now being asked for some support in paying the claims for some of the animals that were ordered slaughtered as a result of being suspected of having rabies. I would strongly urge the minister to continue this fight to control rabies because it is my opinion that rabies can be controlled if the government shows leadership. During the parliamentary recess I made several trips to Ottawa and discussed the matter with the officials in charge of this department. They were willing to act in this regard and indicated that fewer animals had to be destroyed and that the epidemic was of shorter duration than it would normally have been because of this program.
Timiskaming is famous for many other reasons. The potato king of the world has very often been a man from our area. We have embarked on a program sponsored by local businessmen of inviting farmers from New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island to come to our area to take advantage of the amount of unused land that we have and the favourable climatic conditions for the growing of potatoes. These men from the maritimes are offered plots of 500 acres or 600 acres for their use and are financed by businessmen on a crop share basis. Profits from such a venture

Sup p ly-A griculture
would be split equally between the farmer and the supporter. This program was commenced on a small scale last fall and I understand it was highly successful. It was so successful in fact that I am sure it will continue on a much larger scale this year. As a result of this program I suggest that the Timiskaming area will develop into one of the largest potato growing areas in the country within a very short period of time. I would suggest that this is a very good area for this type of crop because of the existence of facilities, the availability of land, and its closeness to market. For the reasons I have mentioned I feel that Timiskaming will become even better known as a potato producing area.
It has been difficult for individual growers in our area to retain the potato growing championship because of the fact that these individuals have in past years won this championship two or three times in a row. The officials of the exhibit in Chicago will no longer allow those individuals to enter the exhibit. They have suggested that we should allow someone else to win. Perhaps in the near future we can enter this exhibit and win the championship not only on the basis of quality but perhaps on the basis of quantity as well.
I feel that the Timiskaming area is one of the best farming areas in this country. During the past years we have had very favourable climatic conditions and the farmers have always shown an ability to work hard. The growers in this area were blessed at the beginning because of the relatively low cost of land. They were able, as individuals now are, to carve farms out of the bush. As a result, it has been possible for a strong and forceful farming population to grow. However, I should like to invite some of the western farmers to northern Ontario in order to see for themselves the conditions that exist on some of the farms here. I would suggest to the farmers of western Canada that they should not holler so loud because perhaps the farmers in eastern Canada will decide to ask for some of the advantages presently received by those western individuals. I would suggest they show some sympathy for the eastern farmers and their problems. Surely I do not have to remind them that because of this government they enjoy benefits that eastern farmers do not receive.
We have heard fine-sounding arguments regarding woodlots, and other election propaganda of late; but surely we should not put these arguments on that basis because this situation which exists in eastern Canada is a very important one to the farmers of these areas. One need not travel to northern Ontario to see that there are individuals living on farms and working for very small wages in 
the villages and towns in order to buy and maintain the equipment needed to carry on with the farming operation.


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


William Arnold Peters: Certainly.


Edwin William Brunsden: What is the hon. member's specific complaint regarding the difficulties existing among the western and eastern farmers?


William Arnold Peters: I would refer the hon. member to the dispute that is taking place in regard to feed grain. We have been informed today that in western Canada the price of feed is 50 cents a bushel less than it is in eastern Canada. This will have the result of western farmers feeding cattle with grain that cost 50 cents a bushel less than the cattle feeders pay for feed grain in eastern Canada. There is a further problem involved in regard to this feeding problem in eastern Canada. It is my understanding that in many cases the farmer in western Canada grows the feed and takes it to the feed mill where it is processed for two cents per bushel and then returns the feed to his own property for his own cattle raising purposes, whereas in eastern Canada the farmers support the wheat board and must pay the higher price. The farmers in this area have been sceptical regarding the allowance of this leeway to the feed mills, and have felt that it was detrimental to themselves. When this detriment is reflected in eastern Canada to the extent of 50 cents a bushel for feed grain the farmers certainly feel that they are not getting a fair shake.


Edwin William Brunsden: Would the hon. member permit another question?


William Arnold Peters: Yes.


Edwin William Brunsden: How does this situation reflect on the economy of the eastern Canadian agriculture situation? The hon. member knows, as a result of his attendance and the attendance of his leader at the meetings of the agriculture committee, that the percentage of grain in western Canada going into feed mills is very limited.


William Arnold Peters: Surely the hon. member will admit that there is a difference in cost in the neighbourhood of 50 cents a bushel. This represents a great difference in the cost of raising cattle as between the two areas. If the difference in cost were only a few cents, then I would admit that there would not be much effect on the cost of production in eastern Canada.
I am familiar with the practices of the feed grain companies in western Canada because they are in fact the same companies

which exist in eastern Canada. I know that these companies are not going to sell the grain for 50 cents less in eastern Canada because they are able to purchase it for 50 cents less in western Canada. There is certainly a relationship between the purchase price and the selling price. If the grain company were to charge the farmers raising cattle in western Canada the same price that the farmers in eastern Canada pay for feed grain, the man in western Canada would not buy from the grain company but would purchase his feed grain from his neighbour.
How does the difference in cost affect the farmer in eastern Canada? I must tell the hon. member that hundreds of head of cattle are sold at community sales each week in my area. The farmers in my area are certainly in competition with the beef producers in western Canada; and if there is to be this great difference in the cost of grain feed then there will certainly be a difference between the price of eastern and the price of western beef. I do not think that situation is difficult to understand.


Richard Elmer Forbes: May I ask the hon. member a question? Has the hon. member any evidence to support his suggestion that the farmer in western Canada sells his feed grain at 50 cents per bushel below the market price?


William Arnold Peters: I have it right here.


Edwin William Brunsden: Put it on the record.


William Arnold Peters: I was informed that this is so, and I have no reason to believe it is not so. I am very much surprised at the western members. They are very happy to say that this does not happen, but they must know it has been happening for years and years. There has been a continual bootlegging of grains in western Canada outside the sphere of the wheat board. This has been going on for a long, long time.
Mr. Chairman, I was going to continue my speech on other subjects, but this matter has now been raised and perhaps I should deal with it. The national farmers union presented a brief to the government this year, and in it they had a great deal to say about this matter. I will read some of the brief:
We believe that the family farm is the most efficient unit in terms not only of production, but also in terms of soil conservation and human and social values. We, therefore, believe that the preservation of the family farm is of importance to farm families as well as to the nation as a whole.
6. Reports from local farm forum groups, as publicized by the Saskatchewan farm forum office, indicate that country people were disgruntled by the farm forum guide. One forum ''wished to express their disapproval of the ideas contained
Supply-Agriculture
therein, and would be glad if the person or persons responsible for its contents were not given an opportunity to write for it again". Another forum bluntly stated: ''It looks to us like someone is trying to sell us down the river".
7. We share the dismay of the forums and have brought this information to your attention because it has a direct bearing on our main question which we have put to you in 1959 and 1960, and to which we have not received an answer. The question is:
"Are federal agricultural policies to be enacted that will aim at the preservation of widely distributed private ownership of productive assets, enabling men to maintain themselves and their families on their farms, or does the federal government intend to let those economic forces have free play, that encourage the trend to anonymous, corporate ownership with all its inherent dangers".
Further on in the brief this is said:
9. Still dealing with the question of the family farm v. the factory farm, we draw to your attention the grave effects any weakening of the quota system of the Canadian wheat board will have on the economic position of farmers in the prairies.


Edwin William Brunsden: Mr. Chairman, will my hon. friend permit another question?


William Arnold Peters: Certainly.


Edwin William Brunsden: Is my hon. friend under the impression that this situation arose this year, last year or the year before? Does he recognize it has been in existence for 20 years-


An hon. Member:: Never.


Edwin William Brunsden: -and that we are now legalizing a practice that has grown up over a long period of time?


William Arnold Peters: Yes, Mr. Chairman; I am well aware of that. I said that bootlegging had gone on for a long time, but bootlegging is not recognized as a favourable practice in my area. We certainly never elected to the House of Commons people who participated in this practice. That happened with the former western member who bootlegged in wheat and demonstrated this fact publicly in advertisements. He is no longer a member of this house. Unfortunately he was a member of this party. He put advertisements in the newspapers which showed he was condoning the bootlegging of wheat.
To answer the hon. member's question, I am well aware that this practice has gone on, and I am not in agreement with legalizing bootlegging.
We had a great deal of talk last year about the unfortunate position of the feed mills. If that was only to legalize bootlegging, I am not in favour of it. Mr. McNamara is not in favour of it either-


Edwin William Brunsden: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I did not use the word "bootlegging". I merely said that a practice had grown up in western Canada by virtue of the dire necessity for a market for wheat. Because of that situation, this practice developed.

Supply-Agriculture
I did not use the word "bootlegging" and I had no intention of using it. I resent my hon. friend accusing me of using that word.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I did not accuse
the hon. member of using it. I used it. I am only using a colloquial expression to describe something that everybody else may call by a much more polite name. Even the government had a name for it, because they put it under legislation and called it something else altogether, assistance to feed mills or something of that nature.


An hon. Member:: That is nonsense.


William Arnold Peters: If these hon. gentlemen who talk from their seats will rise and ask questions, I will answer them.


The Chairman:: Order. The hon. member would have to obtain the unanimous consent of the house to answer any questions, because his time has expired.


Charles Alexander (Sandy) Best: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the belligerence of the hon. member for Timiskaming this evening and the seeming split which has developed in the C.C.F.-New Party-


William Arnold Peters: Not at all.


Charles Alexander (Sandy) Best: -between the east and the west, pitting the eastern farmer against the western farmer. I must say that this is not the first instance we have seen of this split today. The hon. member for Assiniboia was talking about people going off the farms during our discussion on the previous agricultural resolution and disagreeing strongly with it. Then the hon. member for Timiskaming rose later and said that people should be taken off the farms, large tracts of land should be assembled by the government and these people should manage them as government employees. We have here a complete contradiction in policy and philosophy and I can see a large chasm and great split developing in this small group down at the end of the chamber.
I expect the hon. gentleman wants large, corporate state farms run by state officials. That is the only conclusion I can draw from what he has said. I must point out to the hon. member that if he examines the record tomorrow he will see that earlier today the leader of his group spoke rather differently.
There is one matter to which I would refer specifically this evening. I wish to refer to page 2404 of Hansard of Friday, February 24, 1961, when the estimates of the Department of Agriculture were being dealt with. The Minister of Agriculture was dividing up the estimates for this coming season into four main categories. One of these categories was

grants and subsidies, and another was rehabilitation, including P.F.R.A. and the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act. The third area covered a wide range of legislation under the Canada Grain Act, the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and the Agricultural Stabilization Act. The fourth area covered agricultural research within the Department of Agriculture. It is this area specifically with which I should like to deal briefly this evening.
The minister told us that the agricultural research section takes up 24 per cent of the revenue of his department, and as a figure that is $28.8 million for this coming year. This is a large figure, and coupled with the amount expended in provincial agricultural research this must add up to a very considerable figure indeed for research right across Canada.
I have mentioned previously in this house the idea of an agricultural research council in Canada. I should like to develop this idea briefly this evening. I am convinced that such a council could facilitate co-ordination and liaison between the different types of agricultural research in the federal government and its research system, the experimental farm system, and the various provincial agricultural research bodies across Canada. At present there is of course liaison in this field, but I have in mind a body which would report directly to the Minister of Agriculture and which might perhaps be able better to co-ordinate the work and to bring about a focus of attention on areas of agricultural research which might be either too big, too small or too difficult to be covered by any single body set up at the present time.
I also have in mind that while we could get more for the money spent presently in the total field of agricultural research in Canada, we might be able to save money and avoid duplication through overlapping in this field. I should also like to comment briefly on the liaison that exists in this area at the present time. There are at the present time a number of methods of liaison between the federal department of agriculture and the provincial departments and the other agricultural bodies. There are, for instance, associate committees of the national research council sponsored by the national research council and having varied membership. Such committees have dealt in the past with problems of plant breeding, plant diseases and animal nutrition. They are essentially work planning committees or committees planning the co-ordination of research in these various fields. In addition, the provincial governments sponsor committees in various fields. Federal research men sit on these various

committees which are largely concerned with the pooling of information and the dispensing of research information together with its practical results.
Many provinces have these committees. 1 am told the Atlantic provinces share one. I am not certain whether Quebec has one or not. There is also a national advisory committee on agriculture made up of the federal deputy minister and all the provincial deputy ministers of agriculture across Canada. There are certain specific subject subcommittees under the national advisory committee and research personnel sit on these subcommittees. I can point to such examples as the national committee on weeds co-ordinating weed research programs. Other subcommittees deal with animal breeding, farm buildings, engineering, soils, and simi ar subjects. These subcommittees are largely concerned with research planning, but include some extension matters. Also under the national advisory committee is a series of provincial committees, one per province, under the chairmanship, I believe of Mr. A. E. Barrett, assistant to the director general of the research branch of the federal Department of Agriculture. Provincial experts form the remainder of the membership and they study all sorts of fields, mainly extension projects but including new facilities, specific projects and requests from farm bodies and individuals, I am told. There is another form of liaison which goes on at the present time. It takes place at federal agricultural stations such as Harrow, Ontario, and Kentville, Nova Scotia. Here provincial extension men work in co-operation with federal personnel. Liaison of this sort is both right and proper.
I said earlier that I believe the setting up of an agricultural research council would mean better use being made of the money and personnel now being devoted to this field by both federal and provincial governments. I should now like to comment briefly on the organization of such a council in Great Britain at the present time. I am examining a document entitled "The Promotion of the Sciences in the Commonwealth" put out by the United Kingdom information office in January, 1958. The publication notes that agricultural research in its early days in Britain was not centrally organized. We know of such important stations as the Rothamsted experimental station which, I believe, was originally set up privately around 1889. Some 20 years later, in 1909 it was recommended that financial aid should be made available from the development fund to aid and develop agriculture and rural industries by promoting scientific research. In 1911 the development fund was used to promote a scheme which led to the establishment of many of
Supply-Agriculture
the present day agricultural institutions. In 1931, in Britain, the agricultural research council was established by royal charter to be responsible for the general organization and development of agricultural research in Britain.
The council was given funds to spend at its own direction and gradually took over the various responsibilities in this field. I will go on to say that it is responsible in Great Britain to a committee of the privy council for agricultural research, and under the agricultural research act of 1956 it was charged with the organization and development of agricultural research at which time an agricultural research fund was established. This council consists of not more than 18 and no fewer than 15 members. It is of varied composition and it is responsible for the financing of independent research institutes and-this is very interesting-for making grants for special investigations to universities and research bodies. It also awards research fellowships and post-graduate studentships in agricultural and veterinary science. There is obviously great co-ordination there but of course we must not draw the immediate conclusion that we need exactly the same system here in Canada. I would only say that in a country such as Canada with its provincial jurisdictions and a much wider area to be covered, the establishment of such a council might prove even more advantageous.
I should now like to point out briefly what happens in the United States. The situation there is different but there is considerable liaison between the federal government in Washington and the various state governments. I am quoting from a document put out by the national science foundation and entitled "Organization of the Federal Government for scientific Activities". This publication states on page 23:
While most scientific activities are carried out by the department with its own personnel and its own facilities a significant proportion is conducted through co-operative, contractual and grant programs with state and private institutions and agencies, and with industrial firms. The unique and central feature of the research programs of the department is its traditional system of elaborate co-operation and co-ordination with the research and educational activities of the land-grant colleges of the states and territories of the union.
We can see that there is a very fair measure of co-operation and liaison there.
In conclusion I should like to define a little more clearly what I think an agricultural research council could do in Canada. I believe it could define research problems. It could define them jointly, given good liaison, with all those working in this particular field in Canada. Second, in solving the problem, for

Supply-Agriculture
instance, it could work through universities, through provincial or federal research establishments depending perhaps on the background the availability and personnel and so forth to work on any given problem. It could perhaps also work jointly with private companies in the agricultural research field. The membership of such a council would include, I suppose, provincial and federal representation, farm groups and companies involved in the agricultural business and research field. I would say that such a council might not at first undertake its own research projects. It could perhaps recommend initially at least to various bodies that various projects should be conducted and could go slow at first with the actual allocation or spending of moneys on its own. After it got going it might adopt some more basic functions and be able to allocate money with regard to specific areas and difficulties in the agricultural research field. This council could examine areas where Canada at present has blank spots. It might direct its attention to problems too big or too difficult, or too small or too specific to be undertaken at other levels. It could indicate how joint action, joint co-ordination and co-operation might solve such problems and then could allocate funds to a specific research group attached to an agricultural college, university or other such institutions.
I have emphasized that such a council might save us money. I am convinced it could do away with overlapping and duplication and could focus attention on the real problems facing agriculture today. It would aid in the education and training of our scientists and personnel engaged in this field. I believe that the retired secretary of the agricultural research council in Britain, Sir William Slater, has made a study relating to re-organization within our own Department of Agriculture. Perhaps such a man might be called upon to make recommendations concerning whether or not an agricultural research council should be set up in Canada, and indeed he may have done so.
There is another matter that is related to this field that probably could come under such a council or perhaps could be set up separately. I refer to the national council on farm policy research which is to be held in Winnipeg in April, 1961. This council has to do with marketing problems and economic policies. It therefore is somewhat outside the ambit of the research field of which I am speaking and perhaps it might be wiser not to combine with research the political aspect, and the controversial field of economics and marketing problems. Perhaps consideration would be given to the establishment of what would be strictly a research council.

Mr. Chairman, I hope these ideas will be given favourable consideration by the government in the future.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the previous speaker for his intervention. I wish to remind him of one thing of which he should be reminded and to which he should give consideration. The hon. gentleman made a reference to my leader and myself and our views in respect of this present measure. I wish to inform the hon. gentleman, through you, Mr. Chairman, that I was elected by the people in the constituency of Timiskaming to come to parliament to represent them to the best of my ability, always having their interests at heart. It does not apply in this case but let me say I would stand up for the interests of the people of my riding against any hon. member in any part of the chamber. My prime responsibility is to those who elected me. I am not like some of the hon. gentleman's colleagues who say, in effect, "We would love to do this but our party is against it at this time". If the hon. gentleman wants quotations, I have them here and with the permission of the Chair I will read them. What the hon. member's party stands for is the exact opposite of what we stand for.


Edwin William Brunsden: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


William Arnold Peters: I have not read the quotation and if there is objection I will not do so.


Edwin William Brunsden: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member had his time a little while ago. Is the hon. gentleman now making another speech?


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member is entitled to speak for 30 minutes at a time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And as often as he likes.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Tories have not yet applied closure.


William Arnold Peters: I was saying that I support my riding, my people and their interests and if it is necessary I will do so against any segment of the committee. In this instance there is no difference of opinion. Now that this issue has been raised there will be a further statement. Previously it had not been raised. I thank the hon. member for Moose Jaw, Dauphin, Medicine Hat or wherever he comes from, for raising it in the first place.
Hon. members of the Conservative party do not represent their ridings but vote as the government decides they should vote or as the cabinet suggests. Here is a statement made by one hon. member of the government party:

We are torn, as it were, between two choices, like a lather with two sons. If a recommendation has been made by the cabinet, or by the minister, and apparently it has been, I submit that the government members have no alternative other than to support our government.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the hon. member state from what he is reading?


Edwin William Brunsden: The hon. member does not know.


William Arnold Peters: I am reading from the evidence of the standing committee on veterans affairs of February 23, 1961. If hon. members wish me to do so, I will name the people.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I believe it is customary under the rules of the committee for an hon. member to state what he is reading from and to indicate who made the statement.


William Arnold Peters: The first statement was made by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is it proper for an hon. member to read from a document of that kind when the committee is sitting and has not reported?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In any event, what does this have to do with agriculture?


Edwin William Brunsden: Nothing.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member is incapable of relating two ideas.


Jacques Flynn: Do I understand that the hon. member is reading from the proceedings of the committee on agriculture and colonization?


William Arnold Peters: The veterans affairs committee of this year.


Jacques Flynn: I understand that one may quote from a report of a committee but that one may not criticize a decision taken by a committee.


William Arnold Peters: At page 126 of this report the hon. member for Megantic is reported to have said:
Our responsibility is to study the bill and to make the best decision we can on it. The only power that we have is to recommend to the government. And now, it is up to the members, whether they are supporting the government or the opposition, to make their positions clear. After our position is made known to the house, it is up to the government to decide as to whether it implements the recommendations or not. Then, at that time, the members can vote for the government or against it. It is as simple as that.
On the same page, the hon. member for Middlesex West is reported as saying:
I will be glad to make my statement without political bias. However, it is a fact that the members of the government are placed in an awkward position.
Supply-Agriculture
The awkward position is that government members were not representing the veterans in their constituency because the government was not taking action in the particular matter under consideration. The hon. members of the government had to vote against the wishes of the people who elected them because the Conservative party said that was what they had to do. The government did not accept the recommendations presented.
I refer to this matter in order to make it clear that I will vote against my party when it is necessary to do so in the interests of my constituents.


Edwin William Brunsden: When have you ever done it?


William Arnold Peters: I have done so on a number of occasions; and to be completely fair I should say that this has been done on a number of occasions by hon. members of the party to which the hon. member who raised the matter belongs. Of course they got into trouble for doing so, but they exercised their integrity and sincerity on those occasions.
I return now to the question of the wheat board with which subject I was dealing when I was so rudely interrupted by the expiry of my time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Would the hon. member ask his leader what he finds so funny? The hon. member for Assiniboia has been sitting there giggling for the last half hour.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have been looking at you.


William Arnold Peters: I do not need to ask him. What is funny is that a government member should ask questions that are so easily refuted. Let me read the refutation advanced by the wheat board:
Chief Commissioner W. C. McNamara pinpointed the operation of the Canadian wheat board before the standing committee on agriculture and colonization when he said:
"Orderly marketing is achieved by the quota regulations under the Canadian Wheat Board Act."
He went on to say:
"In the view of our board the essential feature of the marketing scheme established by the statute is the equitable rationing of delivery opportunities and the ensuring that, as far as possible, all producers will get the same basic price at the same time for like kind, grade and quantity of grain. Equal delivery opportunity is the basic feature of the scheme.
Obviously, Mr. Chairman, this is not happening. When the price drops 50 cents at the feed mills in so far as one farmer is concerned, another one may be getting a much higher or even a lower price for selling to another feed mill, say, under the wheat board.

Supply-Agriculture
The brief goes on to say:
It is our considered opinion that the recent exemption of western feed mills from the quota and pricing regulations of the Canadian wheat board destroys this "basic feature" of the marketing scheme by depriving many grain producers of equal delivery opportunities.
I am concerned not only with the matter of equal delivery opportunities but also with Mr. McNamara's contention that all producers will get the same basic price at the same time for like kind, grade and quantity of grain. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, this feature has been eliminated. I suggest further that its elimination is detrimental to the farmers of eastern Canada. Therefore, I would advise western members to walk very softly when they attack the position that some of us in eastern Canada take, because we have been willing to give them every possible opportunity to get what they desired. We should also like to have that opportunity extended to our farmers. You have noted my support on many occasions, Mr. Chairman, of the maintenance of stable prices in the legislation which has been introduced, and in measures which have not been introduced. I have supported them because I thought they were better than the measures which were supported by the government members, and I refer particularly to deficiency payments on grain.
Mr. McNamara went on to say:
If a producer may sell a portion of his crop to a mill for flour, feed or seed, outside of his quota, he would then be able to deliver to the other channels of the marketing system grain up to the amount of his quota and thus achieve an advantage over less fortunate producers who were not able to get their grain into the local flour, feed and seed outlets.
In our meeting with the Canadian wheat board at Winnipeg on February 1, Mr. McNamara was questioned and admitted that quotas would be affected by the present exemption of western feed mills.


Edwin William Brunsden: On a point of order, the hon. gentleman is reading from another document but he has not identified it.


William Arnold Peters: I am sorry; this was a complete oversight. I identified it previously as the national farm union submission to the Canadian government on February 15, 1961.


Edwin William Brunsden: The hon. gentleman used the word "we".


John Whitney Pickersgill: Presumably they did.


William Arnold Peters: It could be the identity of myself. I continue with the brief:
Finally we want to point out that, when he was asked by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort at the hearing before the standing committee on agriculture and colonization whether he wanted any of the board's powers relaxed, Mr. McNamara said "no".

In view of the chief commissioner's clearly expressed opposition to the exemption of western feed mills from the quota and pricing regulations of the wheat board, the gross injustice it does to many farmers, and the strong sentiments expressed in many country meetings, we respectfully request that the Canadian wheat board be instructed to rescind instructions to the trade Nos. 41 and 43 which allow feed mills open market rights in purchasing feed grain supplies outside of wheat board price and quota regulations. We are happy to report that Mr. McNamara has agreed to meet with our executive and review the situation.
My argument in relation to this matter is that a differential of 50 cents would be detrimental to the beef producers, the poultry producers, the hog producers, the dairy producers, and all those who are buying feed. It would be detrimental to the production of agricultural products in my area because none of this 50 cents will ever flow from the feed mill to my area. None of this 50 cents will ever accrue to the farmers in my riding. If there is a differential in the production of beef and agricultural products which is brought about by the difference of 50 cents in so far as the eastern and western farmers are concerned, it will be the result of legislation passed by this government last year.
I hope this matter will go before the agriculture committee. I hope this will be referred to that committee by the minister who no doubt is aware of this situation because he represents all the farmers of Canada and not only one small segment, namely the grain producers.


Hazen Robert Argue: Small?


William Arnold Peters: This matter has to be incorporated in the regulations of the wheat board. We in eastern Canada want the equality that existed under the wheat board to be extended to us.
There will be no difference of opinion between my leader and myself in this regard. He is now the leader of a very influential party in Canada. He will speak on behalf of the farmers of western Canada with the same strong voice as that with which he has spoken before. He will also ask them to give respect and consideration to the needs and desires of the farmers in my area as well as those of all other farmers throughout Canada. In the C.C.F. we have always had a leader who has been willing to speak for all the people of Canada, as, incidentally, it is the responsibility of every member in this house to do.


Edwin William Brunsden: May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


Hazen Robert Argue: No; you cannot chisel like that.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I believe the house leader intends to indicate some slight change in the business for tomorrow.


Mr. Churchill:: Yes. Following consultation with the parties on the other side of the house, it now appears that it would be appropriate to start off with interim supply tomorrow. My understanding is that we hope that by one o'clock interim supply would be completed. Then we would follow with the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.
The forecast for next week, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, runs in this way, subject, of course, to change and to the progress that the house makes. We will start off on Monday
Business of the House with supplementary estimates. It is impossible to tell how long we shall be on those, but during the course of the three days we should like also to consider Bill No. S-5, which is No. 1 on today's order paper, to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, and Bill No. S-6, which follows it, to amend the Foreign Insurance Companies Act. These bills were before the house earlier and were referred to the banking and commerce committee. They have now come back to the house. If time permits next week, we might also continue with the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


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

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

Mr. Boivin: 1.	Has the Department of Transport made any grant for the construction or extension of the following airports: Baie Comeau, Gaspe, Godbout, Havre St. Pierre, Matane, Rimouski, Rouyn, St. Jean, and Senneterre?
2.	Are the said airports placed under municipal management?
Answer by: Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):
1 and 2. The department has made grants in aid toward construction at the airports at Gaspe, Matane, Rouyn, Senneterre and Havre St. Pierre. In addition, the department has
actually carried out construction work at airports at Rimouski, St. Jean and Baie Comeau.


SUMAS PRAIRIE, B.C.    PURCHASE OF LAND FOR AIRPORT
Mr. Winch: 1.	Did the federal government in or about the year 1940 purchase land on the Sumas prairie in British Columbia for the construction of an airport?
2.	H so, what was the amount of land purchased, and total price paid for same?
3.	Has the federal government sold all or any part of this land, and, if so, to whom, and for what price?
Answer by: Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):
1 and 2. Yes, in 1942, the Department of Transport, acting as agent for the Department of National Defence, acquired by expropriation approximately 422 acres of land, at a total cost of $32,624.30.
3. Yes, all the land was sold in 1958, through Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, to Buckersfield's Ltd., of Vancouver, B.C., for the price of $67,601.

Friday, March 24, 1961