1961-05-06

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which relates to today's order paper. The order paper contains nothing definite beyond routine proceedings. Because of the failure of the government to have any sense of responsibility as to what it was doing in this regard I think we should have an order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the matter is one for the house to consider but not as a question of privilege.


Frank Howard: Then, Mr. Speaker, based on a question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It will have to be considered in its proper time and place.
On the order: Motions.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the house I should like at this stage to suggest that we determine now the order of business for this day.
The situation is as follows. On April 24 the house determined to sit on Saturdays. According to the custom and practice of the house it is normal, either at the time Saturday is selected as an extra sitting day or subsequently, to present a motion setting forth the routine of business for that day. I suggested at six o'clock last night that the order of business and procedure be as for Thursday, a government day, which would have permitted the officials of the house to draw up the order paper with the proper order of business on it. I was under the impression that as the motion was merely a routine one it did not require 48 hours notice, and due to oversight such notice was not given.
When I sought to present the motion yesterday the house was not agreeable to reverting to motions or to accepting the motion I placed before it. However, in view of the fact that the house has determined to sit on Saturday and is now sitting on Saturday, perhaps we could determine by agreement that this shall be a government day with the business and procedure being the same as for Thursday. If the house is agreeable and 90205-6-281
will give consent I will make the motion now that I put forward last evening, but I should like to be sure that consent is available.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members have noticed, the orders of the day this morning are a complete blank. There is therefore nothing on the order paper and there are no orders of the day. I say without hesitation, as I said last night, that we will not give our consent to the motion which the leader of the house is now making. I gave some reasons last night. I do not intend to go into them now, but we did make a very reasonable proposal to the government when the whole matter of the house sitting in the morning and later at night was discussed on April 24. Although our proposal was a very generous one, it was not accepted. On the other hand, what did take place was that we were faced with the arrogant attitude of the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If hon. members object I certainly will have to call the hon. member for Laurier to order. He has been given the floor to consent or not consent to a motion proposed by the house leader, and all he is entitled to say is that he does or does not consent.


Lionel Chevrier: I think I am entitled to give a further explanation.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Not at this time. The hon. member may have his opportunity to discuss what he wishes to discuss, but the house leader has asked for the consent of the house to make a motion and it is not a debatable matter. It is a question of giving consent or not. I take it that consent is not given; therefore we pass to the next order of business.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, you have allowed the leader of the house to make an explanation of the ridiculous position in which the government finds itself now because it did not give notice of the motion, and I think in fairness to the opposition I should be allowed to make a short, similar statement as to the position in which the government finds itself because it failed to observe the ordinary rules of the house by giving 48 hours' notice of the motion that the minister attempted to make last night and is making now.

Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member will recall the course of events, I have allowed him to make a longer statement than was made by the house leader. Objection is now taken, as it could have been taken at the time the house leader was speaking if any member had so desired. I think the hon. member has been allowed to make a comparable statement, and he should now observe the rules.


Lionel Chevrier: If I am not going to be allowed to proceed further I will abide by Your Honour's wishes, but I repeat that we will not go along with the suggestion of the house leader.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, we do not agree with the suggestion of the house leader and the motion he proposes to move respecting the business for today. We are willing to agree to proceed if the order of business is the same as on Friday. This would permit private members who have been nipped in the bud by the process of time to blossom forth on the various resolutions.



STANDING ORDERS


Mr. N. L. Spencer (Essex West):: I should like, on behalf of the hon. member for York-Humber, to move concurrence in the tenth report of the standing committee on standing orders.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member for Essex West leave to move a motion in the name of the hon. member for York-Humber?


Mr. Pickersgill:: I think the hon. lady should be here to move her own motion.


Mr. Speaker:: In the absence of consent of the house I would not entertain a motion from the hon. member for Essex West. I refer, in support of that ruling, to citation 188 of Beauchesne's fourth edition and also to Bourinot's fourth edition, page 299, which make it clear that, except in very formal matters, the mover must toe present. Another exception, of course, would be on government motions where one minister is allowed to move for another.


Norman Leonard Spencer: May I say this, Mr. Speaker. While I agree with your ruling-


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that this matter has been disposed of by the decision of the Chair. Since the hon. member for Laurier was not allowed to proceed, there is no unanimous consent for the hon. gentleman to proceed, either.


An hon. Member:: Let the Speaker determine.
[Mr. Chevrier.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: He has.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure as to what the hon. gentleman wishes to proceed with, but I shall bear in mind that there is no consent to proceed with anything.


Norman Leonard Spencer: I am sure the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate would not deny me the right to bring to the attention of the house the nature of the report in respect of which I have asked leave to move concurrence.


Mr. Speaker:: Since I have ruled that the hon. member is not entitled to move concurrence in the report, he is not entitled to speak to it.



WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE ACT


Gordon Minto Churchill: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952, to increase the monthly rates of allowances and permissible income ceilings; to allow for further exemptions in property and income; to modify certain conditions of service eligibility; to allow for administrative and organizational changes within the board and to provide for certain further changes in connection with the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Speaker:: We have reached orders of the day, and the rules of the house do not determine what the precedence is for the day. I am in the position of not being able to call an order without the direction of the house or resolving the problem which is now raised, since it is my duty to call an order of the day.
If I might indicate the situation, which I think hon. members probably appreciate, may I point out that standing order 15 settles the business of the house. Subsection 2 of standing order 15 settles the daily routine for every day, and we have passed through that procedure. Then it gives the orders of the day. They are settled from Monday to Friday by standing order 15, but no provision is made for Saturday. By order made on Monday, April 24, the house has decided to sit today and every Saturday until the end of the session without specifying the order of business. I refer to Votes and Proceedings

for Monday, April 24, page 467, where an order was made for the house to sit on Saturday from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. and from 2.30 p.m. to 6 p.m.
On the order paper, without precedence being assigned to them, are the orders the house has appointed for consideration today and every day, namely government orders, public bills and orders, notices of motions for production of papers, private bills and starred questions. They are printed on the order paper and, as I say, have all been ordered by the house for consideration today or any day the house meets.
The problem that arises, of course, is what the precedence is among these orders. As the order paper indicates, I have not taken the responsibility of determining what precedence should be given to the orders, but have simply caused them to be printed in the order in which they appeared on Friday, the last sitting day.
I raise this matter as a point of order for disposition with the assistance of the house, and I suggest two approaches to the problem. First, as the house has ordered no business for today, and as it has ordered certain hours of sitting, I think the presumption is that the house intends to do some business. I think the question as to the precedence of the business should be resolved in a way which is permissible under the rules. In other words, I think the solution should be one in favour of carrying out the orders of the house in so far as they have been made.
The problem is that the order did not go quite far enough. There are two approaches to this question, and I suggest them for the consideration of the house. One is this. In the absence of any rule, our standing order No. 1 refers us to the procedure of the parliament of the United Kingdom, and hon. members may find some indication by that means. I have made some inquiry on my own initiative, and I refer the house to Campion's "Introduction to the Procedure of the House of Commons", page 132, which does not go very far but is as follows:
On Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday the house meets at half past two and adjourns normally at half past ten, or later. (S.O. No. 1). On Friday the corresponding hours are eleven a.m. and half past four p.m. (S.O.s No. 1 and 2). These hours were last fixed by amendments to standing orders made in 1947.
The house seldom sits on Saturday and only in case of grave emergency on Sunday. Unless otherwise fixed, the hour for meeting on Saturday follows the rule for Friday. There is no prescribed hour for a Sunday sitting.
That does not deal with the business to be done other than by inference.
90205-6-281J
Business of the House
The other approach is that the house is the master of its own proceedings. In circumstances where direction is necessary, it has the power to deal with procedural problems that arise.
Having said that, I am not disposed to make any decision but to ask for consideration of the point of order which arises. Perhaps I should hear the pro and the con in the usual order, and I will first hear the house leader.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I was just on the point of putting a motion before the house, but if you wish first a discussion of the point of order I should like to say this. The house definitely decided that it would sit on this day, and decided it would do so for the purpose of conducting business-


Mr. Mcllraiih:: No.


Mr. Carter:: Oh, no.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -otherwise It would be simply ridiculous for the house to assemble-


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is precisely what it was, ridiculous.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -without an order of business. I think the printing of the order paper could have been somewhat more skilfully done, if I may use that phrase, because the precedents in all the authorities-and they are abundant-with regard to parliamentary procedure indicate that the orders of the day mean the business and procedure of the house.
As you have already pointed out, Mr. Speaker, the business before the house consists of government orders, public bills and orders and various items such as that and, I would have thought, should normally have followed just after that established heading "Orders of the Day", which simply means the proceedings or the business that is before the house.
It is obvious that the house is here for a definite purpose. If hon. members would look at the discussion on April 24 they will see it was decided that Saturday be a day for parliament to sit for the express purpose, as was expressed during the course of that debate, to conclude the business of the house-by that we meant the legislation and the estimates-as quickly as reasonably possible, because I doubt whether any hon. member of the house wishes to sit through July and August. Consequently Saturday was added as a sitting day in addition to the extension of the sitting hours.
As you have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, we have simply to determine what business shall be taken up of the multitude of matters on the order paper. It is within the competence of the house to determine that. As a matter

Business of the House of fact I would be inclined to go so far as to say it is within the competence of the Speaker to determine that, if authorities which I have been looking at are considered. However, perhaps there is not time to go into some of those problems here today.
It is quite obvious that the house, which is master of its own actions and procedure, can at this stage determine what business it shall go on with. I am in a position to make a motion to this effect.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister would permit me to interrupt in order that the matter under discussion may be determined. As the minister has indicated that he proposes to initiate a motion, I invite him to move his motion. The order of the motion can then be discussed by the house and the matter determined in that way.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I therefore move, seconded by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness):
That the house do now proceed to government
orders.


Mr. Speaker:: Before putting this motion before the house I will, of course, hear hon. members. As the hon. minister, who moves the motion, was dealing with the point of order generally, perhaps he would conclude and then I shall hear other hon. members.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order may I be allowed first of all-


An hon. Member:: On the motion.


Lionel Chevrier: No, there is a point of order that has arisen, and I think I am entitled to speak on the point of order and then on the motion, and unless I am interrupted by Your Honour I propose to do both.


Mr. Speaker:: This first point of order is whether this motion is acceptable. Perhaps the hon. member should first address himself to that, and if other points which I indicated might arise follow, they can be discussed in sequence.


Lionel Chevrier: Then I ask to be heard, sir, on the point of order. It arises out of the situation in which the government has allowed itself to be placed. Your Honour has been good enough to suggest that under standing order No. 1 a reference is made to the British parliament when nothing is contained in our rules to cover a situation such as this. Your Honour has been good enough to refer to Campion, but I think Your Honour has also stated there is nothing there which could enlighten us.
Your Honour has also said that the house is master of its own proceedings. That is true,


but I submit it is master of its own proceedings within and in accordance with the rules of the house only. The house leader has said that the house decided on an earlier occasion that it would sit this day for the purpose of conducting business. I challenge that statement. The house made no such decision. The house simply made the decision on April 24 that it would sit on Saturdays, without determining, as it should have been determined on that occasion, what the business would be on Saturday, as it has been the custom of the house to determine in the past, namely by making the motion which the house leader attempted to make last night, and by saying that standing order No. 56 (1) is suspended in relation thereto.
The house leader has said that the printing has not been too skilfully done. Well, the printing was done in accordance with the decision of the house. If the motion made last night by the house leader had passed, of course the orders of the day would have contained what we now find on page 4. The printing could not have been other than it is now. It has been stated that the business should be as it now appears at page 4. I cannot agree with that statement, because page 4 does not come into effect until the required rules of the house have been complied with.
Finally, the house leader has said this matter is within the competence of the Speaker. I say to you respectfully, and I am sure you, sir, are of the same view, that the Speaker, while he interprets the rules of the house, is also himself bound by and subject to the rules of the house. He is the one who applies the rules, and in applying the rules he must make sure that in a motion such as this, 48 hours' notice is given. Otherwise the rights of the members of parliament will have been interfered with.
That 48 hours' notice was not given last night and it cannot be given until next week. It cannot be given with reference to the motion which is now before Your Honour; therefore the rules have not been complied with. So it would seem to us that the government, and particularly the Prime Minister by his partisan tactics on April 24, by his refusal to entertain a generous offer of cooperation from this side of the house and by his lack of knowledge of the rules of the house, has made a farce of our proceedings today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, I think I should check the hon. member to indicate that we are debating a point of order, and that does not give an opportunity for the usual type of debate. The only matter that is relevant on the discussion of a point of order is the technical point itself.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I pass on on then to another point and it is this. There is nothing before the house. How can you, as the Speaker of the house, entertain any motion at this time. Last night the house leader at least asked that we revert to motions. He did not get consent and Your Honour refused to entertain his motion. I say the position is the same this morning.


An hon. Member:: It is not.


Lionel Chevrier: He has not asked for unanimous consent of the house to revert to motions. Therefore I submit to you with deference that Your Honour is not competent to receive a motion of this nature at this time. In fact it is too late now for that purpose because we have gone beyond the time when motions are called.
Need I recall to Your Honour the decision which was made on May 2 when the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) moved in this house, in accordance with notice he gave orally, that the annual report of the governor of the Bank of Canada to the Minister of Finance and the statement of accounts for the year I960 be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce for study. Your Honour ruled on that occasion that could not be done, and Your Honour gave quite a lengthy decision after having gone into this matter very carefully. If the hon. member for Essex East was not allowed, because of the rules of the house, to move that motion, as was the case on that occasion, surely the minister is in no better position. In fact the minister is in a far worse position than was the hon. member for Essex East, because at least the hon. member for Essex East had given notice.
I say in conclusion that the motion of the hon. gentleman falls to the ground on three points; first, because 48 hours' notice has not been given; second, because there is nothing before the house, and Your Honour cannot entertain it; and finally because, in order for Your Honour to entertain it, which I submit Your Honour is not competent to do, leave should have been asked to revert to motions. It is now too late for that.
My friend the hon. member for Ottawa West also informs me that the Prime Minister gave an undertaking on April 24 in connection with the business, so that on that further count the motion of the house leader falls to the ground. I submit with deference to Your Honour that Your Honour cannot even entertain it at this time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, this group approaches this question strictly from an objective and non-partisan point of view. We deny the validity or the right of the minister to move the motion on
Business of the House
the same grounds as explained at some length by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) and I am not going to take the time of the house to repeat them. I have stated our position. We are willing to sit today if today is considered as a Friday. We think that is a fair arrangement. It means some concession on the part of the government, but we are willing to do that because we think it is a fair compromise, and if there is a spirit of co-operation we think it will meet the situation.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minisier of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think the key to the resolution of the point of order which has been raised lies in what you said prior to the introduction of the motion by my colleague the house leader. In the first place the house has already decided that it should sit today, and we are engaged now in sitting pursuant to an order of the house. In the second place, the house has made an extensive series of orders appointing for the consideration of the house today those various matters appearing on the order paper at pages 4 to 10 and following. There can be no question but that the house has appointed for consideration today every one of these items of business.
In the face of these two firm decisions of the house, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the matter is completely covered by the decisions made. The only question before the house at this moment, therefore, is to determine the order or the sequence in which these various matters appointed for hearing today should be taken up. This point does not appear to be seriously questioned by the hon. member for Laurier, but he raises two points, and may I deal with them.
First of all he says that we are not now on the item of motions on page 2 of the order paper, and therefore the house is not in a position to make a decision, or to entertain any resolution, with respect to the sequence in which the various matters appointed for consideration today should be proceeded with. If that position were given effect it would reduce the house to a nullity and impotence.


George James McIlraith: That is what you are doing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is actually what you did.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We are here pursuant to a decision of the house. We have before us not one or two matters but many matters appointed for consideration today. There can be no escape from that decision; and the house, to give effect to its own decision, which must be the intent of parliament at all times, must then decide simply the

Business of the House
sequence in which these measures shall be taken up. That is what the motion introduced by my colleague the house leader purports to do. It does that and no more than that, and it does it, Mr. Speaker, in necessary pursuance and in necessary fulfilment of the decisions taken by this house.
The other point raised by the hon. member for Laurier concerns the fact that 48 hours' notice has not been given. He says in effect that this matter was introduced last night and was not permitted to be proceeded with partly because at that time there was no agreement to revert to motions and partly because 48 hours' notice was not given. I think I have dealt with the first matter, Mr. Speaker, but I draw attention to the fact that the motion now submitted to the house is not the same motion as was put before the house last night.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister a question. Does he now maintain that the motion before the house, or about to be put, is one which does not require 48 hours' notice?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, I am coming to that. Without dealing with the point or giving ground to the hon. member on the question of not giving 48 hours' notice of the motion which was put before the house at six o'clock last night, the fact is that in the situation we find ourselves now the motion offered by my colleague the house leader does not require 48 hours' notice, because it is a routine proceeding designed to give effect to the decisions of the house with respect to the business of today. That business has already been determined by the house.
As to what shall come before the house-


Lionel Chevrier: No, it has not.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -we have all these matters of business before us, and the only question requiring decision by the house at this moment is the selection of the particular matter to be taken first. It is simply a question of the sequence in which the business appointed for this day shall be taken up; it is not a question of introducing into today's proceedings questions which have not already been appointed for hearing today. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I say the motion now before the house is not such a motion as requires 48 hours' notice. It is a routine proceeding simply related to the order in which business appointed for this day shall be taken up.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there are two matters that I think call for comment. I will not follow the hon. member for Laurier in his debating comments; I do not think they were proper to be raised on the discussion of the point of order, and I shall confine myself to the discussion of the point of order.


Lionel Chevrier: That will be new.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But I do take up the reference made by, I think it was, the hon. member for Ottawa West, or the hon. member for Laurier, that the Prime Minister had given some undertaking in regard to the business to be brought before the house today. On the occasion in question, namely the debate on April 24, 1961, the Prime Minister did make certain suggestions in regard to the business of the day. He indicated that if the house were prepared to agree it could be made a matter of consent that on Saturdays the house should consider supply.


George James McIlraith: Another commitment that means nothing.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The remarks of the Prime Minister are to be found at page 3928 of Hansard. It is perfectly clear that the Prime Minister's remarks do not bear the interpretation put upon them by the hon. member for Ottawa West, and it was not an undertaking at all; it was a proposal. You will see, Mr. Speaker, at page 3928 of Hansard, first column, the Prime Minister said:
Let me go on from there. I think Saturdays could well be set aside, if the house agrees, for dealing with the supply of various departments.


Lionel Chevrier: Why don't you read it all?


Donald Methuen Fleming: He spoke about the spirit of co-operation shown by the members of the opposition, and then he said:
I would not want to see controversial matters dealt with on Saturdays because I would want to be assured that as many hon. members as possible would be present, not only from the opposition but on the government side. In any event, I think we could get together when controversial matters are to be discussed.
That was the tone in which the Prime Minister spoke. He was proposing that the house should agree that on Saturdays business might be confined to committee of supply; but the house has not reached such an agreement. We on our part are prepared to renew that proposal if it should meet with the approval of the house.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, concerning the suggestion offered by the hon. member for Kootenay West that the house should follow the order of business as on a Friday, this would be entirely acceptable to the government. Perhaps it might commend itself to the official opposition, but that would be-


Lionel Chevrier: No, sir; entirely unacceptable.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -for them to say. I think we have shown that we have business to do, important business of the country to be transacted. Surely it is the wish of hon.

members not to make a nullity out of today's proceeding, but to make effective use of this day for the discharge of important and essential public business.
What could be the result, Mr. Speaker? It does not mean that the business will not be done; it simply means that if hon. members opposite were correct the house, although it has met pursuant to its own decision and although it has much business before it pursuant to a number of its own decisions, would, in their view, be under obligation now to disperse without doing any of that business it has met here to transact. The result then would be that this time would be wasted after we have met, after we are here and ready to proceed with the business, and that the session would extend one day longer, whenever that may be, July, August or whenever it may be.
Now, Mr. Speaker, surely we are all serious persons in this house. We are here to transact the business of parliament on behalf of the country, and surely that business appointed to be heard today, no one being taken by surprise as to that business, will commend itself to all hon. members who have an equal sense of responsibility in relation to the discharge of the country's business. Our duty now is to proceed with the business that has been appointed for this day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with all the points that have been raised by the Minister of Finance. First of all, the minister argues that the business for today under orders of the day had already been appointed by the house. If that contention is correct, any motion to this effect would be completely superfluous. In this parliament, including this session, we have sat for many days, and never before on orders of the day has it been necessary to make any motion in order to get on with the business of the house. If the house, as the minister contended, had set down the business for today, Your Honour and the officials of the house would have indicated it on the order paper. The fact that you did not indicate it on the order paper is itself the completest evidence of the fallacy of the minister's argument. The business would be there and there could be no question of any motion being required. Therefore it seems to me that the Minister of Finance has completely demolished the very argument he set out to support.
The minister went on to take exception to the important technical points raised by the opposition, even though we were met with technical points when we offered co-operation on the 24th of April. I refer to the technical point that there must be 48 hours'
Business of the House
notice, the technical point that the time for moving a motion has now passed and that the Minister of Veterans Affairs did not attempt to move this motion at that time. There is no provision anywhere in our rules for moving any kind of motion when we have reached orders of the day. Therefore it seems to me that since there is no such provision and, as Your Honour has said, though the house is master of its procedure, it could not be done without unanimous consent, as has always been recognized in cases of this sort where an exception is required or desired to be made.
The Minister of Finance has also said that various orders of the house have been made at different times for the business to be carried on today. That, sir, is to render a nullity a solemn assurance or what we took to be a solemn assurance by the Prime Minister. Perhaps Your Honour will think we were very foolish to take any undertaking by the Prime Minister as an assurance-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: On a
point of order-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am speaking on the point of order.


John Ferguson Browne: On a
point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is speaking on the point of order.


John Ferguson Browne: Surely he has no business making a direct attack on the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: I have already indicated that the matter that is relevant to the discussion is the technical problem of procedure and not the conduct of hon. members, and I think the hon. member should bear that in mind.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I want to read the words that the Prime Minister used on Monday, April 24, with respect to the sittings on Saturdays. The Prime Minister said-


An hon. Member:: What page?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Page 3928, the same page from which the Minister of Finance read and to which he failed to give the reference when the hon. member for Ottawa West asked for it. I am going to read rather more than the Minister of Finance read. The Prime Minister said:
Let me go on from there. They pose today-
The members on this side of the house.
-as lovers of parliament. I think Saturdays could well be set aside, if the house agrees, for dealing with the supply of various departments. There will be that fine spirit of co-operation of which hon. gentlemen opposite have spoken. On

Business of the House
Saturdays various departments could be dealt with. I would not want to see controversial measures dealt with on Saturdays-
I emphasize that. The Prime Minister said:
I would not want to see controversial measures dealt with on Saturdays-*
The business under government orders is controversial, sir, and the business under government orders was not announced for today. In fact the house leader, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, announced several times that what we would be taking up today would be supply, and the hon. members surely were entitled to rely both on the assurance of the Prime Minister and the secondary assurance of the house leader that supply would be taken today.
Many hon. members had made other business engagements before they knew the house was going to sit this Saturday, and they are not here to take part in the debates. If we are to have any spirit of confidence, any reliance at all, any possibility of carrying on our procedure in a proper way, surely we should be able to rely on the undertaking of the Prime Minister when he said:
I would not want to see controversial measures dealt with on Saturdays-
I go on to give the rest of it.
-because I would want to be assured that as many hon. members as possible would be present, not only from the opposition but on the government side.
That is an undertaking, Mr. Speaker. Of course the Minister of Finance said it was not an undertaking, but we regarded it as an undertaking that what would be called on Saturdays would be supply.


Mr. Aiken:: That is what he is trying to do.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will come to that. If the hon. member can just possess his soul in patience, I will come to that point too.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: You are arguing against your own case.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister went on to say:
In any event, I think we could get together when controversial matters are to be discussed.
So far as I know, no attempt whatever has been made from the government side to do that.
I think a step forward has been made today in this regard.
That is what the Prime Minister said, but apparently it was not a step. It was not even a half step; it was just another "boob".
On Saturdays we could deal with supply in respect of which, by agreement among the leader of the government in the house, the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Kootenay West, they would have no difficulty in getting together and reaching the fullest agreement.

To the best of my knowledge no attempt was made to do that.
These matters could be discussed on Saturday without in any way depreciating the opportunity of the opposition, including the hon. member for Essex East... to fully discuss matters as they arise.
It seems to me, sir, that when you take that statement of the Prime Minister and the announcements made repeatedly this week by the house leader that supply would be taken today, it would certainly be a breach of good faith for the government to attempt to enter upon anything except supply today. It seems to me that not only would it be a breach of good faith, but there is a clear indication that the house did not consciously appoint these orders for consideration on Saturday. They appointed them for consideration on ordinary sitting days, and the specific exception made by the Prime Minister as the real leader of the house, as an officer of the house, should be sacred.
With respect to the question of supply, I might point out to Your Honour that there are important precedents in 1917 and 1918 with which Your Honour is familiar, and into which I do not intend to go unless it seems to be necessary. But I would point out that for the house to attempt to go into supply today without question put, as suggested by the hon. member for Kootenay West, would be an abridgement of the most ancient right of parliament, the right to express grievances before entering into supply.
If, as was done last year when we sat on Saturdays-and I have the reference here- a motion had been made specifically providing that the rules should be the same as on Thursdays, and the house had agreed to that, we could complain but we could take no exception; it would be the rule of the house. But for the government to attempt today without question put to have the Speaker leave the chair without putting the question would be an attack upon the most ancient and fundamental right of parliament, the right to express grievances before entering upon supply.
Therefore I contend that, because of the ignorance of the rules exhibited by hon. gentlemen opposite, their carelessness in this matter and their eagerness to score a partisan advantage on April 24, no business whatever has been prescribed for today, and that Your Honour was completely correct in authorizing, as you did, the production of a blank order paper.


Hon. W. J. Browne (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, you drew attention to the first rule in our standing orders, which provides as follows:
In all cases not provided for hereafter or by sessional or other orders, the usages and customs

of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom ... as in force at the time shall be followed so far as they may be applicable to this house.
I do not know, sir, whether any changes have been made since this edition of May, but I am quoting from Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, thirteenth edition, which deals with Saturday sittings:
A Saturday sitting may be obtained upon the motion of a minister of the crown, that the house shall sit on that day, or by the appointment of an order of the day, or of other matter of business for an ensuing Saturday, or by a motion made on a Friday, that the house at its rising do adjourn till the morrow. Such sittings are occasionally held subject to the standing orders which regulate the Friday sittings, or to an order that, as soon as government business is concluded, the adjournment of the house shall take place without question put.
On April 24, following a suggestion by the hon. member for Port Arthur, this house decided to sit on Saturday. Everybody in this house so decided. We are bound to come here and sit. For what are we gathered here, as members from different parts of the country, if it is not to do government business? Who is apparently taking advantage of any omission, if there is any omission, but the members of the Liberal party? I say that the procedure which should be followed is regulated by what happens in the United Kingdom parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: What is the reference?


William Joseph Browne: Sir Erskine May.


Mr. Speaker:: What page?


William Joseph Browne: Page 260. The hon. member for Kootenay West has made what I submit is a very reasonable suggestion, that we follow the procedure laid down for Friday in our rules, which provides for government orders to be considered as the first business. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has said that we cannot go into supply, although that is one of the items of busines laid down here amongst government orders. Does the hon. member believe we do not wish to follow the statement made by the Prime Minister?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Minister of Finance said you did not.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I said that offer still stood.


John Ferguson Browne: The Prime Minister made a very elaborate statement which should assure the members of the opposition that we have no intention of introducing anything of a controversial nature. We intend to go on with supply. In addition, the hon. member knows that when a motion
Business of the House
for supply is made to take up some new department, that is the time a motion of want of confidence is made and grievances are considered. When we have been discussing a department and there is an item on the order paper, "House again in committee of supply", it is not necessary to put a motion to the house because the house can go into committee of supply without a motion being put.


Lionel Chevrier: The cat is out of the bag now.


John Ferguson Browne: I submit that the suggestion which has been made by the hon. member for Kootenay West is one that should apply automatically. The government has the right, ordinarily, when government orders are called to decide the order of business that should be followed. The government has already given a clear indication through the statement of the Prime Minister that we shall go on with supply. I submit therefore, sir, it is in order for us now to proceed to the item, government orders, and to proceed with supply.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have a reference, sir, on the precise point.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not propose to deal with the question of going into supply, because that is not in issue at this moment. I have allowed discussion on it, and if that question should arise later it can be dealt with later. It does not arise at this time.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: I may be permitted to speak for a few minutes on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like our position to be very clearly understood. We feel very strongly, sir, that in order to ensure the efficient operation of the House of Commons there must be the strictest possible adherence to the standing orders and customs of the house. A reading of our standing orders, of course, makes it exceptionally clear that if a situation arises in the house which is not covered by our standing orders or customs, then we should refer to and be governed by the standing orders and customs of the mother of parliaments in Great Britain.
It has already been made clear, sir, that our standing orders and customs in this Canadian House of Commons give us no indication as to how to proceed. As you, sir, have rightly pointed out in your quotation, if the United Kingdom parliament sits on a Saturday without any prior order of precedence under standing orders, then automatically the business on Saturday follows the precedence of business on Friday. We submit, therefore, that since under our standing orders there is no order, precedent or custom for a motion such as the house leader has sought to move

Business of the House
then you, sir, are faced with two alternatives. Unless there is unanimous consent to accept the motion, which has not yet been accepted, then it cannot be accepted. Second, there being no standing order, custom or precedent for this situation, then according to our standing orders it is your duty to proceed with the business of the house on this Saturday in accordance with the customs and precedents of the United Kingdom parliament, which means we would follow the order of business for Friday.
If these courses are not followed, sir, then we most respectfully submit there is only one motion that can be accepted in this house, namely that we stand adjourned until 11 o'clock on Monday morning. We want to say this. By order of the house we are meeting on Saturday. We are now in session; therefore we sincerely hope, since we are meeting and since there is business to be done, a decision will be made by you, sir, as the authority in this house, that we now proceed in accordance with the customs of the United Kingdom parliament and conduct our business. Failing such a ruling, then, sir, you should accept the motion that we do now adjourn.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like now to address you, sir, on the precise points raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East and the Solicitor General.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: On a point of order-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am speaking to a point of order.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I should like to raise this, Mr. Speaker


An hon. Member:: You cannot have two points of order at the same time.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I am going to raise the issue of whether the hon. member can speak three or four times to a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's point is not very well taken. It is within the discretion of the Chair to hear such members as the Chair feels might contribute to the solution of the point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I assure Your Honour that I have no intention of introducing any new matter or any new argument whatever. I was merely seeking to draw Your Honour s attention, and the attention of the house, to a question which arose on this precise point on September 17, 1917. A motion was made by the hon. gentleman who was leading the house that there should be sittings on Saturdays and that the rules should be the same as for Friday. Perhaps the motion should be read, Mr. Speaker. The motion that was made at that time was as follows:

That on and after Saturday the seventh of July, proximo, and on Saturdays until the end of the present session, the house shall meet at three o'clock in the afternoon and the order of precedence on Saturdays shall be the same as on Fridays.


John Ferguson Browne: May I ask
the hon. gentleman a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


John Ferguson Browne: Did he not
start off by saying that this was taken from the Votes and Proceedings of September 17.


John Whitney Pickersgill: September 17, 1917.


John Ferguson Browne: Now the hon. member is speaking of the motion made in July, is he not?


John Whitney Pickersgill: This was Monday, September 17, 1917.


Mr. Speaker:: On Saturday the hon. member
for St. John raised a point of order that the order of the house of the 22nd June made upon the motion of the Prime Minister-"That on and after Saturday the seventh of July, proximo, and on Saturdays until the end of the present session, the house shall meet at three o'clock in the afternoon, and the order of precedence on Saturdays shall be the same as on Fridays"-
On that occasion the Speaker ruled that notwithstanding the language of that order, the rules with respect to Friday did not apply to Saturday.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member let me have the volume from which he was quoting?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Frank Howard: At this time I should like to deal only with the question of the order of business for Saturday where no order of the house is made. While this may be a flimsy hook on which to hang one's hat in the absence of anything else, I draw Your Honour's attention to Beauchesne's fourth edition, page 381, where it deals with forms and formulae with regard to certain motions. Under form No. 36 we find the following:
That on Saturday the	and every Saturday thereafter until the end of the Session, the House shall meet at three o'clock in the afternoon and the order of business and procedure shall be the same as on Fridays.
I submit that implicit in that language is the understanding that unless the house orders otherwise the order of precedence for Saturday shall be the same as that on Friday. If I may, I connect this with Your Honour's reference to Campion in the British house, where reference is also made to Friday. In the absence of any other order, Mr. Speaker, I think your ruling should be that the business for today should be carried on as if it were a Friday.


Mr. E. W. Brunsden (Medicine Hal):: Speaking to the point of order, may I say that it is a matter of extreme gratification to me this morning that none of my constituents are sitting in the galleries.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is beginning in a vein rather different from a discussion of the point of order. Unless he has some assistance for me I think I had better deal with the matter on the evidence I have already had.


Edwin William Brunsden: My point of assistance, Mr. Speaker, if I may humbly state it, is this. A few days ago we debated whether or not we would sit on Saturdays. I personally should prefer not to sit on Saturdays. I should prefer to have Saturdays in my office. However, it was decided to sit on Saturdays. What has happened? We have been here now for one hour and 20 minutes and we have had a spectacle of obstruction-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a reflection on the house.


An hon. Member:: That is exactly what it has been.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Whose fault is it?


Mr. Speaker:: A difficult problem is presented here, as I think hon. members will appreciate, and to it I have been giving my best judgment. I think I have sufficiently cleared my views now, with the assistance of a number of members, and I thank them for the contribution they have made to the solution of the problem. As I say, I think I have cleared my mind sufficiently that I am prepared to rule. Of course the house is free to accept or reject my judgment as it sees fit.
I have come to this conclusion. The house has ordered a sitting today and it has ordered business for today. Therefore it is my duty to interpret the rules in a way which does not lead to a denial of those two orders. To my mind it would be an absurdity to convene and then, because of some error, do no business.
It is not my business to commend or otherwise; I simply am obliged to deal with the situation with which we are faced. Because of a deficiency, shall we say, in the order of the business of the house, a problem arises which calls for a solution that at least makes sense. It seems to me that any solution which left the house suspended, with no business at all to do, would not make sense.
It has been proposed to meet the difficulty by a motion, and I have been concerned to ascertain whether that motion could be entertained. It is not a motion under standing
Business of the House
order 41 which requires 48 hours' notice, in my judgment, because it is a motion to order the business of the house. It is not a bill or a resolution that requires 48 hours' notice. It is a motion with respect to the business of the house; it is a motion to make an order of the house, which order can be made without notice. Furthermore, we have not yet entered upon orders of the day, for the good reason that I was not prepared to call an order of the day until I had the advice of the house. We are therefore on routine proceedings, and there are motions relating to the business of the house that can be made on routine proceedings.
The point has been taken that the motion should have been made when motions were being dealt with-and I think it should have been made at that time-rather than after we had passed from motions to government notices of motions. However, if the matter were pressed or considered further I think some ground might be found for entertaining the motion. I therefore do not discard the possibility of a motion without notice on routine proceedings. However, I propose to reject the motion and to deal with the problem that confronts us on the basis of the order paper itself.
We have an order paper which follows the order of Friday. I think some help is to be found in the precedents that were cited from the United Kingdom. I have not had time to investigate them fully, but the citation that was given by the Solicitor General from May's thirteenth edition is carried forward into the sixteenth edition of May at page 321, where it is stated as follows:
In view of the terms of S. O. No. 3 a sitting on Saturday or Sunday (except in the case of the demise of the crown) can only be secured by a resolution of the house, made normally by a minister of the crown at the commencement of public business. As a sitting on either of these days is not subject to any rules of the house regulating the hours of meeting, interruption, and adjournment, such matters have been provided for in the resolution appointing a Saturday sitting-
That is one way, and that is the way in which we have dealt with the matter here in the past. Then it goes on to state as follows:
;a.nd such sittings have been held under the limiting conditions formerly applying to Friday sittings-
I suggest to the house that as the house has not appointed the order, the solution of the difficulty is to continue with the order that was last before the house, and that is the order of Friday.
Therefore my ruling is, in accordance with the order paper which has been printed, that the first item appearing on the order paper be called first. I would ask the Clerk to call the first item on the order paper, which is No. 1 under government orders.

Marginal Lands Development INCOME TAX



AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADA AND NORWAY FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBLE TAXATION

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill C-48, an act to implement a convention between Canada and Norway for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income.-The Minister of Finance.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Stand.
Order stands.



CORPORATIONS AND LABOUR UNIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill C-70, an act to provide for the furnishing of financial and other statistics relating to the affairs of corporations and labour unions carrying on activities within Canada.-The Minister of Justice.
Donald Methuen Fleming: Stand.
Order stands.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Resuming debate on the motion of the Minister of Agriculture for the second reading of Bill C-77, an act to provide for the rehabilitation of agricultural lands and the development of rural areas in Canada.
Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order, or at least to ask for the guidance of the house. We are quite prepared to go ahead now with the legislation referred to in this item, No. 3. On the other hand, if the house prefers to revert to what it was doing yesterday at five o'clock, governed by rule No. 7 under the business being interrupted, and wishes to go on in supply dealing with the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, that is quite agreeable to us.


Mr. Robichaud:: That is against the rules.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I reiterate the position which I took earlier. This legislation is certainly in the category of that mentioned by the Prime Minister when he spoke in the debate as reported at page 3928 of Hansard of April 24. In effect the Prime Minister said that nothing contentious would be taken up on Saturdays.

I need not repeat what was said at the time by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate, the Minister of Finance, or the interjection made by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). Therefore I submit that the point of order is not well taken.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not really a point of order; it is a matter of decision by the government whether it wishes to proceed with this matter, having regard to the circumstances, or what it should proceed with.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I ask precisely what you said earlier in determining the point of order on the motion which you ruled to be out of order. Would you clarify this point as to the relationship of the decision you made to the business that was before the house on Friday? When I spoke earlier on the point of order I made it quite clear that as far as the government is concerned we are perfectly content to go on with supply today. As the words of the Prime Minister indicated, this was the proposal of the government, that if the house were agreeable and were in committee of supply on Friday, that would be the business with which the government would wish to proceed on Saturday.
That is the position. If the house is agreeable to going into committee of supply on Saturday, that would be the business with which the government would wish to proceed; in other words, item No. 10 on the order paper. However, I gather there is some objection by hon. members opposite. If your ruling is that we should continue with Friday's business, then item No. 10 is the item to be considered.


Mr. Speaker:: It is perhaps irregular to advise, because the point is raised in anticipation-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could say a word before your advice is given. It seems to me you did say earlier, before giving your previous ruling and when I sought to make some additional argument on this point, that there would be an opportunity later to argue this point. I am not seeking to argue it now, but I trust that is Your Honour's disposition.


Mr. Speaker:: The government is quite within its rights to stand its own orders, as it is doing, or to move that the house proceed to another order and go to the supply order which was the business indicated earlier in the week. Although the point has not yet arisen, I think I should say my view is that a supply motion would be debatable on Saturday, because the rules only permit supply

Marginal Lands Development
motions to be made without debate on Mr. Fleming (Eglinlon): On a point of Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.	order-


Donald Methuen Fleming: In that event, Mr. Speaker, as it has been announced by the house leader that there will be a supply motion on Monday, at which time any grievance which is properly raised can be debated, and as we would like to make some use of this day the house has met, the government suggests that we proceed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should point out to the Minister of Finance that the house would have to give unanimous consent to achieve the objective which has been stated by several hon. members. If the house is prepared to give unanimous consent to proceed in committee of supply without debate, in view of the order for Monday, we have reached the point where this would not be a concession other than in accordance with anticipated business.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, there is not unanimous consent to giving up our rights.


Mr. Smith (Calgary South):: Blocking again.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Lacking that unanimous consent, the offer the Prime Minister made on April 24 is not accepted by the official opposition; therefore we will proceed with item No. 3.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting the rights of hon. members with respect to the statement made by the Prime Minister. I think in order to save the time of the house and clarify the matter, the simplest way would be for me to read a motion, which Your Honour can consider one way or the other. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith):
That in the opinion of this house the attempt of the government, notwithstanding the undertaking given by the Prime Minister as leader of the house-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Completely out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This is a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: If it is a question of privilege of course it can be raised at any time, but the hon. member who wishes to move a motion should indicate in concise terms his point of privilege before he enters into discussion, so it can be determined whether it is a prima facie question of privilege. If there is a genuine question of privilege I think hon. members would agree that it is properly raised at any time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will hear the minister on the point of order. I am not sure what the point of order is.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has risen on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: If the point of order relates to the hon. member's wish to raise a question of privilege, I should hear the point of order before the hon. member proceeds.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the observation I wished to make was this. The Clerk has called item No. 3 on the order paper. I indicated that it would be the intention of the government, under the circumstances, to proceed with item No. 3. Surely it is item No. 3 which is before us, and the Minister of Agriculture has the floor.


Mr. Speaker:: I have been advised that when this matter was last before the house the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Pascoe) had the floor. Until the hon. member has risen and been recognized there is opportunity to raise a question of privilege which is relevant to the current proceedings. Such a question of privilege should be raised and dealt with at the time it arises, if it is relevant. As I have not yet recognized the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre I will hear the hon. member at least to determine whether there is a question of privilege.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, if you find
there is a question of privilege here, I wish to found a motion upon it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, state the question of privilege first.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am going to state my question of privilege first. It was so obvious that I thought I might save the time of the house by simply making the motion. Since I am not allowed to do that, I will accept Your Honour's advice and state the point very precisely in the words of the Prime Minister, to which I hope hon. gentlemen will listen.


An hon. Member:: Get on with it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My question of privilege is that the Prime Minister said on April 24:
On Saturdays various departments could be dealt with.
The Prime Minister went on to say:
I would not want to see controversial measures dealt with on Saturdays because I would want to be assured that as many hon. members as possible would be present-
He went on later to say:
These matters-

Marginal Lands Development
That is supply:
-could be discussed on Saturdays without in any way depreciating the opportunity of the opposition, including the hon. member for Essex East-
He specifically mentioned the hon. member for Essex East who, I may point out, is not in the house at the present time because he was assured by the Prime Minister that he need not be here on Saturday to debate controversial matters-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In effect the hon. member is asserting that the statement made by the Prime Minister in debate governs the proceedings today. I think it is clear that it does not govern it. The house is not bound by that statement. While it is not a breach of the privileges of the house to proceed as is now being done regardless of what has been stated, it may be a matter for debate. To my mind, this does not raise a question of the privileges of the house. If it did, the house would be bound by the indication made by the Prime Minister, and we would necessarily go into supply.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the point of order which Your Honour has raised, I would draw to Your Honour's attention the fact that you made a ruling on Tuesday with respect to a motion attempted to be moved by my hon. friend from Essex East, that the house leader had certain responsibilities and certain rights in this house and was an officer of the house. We have a courtesy house leader in the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, but the leader of the house is the Prime Minister. It was in his capacity as leader of the house, while moving the motion, that this undertaking, or what we consider a solemn undertaking, was given to the house. Of course it is no doubt technically true that if the government wants to, it can break the Prime Minister's undertaking and refuse to regard this as an obligation and we would have no recourse.


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. member that the government is now in a position, in the situation which has developed with respect to the orders, to do other than it is doing, and I cannot see a question of privilege on which the hon. member can found a motion. I recognize the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, arising out of what I understood to be the latter part of Your Honour's remarks-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre defer his remarks? Is the hon. member for Ottawa West arising in respect of my decision?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask for clarification in respect of the latter part of your decision. If I understood you correctly, and I should like to be corrected in this as it was delivered fairly quickly, you said that the government was not in a position to call other orders. I should like to draw your attention to the fact that under government orders, at page 5 of today's order paper, appears item No. 10, "House again in committee of supply", and I would suggest the house is in a position to-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I think it is desirable that we have recorded in Hansard the remarks of hon. gentlemen opposite supporting the government who continue to trample on the rights of hon. members, as they have been doing just now. This whole situation, I would point out to those hon. members, has been brought about by the government's failure to bring forward, as we have looked for since April 24, the required motion. But the point I rose to deal with is this. I wanted to take the liberty of pointing out to you, sir, that if I heard you correctly, item No. 10 on today's order paper was the item the government agreed to call, but I suggest that what disposition will be made of that cannot be determined in advance but is something that has to be done at the time.


Mr. Speaker:: That is true. I have perhaps improperly indicated in advance that in my view the supply motion, if called, would be debatable. That was really the significance of the last statement in my decision with respect to the matter of privilege. I did not intend to indicate that the government was bound to stop at this item No. 3.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out, I was concerned by one point. It is quite true that you indicated that the supply motion, if it was called today, would be debatable, but I do not want to see the point arise where Your Honour is left in the position of saying that if the motion is to be debated, the government cannot call it. That is the position I raise, and I think it is a proper point to raise, because I think it is a very significant right to hon. members that the Speaker must not be put in the position where it can be argued or suggested that because a certain item of business is going to have certain consequences when it is called, it ought not to be called. I think Your Honour would agree with me in this.


Mr. Argue:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I may be allowed to say a word or two. I do believe that at least the majority of hon. members of this house would like order No. 10 called in order that we might go forward today with the business which was left yesterday. However, Your Honour did say that if this motion were called it would be debatable. It does seem to me that if the business for Saturday is to be the same as the business for Friday, and that the rules for Friday should apply today, a motion to go into supply on Friday is not debatable and therefore a motion to go into supply on Saturday should not be debatable. Therefore, if we do, as I hope we will, call item No. 10, we could consider the estimates without having a supply motion put.


Mr. Speaker:: It is evident that if one makes one error it is easy to get into a second. Perhaps I should not have expressed a view about the supply motion in advance, but it seemed to be relevant to a solution of our difficulties, and I did, express that view. I have no intention of saying that it is not possible to call the item, and that it is then within the discretion of hon. members of the house to debate it or not. All I am saying at the moment is that I cannot find a question of privilege in the matter raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. Order No. 3 has been called and we are now free to proceed with that matter in the absence of a change by the government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate the opportunity, as the hon. member for Ottawa West was given, of commenting on the use of the word "alternative" in your judgment, because it seems to me there is a clear alternative open to the government whereby it could do its part in keeping the undertaking of the Prime Minister to call supply today. That is to call item No. 10 on today's order paper and take the consequences. Then they would be keeping the Prime Minister's word and not evading it, which is what the government is now seeking to do.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to the terms used concerning the Prime Minister, and the complete irresponsibility with which they have been used in respect of his statement of April 24. The statements made by the hon. members of the opposition with regard to what the Prime Minister said are not correct. The Prime Minister made no firm undertaking that supply only would be considered on Saturday. He spoke in these terms of members of the opposition, as reported at page 3928 of Hansard of April 24, 1961: They pose today as lovers of parliament.
Marginal Lands Development
Those are his words, and the hon. members of the opposition are certainly showing themselves as obstructionists today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You should talk about obstructionists.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Prime Minister on that occasion went on to say:
I think Saturdays could well be set aside, if the house agrees, for dealing with the supply of various departments.
That same offer was made earlier today by the Acting Prime Minister but there was no co-operation on the other side. The Prime Minister then is recorded as having said the following:
There will be that fine spirit of co-operation of which hon. gentlemen opposite have spoken.
None of that spirit has been shown by them today. The Prime Minister then is reported to have said the following:
On Saturdays various departments could be dealt with. I would not want to see controversial measures dealt with on Saturdays-
Hon. members opposite are pretending that a supply motion is not controversial, yet they have called three votes one way or another on the estimates.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. minister rose on a question of privilege, and I have allowed him some leeway.


Lionel Chevrier: I rise on a question of privilege, to take issue with what has been said by the house leader, who referred to our tactics as obstructionist.


Mr. Speaker:: I think perhaps the minister would like to modify the word "obstructionist". I will give him the opportunity to do so. As far as the question of privilege arising out of the intervention of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is concerned, I have disposed of that. Really the discussion is continuing on that basis, and I would ask hon. members to desist.


Lionel Chevrier: I rise on a question of privilege. We have been charged by the house leader and another hon. member with using obstructionist tactics. What we have been doing is supporting the rules of this house and asserting the rights of parliament. I ask you, sir, to invite the house leader and the hon. member for Calgary South to amend their language when they direct their attacks on us as obstructionists. On the contrary, what we have done is to say that the government is not abiding by the rules of the house. In effect, what the government has done-

Marginal Lands Development


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the debate is likely to continue it it is allowed to; therefore I shall only give the house leader the opportunity, which the hon. member has suggested, to modify the word "obstructionist", if he wishes to do so, and then proceed to the next business.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, if the word "obstruction" is objectionable-I do not think it is contrary to the rules-to hon. members on the other side I would substitute "delaying tactics". On my point of privilege which arises from the statement of the hon. member who said the government is not acting in accordance with the rules, I say, sir, we are acting in accordance with the rules laid down by Mr. Speaker.


Lionel Chevrier: On the contrary, you are not.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Item No. 3 has been called, and we shall proceed with that unless there is some modification made. The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am still on the question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member is rising on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate, that has been disposed of; it is not open for further discussion unless the hon. member for Laurier has a new matter, and even then I think I would not see him until the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre had been heard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I ask to be heard on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will have to defer his question of privilege until he can get the floor.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask Your Honour a question. Is Your Honour ruling that I cannot at this stage rise on a question of privilege as, in accordance with the rules of the house, I submit with deference I have the right to do?


Mr. Speaker:: That is my ruling, and in order to explain it to the hon. member I will say this. One question of privilege intervened and prevented the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre from taking the floor. That has been disposed of. I refer to a citation in Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, fourth edition, at page 303, as follows:
It is the practice in the House of Commons to bring up a question of privilege after prayers,

and before the house has taken up the orders of the day. Only in very aggravated cases, requiring the immediate interposition of the house, will any business be suddenly interrupted.
The reason I allowed the item of the business of the house, which has just been called, to be interrupted is that the alleged question of privilege related to the calling of this item in view of what had been said earlier. That matter has been disposed of. If the hon. member asserts that his question of privilege relates to the immediate transaction, which is my seeing the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, then perhaps I should hear what his alleged question of privilege is; otherwise it is not relevant, and I leave it to him to determine whether or not he falls within that category.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank Your Honour for the manner in which you have dealt with the point which I attempted to raise. First I should like to draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that, notwithstanding what has taken place, you allowed the house leader to raise a question of privilege. I do not think the question of privilege has been satisfied by the amendment which the house leader has made. We have risen in this house today since the beginning of the sitting in order to defend and assert the rights of parliament; we have risen in this house, sir, in order to make quite sure that on a future occasion a situation such as this will not arise again.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's duty is to indicate wherein there is a new matter of privilege which requires immediate disposition. Unless he can do that I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.


Lionel Chevrier: It is the insinuation made by the house leader in his substitution of the words "delaying tactics" for the word "obstructionist", which is the new question of privilege. I say we have not delayed the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has heard, as have other hon. members, the expression "delaying tactics" used from time to time. To my mind it does not raise a question of privilege and should not be advanced as such, certainly at this time. Therefore I cannot find a prima facie matter of privilege in what the hon. member for Laurier is asserting, and I must proceed with the proper order of business, which is to hear the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, sir-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry, I shall have to ask the hon. member for Laurier to resume his seat.


Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me the floor after eight attempts to break through the delaying tactics of the Liberal members of parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member has not referred to the rules of order today; I am sure everybody else has. But might I remind him that it is quite irrelevant to make statements of that kind, and if they are provocative they only involve the house in controversy which is quite out of order.


James Ernest Pascoe: Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that I have been waiting for two hours-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. The hon. gentleman has stated that he has been waiting for two hours. The hon. gentleman surely did not have any privy knowledge that this matter was being called, and I am asking the Acting Prime Minister if he did.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Really the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is rising to contradict, not on a point of order. I trust the hon. member will allow the procedure to take its course in accordance with the rules.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir; I am raising a question of privilege. The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre has just made the statement to Your Honour that for the last two hours he knew this order was to be called. I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether there was some secret understanding that this order would be called.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


James Ernest Pascoe: If I may answer the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, I adjourned this debate; therefore I was prepared to start in, no matter when it came up.
I was amazed this morning at the suggestion from the Liberal members that the bill before us was controversial. I would have thought that because of its importance to agriculture it would have received the unanimous support of all hon. members. As a western member and representing one of the best farming areas in all Canada, I am happy to have the opportunity to support Bill No. C-77, to provide for the rehabilitation of agricultural lands and the development of rural areas in Canada.
Other members have spoken on this measure and have outlined its general principles. I need not repeat those statements, but I do wish to reiterate their remarks about our very able and energetic Minister of Agriculture and add to the congratulations extended to him for the good work he is doing on behalf of agriculture and Canadian farmers. The
Marginal Lands Development recent announcement by the minister of the three year agreement with China for the sale of grain to the value of $425,600,000 emphasizes that these congratulations are merited. As he stated, these sales of grain will be of great benefit to the Canadian economy through increased farm income and higher employment.
All Canada welcomes this announcement. I should like to draw these remarks to the attention of the hon. member for Assiniboia. I was amazed at his attack in the house on this agreement. I asked him at that time if he was speaking for the New party or personally and he did not answer me. Perhaps he will answer later.
In extending congratulations to the Minister of Agriculture I do not want to minimize in any way the fine work of his predecessor in initiating long range government farm policies that are now beginning to have a very noticeable effect. In Bill No. C-77 the present minister is continuing these long range measures of the government.
One of the valuable contributions the minister is making toward greater understanding of the government's farm policy is the heavy program of personal visits to all parts of Canada that he has undertaken. He has had great success in explaining what the government is attempting to do, and is doing for the farmers. I know the farmers in my area appreciate the minister's very clear outline of the policies of his department. One of his first public addresses after assuming his new portfolio was in Moose Jaw, where he spoke to 200 or more practical farmers and a large number of businessmen. The theme of his address was along the lines of what is contained in Bill No. C-77, the need for the active interest and co-operation of businessmen and all non-farm groups to help to bolster farm income for the benefit of all segments of the economy.
As I said, his Moose Jaw address was one of the minister's first speeches outlining his ideas as to what must be done for agriculture. It was one of his first direct references to the legislation respecting agricultural rehabilitation and development envisaged by the bill before us. When the bill is passed it will embody the minister's great hope of having the federal government, the provincial governments and all interested groups and individuals work together to improve the income position of Canadian farmers, for the benefit of all.
I have had considerable correspondence with farmers in my constituency of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre since the minister's address in Moose Jaw. These letters show that the farmers in my area, a predominantly wheat growing district, are thinking very seriously about their situation. I believe they see what

Marginal Lands Development the federal government is doing for them, and understand what is involved in Bill No. C-77. I received a letter recently from a prominent farmer in my constituency, and I took the liberty of sending his comments to the minister. I think they will encourage the minister to continue along the lines the government is now following.
The writer of the letter is Mr. Wilfred McKenzie of Belbeck, Saskatchewan, which is north of Moose Jaw. Mr. McKenzie has always taken a very active interest in farm programs. He succeeded me as chairman of the agricultural committee of the Moose Jaw chamber of commerce, and in this position is a direct link between the farmers and the city businessmen. In his letter Mr. McKenzie made these comments, among others:
It would appear that the problems of agriculture are not getting any less, but I am wondering if the time is not fast approaching when almost everything else but agriculture will be the problem. It could be that agriculture has probably stayed the closest to the right perspective and most everything else has been on the rampage and will find it the more difficult to level out. I would think that so far as the world economy is concerned agriculture has been more in line, with the result the adjustment may eventually fall the hardest on industry.
If agriculture would hold the line and not try to go forward at this time, it might not be too long before it will be the front line and also the line that Canada will badly need to fall back on, especially for the labour force. It might be a good idea if we all took a long look backward and then look forward with a realistic view dominating our idealistic view.
I think these views support the principle of Bill No. C-77. They are the views of a very practical farmer. I am glad to have the opportunity to bring them to the attention of the minister and the members of the house. I was impressed by Mr. McKenzie's proposal that we look forward. This forward look is exactly what the A.R.D.A., when passed, will undertake.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
James Ernest Pascoe: When the debate on Bill No.
C-77 was adjourned at one .o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was referring to a letter from Mr. McKenzie in my constituency who stated that a realistic, forward look should be taken at agriculture. I want to emphasize my earlier statement that this bill will help us take that realistic, forward look. If such a look had been taken by the former government, if the Liberals had looked ahead realistically during the 22 years they were in power, they would not have left so many

farm problems on the doorstep of this government, problems which this government is solving and which this legislation will help to solve.
I have received comments from other farmers in the same vein as the views expressed by Mr. McKenzie. In this connection, there is an interesting report in the Nokomis Times of March 1 relating to an agricultural meeting in Strasbourg in my constituency, attended by a large, representative group of farmers. The subject of the main address was, "What's New in Agriculture". The speaker emphasized the growing impact of science on farm practices. He said that while many farmers are putting new knowledge into practice and profiting thereby, others have been slow to take advantage of this new knowledge. To make the best use of their acreage and the most profit from crops, livestock and other ventures, he stated, farmers must keep posted on new developments. The speaker expressed the hope that farmers would make the widest possible use of all available information and advice to reduce farm waste to a minimum and thus improve production efficiency.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I understood the hon. gentleman correctly, he is quoting from two letters he has received. I believe it is in order for him to table those letters if he proposes to quote extensively from them as he appears to be doing.


James Ernest Pascoe: Mr. Speaker, one is a letter and one is a quotation from a newspaper. I could table both if that is Your Honour's wish.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member quotes a letter, it is customary to put it in the possession of the house and indicate the name of the author.


James Ernest Pascoe: I have indicated the name of the author. I would be pleased to table the letter. I should like to conclude my reference to this newspaper report. The speaker warned that prairie soils are showing evidence of depleted soil fertility. Here is one of his direct statements:
Improper use of our land has ruined or seriously damaged an estimated 13 million acres.
This bill, No. C-77, Mr. Speaker, is an answer to this serious problem. It is interesting to note that it was a Conservative government that took the first step along the lines of the provisions contained in this bill. This fact is indicated in an article in the Lumsden weekly from my constituency under the heading "How federal rehabilitation efforts have

aided agriculture in the past and will provide further assistance in the future". I quote from that article:
Thirty years ago a worried federal government undertook a rather drastic course of action to assist agriculture in western Canada to fight its way out of a depression that was aggravated by drought, erosion, insects and disease.
Today, another government stands on the threshold of yet another program of assistance to agriculture-and there are similarities.
The first program introduced through the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, took direct action toward rehabilitating thousands of desolated acres in the west. It also worked indirectly, teaching by example at many experimental farms and substations.
The article states, at another point:
Vigorous rehabilitation measures changed the picture.
The article then concludes as follows:
In the same way, the new redevelopment program about to be launched will undoubtedly move agriculture up several more rungs in the ladder of success.
I think I should add to the article this statement made by the Minister of Agriculture when he moved the resolution preceding this measure on January 25. Here is what he said at that time as reported on page 1403 of Hansard:
Mr. Chairman, in moving the adoption of this resolution I do so with the full realization that it will constitute a major step forward in fulfilling our national agricultural program presented to the house on August 30, 1958, by the Prime Minister.
I want to commend the minister and his department for the production of this little pamphlet "ARDA". I should like to draw the attention of the house to the outline on the back page which refers to the percentage of farms, by provinces, having an annual potential production of less than $1,200. For Canada as a whole, this outline shows 21 per cent of the farmers have an annual income of less than $1,200. Saskatchewan has the best record with only 4 per cent of its farmers with annual incomes of less than $1,200.
I should also like to put on record a statement by the minister under the heading "Reduction of Farms Not Purpose of A.R.D.A." Here is his statement:
It is not the purpose of A.R.D.A. to reduce the number of farms . . . A.R.D.A. Is designed, rather, to help by various means to improve the income and standard of living of the smaller and more marginal farms, and in that way help improve the over-all position of agriculture.
In an address to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture the minister suggested that everyone associated with the farming business should dedicate the next few years to an objective assessment of where we stand and where we are going. That is what the federal government is attempting to do by this legislation.
Marginal Lands Development
I have here a clipping from the Western Producer of January 26, 1961, reporting a statement by Dr. H. H. Hannam, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Dr. Hannam says that the federation for years has been urging the type of program envisaged in this bill. He added that farmers will be faced with a major challenge to their imagination when the act comes into effect, because it will open up broad opportunities for action in the fields of soil and water conservation, land use development and rural economic development in general. He concluded that farmers will have a responsibility along with governments to see that the legislation is used effectively and extensively.
In this regard there are some interesting statements in volume No. 8 of the proceedings of the special committee of the other place on land use in Canada, April 26 and April 27. As found at page 204, Mr. Ross Hill, executive director of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture states:
I wish to point out that whatever a farmer produces comes from the land in some form, and therefore all the social and economic changes through the years have been dependent on the manner in which our land resources have been managed. There is every reason to believe that even greater emphasis will be placed on land use and land values in the future, because of the evolution which has taken place in our industry.
As found at page 209 Dr. C. C. Spence, economics division, Canadian Department of Agriculture, Edmonton, Alberta, under the heading of "Irrigation in Canada and its Impact on Agriculture" states:
From the irrigation experience in Canada as related it is obvious that any estimates as to the acreage which should be developed in irrigation and its location in the future could be very far off without careful and co-ordinating studies of water supply, engineering, efficiency in use of water, land, climate, markets and even human attitudes.
These statements repeat what has already been said about the realistic forward look for agriculture that the minister proposes to undertake under the terms of this bill. I wish to emphasize the need for co-operation from the provincial governments in this rehabilitation program; and because I come from Saskatchewan I make this appeal for co-operation directly to the Saskatchewan government. As the minister has pointed out, one of the key points in this legislation will be the widest possible participation not only by farmers but by every group in our rural communities. Agricultural rehabilitation and development calls for the combined enterprise of governments, groups and individuals. This bill will help farmers help themselves. It will also bring other segments of our economy into the battle for a more stabilized

Marginal Lands Development agricultural industry. The farmers need and will welcome this co-ordinated help.
If I may conclude with another brief reference to the China wheat deal which is part and parcel of the better days for agriculture envisaged by the bill, I wish to assure the Minister of Agriculture that I have already received from constituents letters commending him on his efforts to sell more wheat than has been sold in many years, with the prospects of still greater sales. Again may I say that I am happy to support this bill.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time in order to add a few words to the discussion which has already been lengthy on this A.R.D.A. bill.
I do so at this time because I have 6,000 farmers in my riding. I have heard words of commendation from every source, from groups and from individual farmers, by correspondence, as to the high regard they have for this bill which we hope will soon be enacted.
I now wish to take up one or two points which this bill seeks to accomplish. The first objective is to get at marginal and low productivity land. What is envisaged is to have an instrument of human making to get at, in an economic and physical way, the adjustments to which marginal and low productivity land are subject and which often take so many years to work out. During that long waiting period when these adjustments are working out, the farmers are run through the wringer because of low income and because of the lack of any policy to assist them t.o make an adjustment.
This bill seeks to provide the farmers with an act which will assist them in making these adjustments. In other words, as was stated by the hon. member who has just spoken, it will assist the farmer to help himself. I wish to say that, judging from previous experience, we shall have some difficulties in administering this act. There will be many discussions among the farmers on the question of marginal lands, for example. Let us take a moment in order to discuss that matter. What do we mean by marginal land? For what reason is it marginal? It may be marginal because it is of low productivity, or because of the frost free period of the locality in which the land is situated. It may be marginal because of the lack of rainfall or because of the location of the land. You might also add that it may be marginal because of the type of managerial policy of the person who is operating it. You can now add up the items in that list. All of them add up to what we mean in economic terms as the causes of marginal land.
If a piece of land is marginal in its present use, the thought behind this legislation
[Mr. Pascoe.l
is to see what can be done to improve its productivity and use, and at the same time take care of the farmers who are at present engaged in farming such land.
What is needed is the development of income and employment opportunities for rural and agricultural people. In many areas the size of the business unit is too small. Where possible we should combine some of these units and change the type of use to a more extensive one, or it may go the other way, to a more intensified type of use. In this way by planning and by a program of action we could bring about a higher income for farmers and a more profitable use of the land.
In addition to that it should be pointed out that you cannot isolate any one problem in an area, treat it by itself and completely neglect all the other. You have to think about new industries, supplementary industries and the development of other means of earning an income, or at least a supplementary income, for those farmers who are operating on small units.
At Fort MacLeod we have just completed one of the finest pieces of industrial development that I think has come about in southwestern Alberta in the past decade or more. The old airport there was sold to the town of Fort MacLeod and they have set about to develop industry and move industries into each of the hangars. At the present time a new industry has moved in from Estevan, Saskatchewan, and is employing approximately 65 people. Another is moving in to start up a plywood plant which will employ 50 people. This industry will be shipping raw materials in from the Crowsnest pass and eastern British Columbia. There are two other industries which I do not care to mention, which are seriously considering moving in.
The present situation is that this town has within the last three months increased its population by at least 500 people, and it may even increase it by 1,000 people. This has been done by developing supplementary industries which might have gone by the board had the authorities not moved in the right direction.
It is this type of planning which must be done by local communities. This type of planning has already been done by the people of Fort MacLeod, who have demonstrated that it can be done.
We are now in the midst of undertaking a similar transfer of the Claresholm airport to the town of Claresholm or perhaps to the municipal district of Willow Creek if arrangements can be made. In other words, in all these communities we are hoping to obtain

local development and at the same time assist marginal farmers and low income farmers to supplement their incomes.
There is one other point I should like to mention in connection with this broad, general program introduced by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton). I refer to the conservation of soil and water. One has only to study the history of China to see that down through the ages the loss of soil there has almost ruined certain sections of the country. We also find in that study that these people have made efforts over past hundreds of years to maintain the fertility of their soil. They have put organic matter back into the soil; they have never lost an opportunity to add fertility or to till the soil in such a manner as to maintain its fertility. However, in spite of their efforts they have suffered a tremendous amount of soil erosion and in many, many cases the loss of a high percentage of the topsoil.
One has only to go to the prairie provinces to see this illustrated. One has only to look at the farmers who are farming land up and down these hills, and then take another look at these areas following a heavy rainfall. You find that the hillsides have been gullied and tremendous quantities of topsoil have been washed off, never to be returned. It is plowing on the contour, farming these lands on the contour, the seeding of grasses, rotation of crops, restoration of fibre and the fertility of the soil which are problems with which the practical farmer must grapple. These are the problems to which this particular program must give attention and assist the farmer to overcome.
In other words, it often happens that the financial resources of an individual farmer are insufficient for him to do the things he would like to do. It is therefore hoped that this program will come in time and give every possible assistance to help bring about adjustments in the farming pattern of the land. This program will cost in the neighbourhood of $300 million to $600 million spread over the next decade. I wish to say that it is the best way in which this or any other government could spend money in helping to bring about these land use adjustments in agriculture; that is, to maintain the fertility of the soil and the economic use of the water that falls as related to the production of food, which of course is of tremendous interest to us all.
If a country loses the fertility of its soils- and one has only to study what has happened in the past ages where the fertility of soil has been lost-you will find the people in the affected areas perish. This has been the pattern in the past.
Marginal Lands Development
Therefore we in Canada must take a hard look at what we are doing with our soils. I have only to refer to the experience of farmers in my area, and in fact to my experience on our own farm, which has been farmed for some 40 or 50 years, to illustrate my point. The fertility of the soil is going down; hilltops become more exposed, rocks are showing and the productivity of the land at those spots is becoming depleted.
In other words, unless we change our methods and assist farmers to change their methods in order to bring about a better use of soil and a better use of our resources, the day will come when we will have no topsoil and everybody in society will suffer. Therefore this legislation strikes right at the very heart of everybody's vested interests in that it deals with maintaining the fertility of the soil.
Changes will be needed in this legislation as time goes by. It will need amendments and it will go through a process of evolution based on experience. But there is nothing wrong with that; that is the very thing that should happen.
I should like to refer to an article appearing in the Ottawa Journal of Thursday, May 4, 1961 under the heading "Mr. Pearson hides his light under 275,800,000 bushels". This was an editorial which appeared in that edition of the paper regarding the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture in the house concerning the sale of wheat to China. I should like to say that I was present at the time and I consider the minister's statement to be one of the most profound I have heard in many years. Speaking on behalf of the farmers, particularly in my area, I may say they are exuberant over this announcement.
I was very much disturbed by the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and I should have thought he in turn would have lent his wholehearted support to this move and refrained from casting doubt for political purposes.
When one travels around the country one is impressed with the fact that this wheat agreement is of tremendous significance and usefulness to Canada's wheat trade and to the present economic situation generally. Whether one views this move in terms of agriculture, prairie farm conditions, railway freight or port activity, unemployment, or even a general boom in business, this projected sale will be of tremendous benefit to Canada's economy as a whole. I want to compliment the Minister of Agriculture in this regard on behalf of the 6,000 farmers in my riding who are so well pleased with what has been accomplished.
In conclusion, I should like to suggest that the bill now before us should receive the

Marginal Lands Development heartiest endorsation by this house because the people want this A.R.D.A. legislation and it is needed for the future national development of Canada.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had of speaking on a Saturday afternoon in this session, and I must say that I find it delightful. I rise at this time to make a few remarks in explanation of several matters involved in our program of rehabilitation of agricultural land as it affects the area in my constituency.
The members of my party feel very pleased with this bill, as I am sure the minister does. The majority of hon. members in the opposition seem to feel the proposed bill is good, although they have perhaps not directly said so. We feel this is the logical continuation of agricultural programs such as the Agricultural Stabilization Act and the Farm Credit Act as well as perhaps the Crop Insurance Act.
As one hon. member of the opposition has said, this measure will not cure unemployment at the present time. Of course, it will not be of tremendous immediate value in regard to unemployment, and I doubt if it was designed for that purpose. However, in the long term view there is no question that it will be of benefit to our employment situation. It will have a tremendous effect on planning for the future of Canadians. This bill has been designed with a view to finding alternative uses for land which is submarginal or of low productivity in order to improve the economic role of those individuals on the land.
In my own constituency there are three great valleys, the Okanagan, the Kettle and the Similkameen. The Kettle valley is referred to as the sunshine valley in the Grand Forks area. One often wonders how far the government should go in respect of a project of this nature, and how much the progress should depend upon self-help. I have always advocated the principle that the government should not interfere too much, and I hope that this proposed act will be interpreted in that fashion. I hope the results of this measure will develop through co-operation between the governments and farm organizations. I would suggest that the farmers' problems should be forwarded to the government organizations for complete consideration before any drastic action is taken. This is my understanding of how it will be carried out.
In my area there has existed a great amount of what I term self-help. We have tackled our problem with hammer and tongs. We originally had a large ranching area but as a result of irrigation the area has developed to the point that it is now referred to as the


garden of Eden. We have had many problems which have been resolved through our own efforts. I was pleased that the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Kindt) mentioned that which constitutes marginal land, and explained why this land which was previously good land has now lost its value. In our area there have been many causes in this respect, particularly regarding the fruit industry. One change has come about because of the change in consumer tastes. This change necessitated a change in the industry. This in itself presents a problem because in the fruit growing business one does not plant and harvest annually. As an example of this, let me point out that apple trees are planted and following a period of some ten years the fruit is harvested. The period of time involved in this process in respect of soft fruit is perhaps less, but this is the type of situation individuals in a fruit growing area must overcome.
In the Okanagan valley an attempt had been made to grow tobacco. In Oxford county there existed submarginal land and, it was wondered how the farmers would survive. Tobacco growing was introduced and it is significant that in that area today, since tobacco has become a crop, the farmers have taken tremendous strides forward. I understand the value of the tobacco crop in this area will run as high as $115 million this year. A tremendous portion of this money will return to the farmers. I cite this as an example of new usage of land.
Many things other than the change in consumer tastes have forced changes, such as the increase in competition for existing markets. This increase in competition has had a great effect upon the vegetable and fruit growing markets of the Okanagan. Shippers in the Okanagan are also faced with very high freight rates as a result of the distance to their markets. As a result of this distance the quality of our fruit has had to be improved, as of course it has, in order that the growers could survive in present day competitions for these markets in Canada.
Much of the land has been changed in regard to use in the Okanagan valley which, because of its climate and location, lends itself to the tourist industry. Some of the better growing land there has now been used for the establishment of motor courts. For my part I regret seeing this land turned into motor court areas. I have always felt that submarginal land should be used for this purpose rather than the fertile fruit growing land.
I would like to mention two other crops developed in my area. The first is the grape crop which, in the Okanagan valley and elsewhere in that area, is coming into being.

Wineries are being developed and are progressing successfully, and there are additional plans in existence to further this operation. I hope this experiment will be successful because there has been a lot of time and money invested.
The other crop I wish to mention is the tomato crop. There has been a decline in the growing of tomatoes in my area, and again there are many reasons for this decline. I would suggest the first reason is the increase in competition. I might say that up until 1956 we enjoyed rather a good tariff. For some reason or other, in 1956 the tariff was removed from tomatoes and consequently since that time we have suffered heavily as a result of paste and all forms of tomato goods being imported into Canada. I am not asking that the tariff be restored but consideration should be given to this and if the industry asks for it I will go after it.
I might mention the dominion experimental farm at Summerland, since this has to do with conservation and better use of soil. The farm at Summerland has done more than its fair share, as far as my area is concerned. This is particularly true when one considers the recent development of a new strain of tomatoes that will meet competition. They stand up well, can well and give a higher yield per acre.
As far as fruit is concerned, the experimental farm has been a leader all down the line in the development of new and suitable varieties for the Okanagan. This is also true in connection with pest control. Here they have been a leader and the growers of fruit throughout the valley take off their hats to those people who make up the staff of the dominion experimental farm. They are a devoted crew. I know that the thanks of the whole of the Okanagan goes out to them.
I said I had several main points that I wanted to bring up apart from the generalities I have just mentioned. My main points today are more or less twofold. They arise out of clause 4 of the bill. I do not know how far one can go in discussing this but let me say that we may expect the development and conservation of water supplies for agricultural purposes, soil improvement and conservation. We have had the problem of water supply for many years. The Okanagan and other valleys, apart from ranching, were of little use for agriculture until the advent of the irrigation system. We have had many irrigation projects. It is worth noting that as time has gone on replacement has had to take place in quite a number of irrigation systems. This is an expensive item. Consequently, I should like to see the government help in one way or another under this conservation bill in the use of water for farm
Marginal Lands Development irrigation purposes. There is no question but that the land itself cannot stand the additional charges occasioned by the replacement of all the major pipe lines and the control systems which have to go with them. This puts far too great a charge on the land.
As to the second point, soil improvement and conservation, I am looking mainly al conservation here. We have three valleys, namely the Similkameen through which the Similkameen river flows, the Okanagan, through which the Okanagan system flows, and the Kettle valley, which has the Kettle river. On the Okanagan river the provincial government, in conjunction with the federal government, on a 50-50 basis, has developed the Okanagan by water steps and by a damming system, and they have now so confined the river that there is very little overflowing and very little danger of flooding. Consequently, they have made it much easier for the farmers and ranchers situated along the river to plan ahead. They have also reclaimed many acres which are going to provide another source of land usage in the Okanagan, although they have not yet been put on the market. Of course, this will have a great benefit so far as the valley is concerned.
My reason for mentioning the Okanagan is that it did not require this legislation to do this work. This was a logical development. Action was taken, and more is planned. The Okanagan river itself is a smooth flowing system. It rises in the Okanagan lakes and, compared with other rivers, there is very little drop before it passes from Canada at Osoyoos into the United States across the border. It forms part of the Columbia system. On the other hand, in so far as erosion and soil conservation are concerned, the two rivers about which I should like to say something are first the Similkameen and second the Kettle, although not necessarily in that order. To my mind these two rivers are worth watching. Compared with the Okanagan, these rivers have a high rate of flow. In the spring they flow out to such an extent that the river becomes a danger to the lands along the banks. Each year some of the arable farmland disappears. Some farmers along the river banks have suffered grievously. They have lost everything. In other words, the river will take a swing and create havoc. If at all possible, we should have some form of control, some form of diking, or a dam, which will keep the river in a better temper.
Representations have been made by the United States counterparts on the Columbia river development. They have asked that the Similkameen be controlled. They have their reasons for that. Of course, they would like to put in power dams south of the border. A dam on the river would flood a considerable

Marginal Lands Development area in this part of Canada. To provide an even flow it is suggested that further dams should be erected. Just what effect this would have in Canada I do not know. I do not want to see any of our land flooded. I feel any control would have to be done by a series of stages up the river.
This is a river in which the government ought to be interested, particularly the Department of Veterans Affairs. There is a Veterans' Land Act project at Cawston which has a pumping station situated on the bank of the Similkameen and each year when the water is high there is a good cause for fear. Without water, as hon. members know, we will lose our trees. There is no question about it, the rainfall is not sufficient there. We must have irrigation. Therefore, I say the farmers look upon the recurrence of flooding with a great deal of fear.
Just recently I received another letter from the Cawston board of trade asking that I look into this and see whether something could not be done. If and when this legislation is enacted I ask that an inspection and a report be made on the river.
These are just two phases of various aspects of power, irrigation and control of the river, and we welcome any assistance which will aid the farmer along the way.
The same thing applies to the Kettle river. The Kettle has a more even temperament, a more even flow, than the Similkameen, but still it has the habit of taking great bites out of the land, and to my mind this is something which should be controlled. I need only say that in these mountain valleys it is important if possible to preserve that which we have. Soil is one thing, and I feel that we should go all out if possible and in the general interest do everything that we can to preserve our arable land.
When this legislation is passed I would ask that a survey be made of the Kettle river and all of its facets. We should decide whether it is possible to go ahead with some form or measure of control on this river to the end that we shall provide a better deal for all the farmers in the valley itself.
I was rather glad to hear the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Pascoe) refer to the question of co-operation between governments. I know that when he spoke that way he also meant farm government, in other words, all farm organizations. This is essential, of course, and it is stated quite clearly in the provisions of the bill that the federal government is not going to do it by itself but in conjunction with the provincial governments which, of course, is the way it should be done. As I mentioned in

the earlier part of my speech, it is absolutely essential that we do not get too much government control but that, bearing in mind conservation and control of land use, all these various departments should work together in what are considered the best interests of all so that as a result we will have better use of our lands.
(Translation):


Mr. Aristide  Rorapre@Portneuf: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty in the circumstances to
join previous speakers in expressing my great satisfaction to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) for Bill No. C-77 now under discussion. The purpose of this bill is to empower the government to implement, in co-operation with the provinces, a policy for the rehabilitation of lands that are marginal or of low productivity.
When I spoke for the first time in this house during the budget debate, on June 26, 1958, I felt it was of great importance to bring this problem to the government's attention. In fact, as reported on page 1665 of Hansard in volume II for the session of 1958 I said this:
There are In my constituency a few communities where farms are not favoured with a loamy and very productive soil. Although I am no expert in this field, I nevertheless wish to refer to some suggestions made to me by several owners of such farms, to the effect that a grant for the claying of their land would be of great help since it would contribute to increase productivity and help them derive a better income from this land.
And I went on to say:
There is in Portneuf a provincial forestry school where, each year, sons of farmers follow seasonal classes. I feel that it would be wise to encourage by grants the reforestation of some parts of the unproductive farms, as this would create a substantial asset for the coming generation.
May I also bring to the attention of the minister, in order to stress the importance of this legislation, extracts from a lecture delivered before the chamber of commerce and the
Kiwanis club of the constituency of Portneuf by Mr. Armand Fafard, forestry engineer with the forestry information bureau of the Quebec department of lands and forests. His duties are to visit the farms and farm wood-lots where farmers wish to practice reforestation and to give farmers valuable advice about reforestation schemes or a more economical operation of farm woodlots.
In these circumstances I want to commend Mr. Fafard for the wonderful job he has done in the constituency of Portneuf where quite a number of farm plots call for rehabilitation through reforestation.

According to statistics I obtained from Mr. Fafard, 309 farm owners have planted 1,270,925 seedlings since 1946. This month 114 farm owners of that constituency will be planting 315,000 seedlings.
I should like to add that a few communities in my riding have taken a special interest in this reforestation policy and to mention the most important of them. For example, in the parish of Notre-Dame-des-Anges, since 1946, 351,500 seedlings were planted on 108 plantations; in St. Basile, 177,355 seedlings were planted, on 115 plantations; in Pont Rouge, 165,100 seedlings, on 82 plantations; in St. Raymond, 103,050 seedlings on 48 plantations, and in St. Ubald, where I live, 109,975 seedlings on 72 plantations. May I add that most of the communities in my riding have taken advantage of this policy.
I would also like to quote a few of the statements made by Mr. Fafard in a speech delivered before the members of the Kiwanis club and of the chamber of commerce.
The function of that office-the one referred to- which could also be called a forestry publicity service, is to encourage all woodlot owners to operate their woodlots successfully, to make owners more aware of the importance of the forest in the national, regional and domestic economy, to make them love and respect trees, to convince them that the forest, like farming land, must be attended to and improved, so that its products may gain in volume and value; in a word, its function is to teach the woodlot farmer about forestry, to provide him with such technical assistance he may need in the development of his woodlot or maple bush, in his reforestration operations and also in marketing his wood products.
And further:
We believe that, in the near future, the area of private woodlots will be extended considerably, because large areas, formerly used for agriculture, are no longer considered profitable. On these pieces of land, the natural growth is rather good when there are seed-trees in close proximity. Elsewhere, reforestation is a must.
I could thus go on reading these extracts to prove how important it is to concern ourselves with this problem of the reforestation of our farms.
Here are a few excerpts, Mr. Speaker, from an interview given by Mr. Fafard following his conference. The questions were put by an expert in the field:


Mr.   Maheux@: Mr. Fafard are farmers generally interested in rehabilitating areas of their farms which have become marginal?


Mr. Fafard;: There is no doubt about it judging by the applications. There are more of them from year to year. Are you aware that since 1942 the "Bureau des Eenseignements forestiers" (Forest Information Bureau) has dealt with more than
7,000	reforestation projects and that over 15 million young trees have been planted on farms?


Mr.   Maheux@: A very good start. In your opinion, Mr. Fafard, is the demand for plants going to level off or increase over several years?
90205-6-282
Marginal Lands Development


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: I am sure it will. Agriculture is changing and many marginal lands will be given up. Non-productive land is a liability to the province. As a case in point, Mr. Maheux, may I say that sometimes the soil is so exhausted that reforestation cannot be planned before it has been regenerated?


Mr.   Maheux@: Are those who have done reforestation since 1952 satisfied?


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: I would say that people who have done reforestation some 15 or 20 years ago are our best boosters. Their neighbours, convinced by that successful planting, now also want to make all of their plots of land productive.


Mr.   Maheux@: Incidentally, Mr. Fafard, are
planters really aware that reforestation is a long term investment?


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: Certainly, and we congratulate them on providing for the future of those who will replace them. Besides, most of them are proud to show us around their plantation.
Mr. Speaker, like Mr. Fafard, I should also like to congratulate those who took to reforestation in the Portneuf riding, as several of them are over 60 years old and will certainly not see the results of their planting. On the other hand, they are citizens who have the next generation in mind and who will be quite delighted to hand down such a legacy to their successors.
I believe this policy will serve a double purpose in my riding because, in the light of a statement made by the chairman of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, there will be a growing demand for raw materials in this field in the future. In fact, at the 47th annual convention of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, Mr. R. M. Fowler stated:
In his report to the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association meeting in Montreal at their 47th annual convention, the chairman of the association, Mr. E. M. Fowler, pointed out that productivity, in the pulp and paper industry, the largest export industry in Canada, had gone up almost 50 per cent since 1949.
Canadian production potential, last year, was
90.000	tons more than in 1959. In 1959 and 1958, the increase in production had reached 282,000 and
483.000	tons respectively.
Mr. Speaker, this is an industry which is very important to the economy of my riding, where many pulp and paper companies are located. Among them, there is the Building Products Ltd. at Pont-Rouge, whose workers are now on strike. Here may I express my sympathy to those workers, as they have been on strike since September.
There is also the Donnacona Paper Corporation, at Donnacona, the J. Ford and Co., at Portneuf, the St. Raymond Paper, at Chute-Panet, the World Plywood Veneer, at St. Casimir, and the Precision Panels Inc., at St. Basile. The yearly payrolls of those industries in Portneuf county amount to $6,796,000.

Marginal Lands Development
In the lumber industry, the payroll amounts to $449,575.
In addition, the coal industry also contributes to the economy of Portneuf county.
It is therefore very important that we take some interest in those industries, because we can expect increased production in this field. If we want the economy to remain buoyant and if we want those companies to be in a position to obtain their materials from their present suppliers, we have to take an interest in the development of those industries.
I am glad to have had an opportunity to participate in this debate and I trust the people of Portneuf constituency will derive benefits from this bill.
For the information of Quebec farmers, I want to point out that many of them may not be aware of the existence of a provincial act which provides protection for those who engage in reforestation against any increase in municipal taxes. Here are a few excerpts of a pamphlet dealing with section 164 of this act:
I.	Who can benefit from section 164?
A person who plants a few hundred or a few thousand trees on his woodlot to complement natural regeneration: or a person who reforests a fraction of an acre of cleared land runs little risk of having his assessment raised as a result of his reforestation activities. On the other hand, any person planning to reforest cleared land over an area of an acre or more should avail himself of section 164. Assessors may, in preparing an assessment roll, ignore the fact that a portion of the property to be assessed is now covered with seedlings; however, there is no guarantee that they will in 10, 15 or 25 years hence, fail to take into account the promising stand that has grown from those seedlings. It is therefore wise to look to the future.
II.	What is required to enjoy the benefits of section 164?
A land owner who decides to reforest a particular area of his property need only, to avail himself of section 164, send notice in writing, before starting the work, to the secretary-treasurer of the municipality wherein is located the cadastral lot on which he plans to carry out reforestation, to the effect that he plans to reforest so many acres on the said lot and wishes to avail himself of section 164 of the Forests and Lands Act.
It is therefore most important that those interested in reforestation be aware of the benefits available under the act.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members for allowing me to make these few remarks, and I again thank the minister for introducing a bill which will certainly benefit the citizens of the constituency of Portneuf.
(Text):


Mr. Richard A. Bell (Carleion):: Mr. Speaker, this has been an interesting and useful debate. Indeed, during this session no

more important legislation will be debated than this bill introduced by my distinguished constituent, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton). For eastern Ontario, sir, and for my own county of Carleton in particular, this bill will be of basic and long range significance. I believe it will exert a profound influence upon our whole agricultural future.
For many years, I have believed, and in many speeches I have said, that fundamental to any long range, rational approach to the relief of agricultural problems is the institution of a genuine national soil and water conservation program. Accordingly, sir, I welcome wholeheartedly this measure designed for the achievement of such a program.
Essential to the success of any such program is that it be a genuinely co-operative effort of government-federal, provincial and municipal-community organizations, groups and individuals. That co-operation this legislation, as I understand it, will seek to achieve.
Under this bill three types of projects are contemplated. First, there are projects for the alternative use of farm lands which are submarginal, marginal or of low productivity. This development of alternative uses may include the encouragement of farm woodlots, tree farming, county forests, and reversion into crown lands. By providing for more effective utilization of marginal farm lands these projects in the long range will provide new sources of income for people in the area and to the extent that they remove marginal lands from farm use will help to reduce farm surpluses.
In the December, 1960 news bulletin of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture I was interested to see quoted with approval an extract from a speech made as long ago as 1951 by one of the finest citizens eastern Ontario has ever produced. I refer to the late hon. member for Lanark, Dr. W. G. Blair, whose untimely death cut off his career at the threshold of its greatest opportunity. These were the words of Dr. Blair:
With the per unit margin of profit growing smaller with each passing month, soon none but the best farms will be able to provide a decent standard of living for a farm family. With the demand for lumber growing each year, and with our forest reserves being cut rapidly, now would appear to be the ideal time to urge upon the proper authorities the need for reforesting all marginal and submarginal land that is now under cultivation. This would assure wood products for generations to come, and should provide a natural coverage to control the water level and spring run-off.

Those words of Dr. Blair quoted with approval by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture were prophetic, demonstrating as they did Dr. Blair's vigorous support for conservation, reforestation and intelligent land use.
The second type of project under this particular legislation contemplates the development of new income and employment opportunities for rural areas. With very great interest I have read the evidence taken before the Senate committee on land use. That is a committee which has done a most excellent job. I refer to the evidence regarding the success in many parts of the United States of the rural rehabilitation program in attracting local industry, developing recreational facilities, extending technical training, and encouraging a genuine community effort of self-help. The emulation of that effort in eastern Ontario would be most helpful. What has been done in so many United States communities, we can do in eastern Ontario and elsewhere in Canada.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this legislation contemplates joint projects with the provinces for the development and conservation of our water and soil resources. The introduction by the government of the late Right Hon. R. B. Bennett of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act was an act of great constructive statesmanship. Under it large sums of public money have been expended to the great advantage of our western farmers and to the advantage of all Canada. In the mari-times, the Maritime Marshland Reclamation Act has been showing excellent results. In many of the valleys of old Ontario simply superlative conservation work is being done. This legislation heralds the placing of these programs of soil and water conservation on a truly national basis.
However, I believe it would be unfortunate if the house were to treat these projects as isolated ones insulated from other aspects of agricultural policy. In fact, the projects now proposed are an integral part of the whole agricultural program related directly to the fundamental issue of price stabilization, the problem of disposal of farm surpluses, the extension of adequate farm credit facilities and the provision of crop insurance.
Mr. Speaker, the objective of agricultural policy must be to establish and retain family-owned, family-sized farm units, but units of such size and efficiency that will enable the farm family to earn an income equivalent to that earned by those in other comparable vocations with comparable investment.
90205-6-282J
Marginal Lands Development
During the past 15 years, agriculture has experienced a virtual revolution in technology, farm methods and techniques. Agricultural scientists today are in general agreement that mechanization and other technological advances have rendered obsolete the traditional 100-acre unit of eastern Ontario except for highly specialized production. As one observes the extent of abandonment of farm lands in eastern Ontario-or the partial abandonment with owners running a few stockers and grazers and gaining their principal income from "off-farm" employment-the opinion of the technical agriculturalists appears to be confirmed. Yet there are still many small farm units in my county of Carleton which, under intensive cultivation and efficient management, are producing for their owners satisfactory returns and which give indication of continuing to do so.
In any consideration of agricultural policy we must never lose sight of the fact that the family-owned, family-operated farm is a social institution. Such a farm has a threefold significance. It is a business venture; it is a home; it is a way of life. Let it never be forgotten that the integrity of the farm home has been a basic reason for the strength of our Canadian nationhood.
In that most valuable study of Canadian agriculture entitled "Progress and Prospects of Canadian Agriculture" prepared by Dr. W. M. Drummond and Mr. William Mackenzie for the royal commission on economic prospects, there is at page 316 a discussion of the net income per farm by provinces, the study of which I would commend to all hon. members. The table appearing at that page shows that the 1951-55 average net farm income was $2,772, a very meagre return indeed for the farm family upon the invested capital and labour involved. This figure varies from a low of $963 in Nova Scotia to a high of $3,758 in Saskatchewan.
I confess that I was somewhat taken aback by the table which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) placed on Hansard at page 1403 in presenting the resolution preceding the introduction of this bill. The table indicated that, according to the economic classification of farms in the 1956 census, 21 per cent of Canadian farms produced less than $1,200 worth of produce annually; that out of a total of 575,015 farms 120,242 produced less than $1,200. This is subsistence farming at its worst.
What unfortunately has happened in the older sections of Canada is that many farmers have made their living out of depreciation; depreciation of their soil resources, their buildings, their fences. Depreciation of their capital assets generally has provided the profit from which the farmers survived.

Marginal Lands Development
Many more farmers close to the urban areas above become increasingly dependent upon off-farm employment and earnings. On such a basis a healthy farm industry cannot be founded.
As a nation Canada has been the most profligate of all countries in her treatment of her greatest natural asset, the upper six inches of our soil. The depredations made upon those upper six inches is little short of appalling. We now see where that profligacy is leading us. We now recognize that we cannot afford longer to be so profligate with this greatest of all our natural assets, and this legislation constitutes an intelligent and courageous advance in meeting the problem of soil and water conservation.
Throughout Canada the last 15 years have brought about a major reorganization of farm businesses, including a reduction in the number of farms and an enlargement of the average size of farm. This process of consolidation has meant an increase in the need for capital for additional machines and larger inventories of producing livestock.
Technological processes have increased production per acre and per animal. The adjustment of agricultural production to the use of mechanical power and the application of new techniques of production has taken place with really astonishing rapidity, and has not only increased the volume of production per acre and per animal but has brought about a reduction in the labour force to only 70 per cent of the pre-war level.
A statistical analysis of farming in my own county of Carleton is both interesting and relevant. In 1951 there were 3,104 farms in the county of Carleton having a total acreage of 473,644 acres. By 1956, the latest date for which census statistics are available, the number of farms had declined to 2,743 with a total acreage of 444,509 acres. So in just five years 361 families had left the farm and 29,135 acres had been taken out of agricultural production. That trend has unfortunately continued at an accelerated pace.
In 1951 the average area per farm in Carleton county was 152.6 acres. By 1956 consolidation of holdings had raised the average acreage to 162.1 acres.
The statistics of the sizes of Carleton county farms are interesting. Of the 2,743 farms in 1956 there were 800 farms of less than 70 acres; these would be mostly market gardens supplying the city of Ottawa. There were 1,120 farms of between 70 and 130 acres; 679 farms of between 130 and 240 acres; 116 farms of between 240 acres and 400 acres; 24 farms of between 400 and 760 acres, and four farms of over 760 acres.

Mr. Speaker, the government of Ontario has recently published a most excellent booklet called "An economic survey of the eastern Ontario region", that region which we who live in it know colloquially as the golden triangle. To all hon. members I commend the reading of this interesting publication from which I have drawn my statistics, covering as it does the area from Kingston on the St. Lawrence through to the Quebec boundary and up the Ottawa river from the riding of my hon. friend from Glengarry-Prescott (Mr. Villeneuve) to the most northerly section of the riding of Renfrew North.
For eastern Ontario there is another aspect of this legislation to which I should draw attention. I believe this proposed legislation should have an especially profound effect in the national capital region. One of the objectives of the national capital plan has been to provide a balanced urban-rural development in this area on both sides of the Ottawa river. The acquiring of the Gatineau park on the Quebec shore and the institution of a green belt on the Ontario side are basically designed for that purpose.
Within the green belt it is essential that proper conservation techniques should be employed; measures of the type envisaged by this legislation, reforestation of the submarginal lands, control of erosion, control of water resources, scientific development and utilization of the productive lands. This is essential, and it is essential now, unless the green belt is to become a weed belt, which the people of Canada would never tolerate.
Outside the green belt, in Carleton and in the constituency of my hon. friend from Russell (Mr. Tardif), the provisions of this legislation have special significance. A balanced rural development, with new population concentrated into properly planned hamlets, is essential to the nation's capital.
The gradual taking out of production of marginal and submarginal lands, their reforestation, the control of the rivers and creeks, the control of spring run-off and conservation of our water resources, the prevention of pollution-these essential features can be achieved under this legislation with the co-operation of the provinces and the municipalities.
The more productive lands will be freed from the depressing effects of surpluses; they will have greater stability of income, greater opportunity for capital improvement of soil resources through drainage and improved cultivation, for improvement of farm buildings and fences.
In this generally rich agricultural area of eastern Ontario I can foresee this legislation meaning a general "face-lift" so that Ottawa,

which is the shire town, the county town of Carleton, as well as being the nation's capital, will be surrounded by a balanced, profitable agricultural development.
Mr. Speaker, the true need of agriculture is not some gaudy panacea; it is not some cure-all. It is the establishment of positive objectives for agriculture, the acceptance of equity for agricultural producers as a fundamental right and the recognition that this must be achieved by progressive steps, deliberately taken, based upon sensible, rational, social and economic principles.
As I searched for a way to express to the house my deep conviction on this subject there came to my mind a speech made 18 years ago by a great Canadian, a leader of my party, a man whose dedication to the cause of agriculture has been the abiding crusade, the overwhelming ambition, of his life. These are the words of John Bracken spoken to the Holstein-Friesian breeders' association on February 3, 1943:
It is not foreordained that farmers as a class shall work for less pay than anybody else;
or have their children receive, in many areas, only one quarter of the chance of a secondary education or one tenth of the chance of a university education that other children get;
or see their wives forced by economic circumstances into lives of toil, often 12 but sometimes 14 hours a day, all too often Sundays and holidays included.
Fortunately, these statistics have improved in the past 18 years, particularly since 1957. I continue:
These things are not inevitable, and they are not creditable to Canada.
There is no just reason why any farm people in Canada should be forced into the position of poor relations of the rest of society.
No one in urban life that I know of wants to see an inferior economic status fastened upon rural people. No one deliberately plans to keep rural people at these disadvantages.
Farmers don't want handouts from the state. They want markets at fair prices for what they produce. Failing that, they want-and have every justification for expecting-a fair relationship to exist between the prices of what they sell and the prices of what they buy and have to pay for, including labour. They want a square deal. They ask for no more than that; and society cannot, in decency, give them less.
Sir, these words of this outstanding Canadian come ringing back to me 18 years later, for they express more adequately than any words of my own could, my attitude toward agricultural policy. They express the basic objective of this government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question. The hon. gentleman I think said, "The words echoed in my mind". Would the hon. gentleman assure us they were not his words originally?


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, I can give the hon. member my fullest assurance in
Marginal Lands Development relation to that, although I may have played some part at the time in regard to the policy that was then being initiated.
This government is erecting an edifice of balanced, co-ordinated farm policy designed to cure the situations described by Mr. Bracken. It has four cornerstones; each cornerstone is a legislative advance achieved since 1957. Basic is price stabilization, provided by the agricultural products stabilization act, designed to prevent violent fluctuations in price. On the second corner is the Farm Credit Act, a major advance from the old farm loan board; and on the third, the Crop Insurance Act; and now with this agricultural rehabilitation and development bill the fourth cornerstone is laid and the edifice of a balanced agricultural policy may be proceeded with.
Mr. Speaker, it was fluid milk at 80 cents a hundred which drove me from the farm and which educated me in the law. The memories of farm prices at those disaster levels made me resolve that if ever it was my privilege to serve my fellow citizens, my first dedication would be to an attempt to bring to the farmers of my native historic Carleton a position of social and economic equality with those in other callings. I proclaim that as the first principle of my political creed, and because this bill is a major step toward the achievement of that aim-that principle-it has my enthusiastic support.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my custom to participate in every agricultural debate in this house, but it is a pleasure for me to say a few words, and they shall be few because I do not make a positive correlation between the length of my remarks and the intensity of my support for any legislation.
I should like to say that this bill commends itself most enthusiastically to my judgment, and I would like to compliment the minister for his initiative in bringing it forward. This is my first opportunity to speak in regard to agriculture since he assumed that important portfolio, but I can say since he has taken on these duties he has been twice in the province of Prince Edward Island and has been well received there, and is highly regarded for his actions and utterances therein.
I am not a farmer, as nearly all preceding speakers this afternoon have been, but since I represent some of the best farmers in the business I feel emboldened to make a comment or two.


An hon. Member:: Tut, tut, tut, tut.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: While in the city of Charlottetown not long ago I had the opportunity of attending a Rotary club luncheon in honour

Marginal Lands Development of the Prince Edward Island winners of outstanding prizes at the royal winter fair, and it was stated there that never in the history of a province had there been so many winners.
Following the example of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickers-gill)-and I follow his example in so many things-I am emboldened to speak in regard to this agricultural field. Similarly, as the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell), whose eloquence and experience far surpasses mine, I have been especially moved by this bill because it is one of those fundamental pieces of legislation which deals not merely with an institution or an ad hoc situation, but with something very vital and fundamental not only to our way of life but indeed to life itself. I can remember as a small boy hearing the member of parliament for Queens county, the late Mr. Myers, make a speech, and I have never forgotten his words. He said the whole of life, and all that life has become, depends entirely upon the top six inches of the soil covering the earth. Surely the farmer and the agriculturist must be the first citizen of us all in terms of importance. Surely it is an ancient and honourable industry.
A writer who has always impressed me by the depth of his thought and the width of his vision was Louis Bromfield, who was always so concerned with the way we North Americans denuded the great resources which were found on this continent, and how we mined the soil so often instead of working it properly, and how the riches, which were here when the settlers from Europe came, have so often been diminished and indeed denuded.
No one from my province, so far as I know, has participated in this debate but, because Prince Edward Island is called the million acre farm, and I think quite rightly, I am happy to say that this bill will be most meaningful and helpful to that province which is known as the garden province. The hon. member for Carleton in his reticent modesty, or modest reticence, referred to that area he called the golden triangle, but I might say that our area has often been called the fertile crescent of Prince Edward Island.
When the hon. minister and his expert officials continue their study of the resources involved in this vast frontal attack which they have embarked upon, they will find that much of the work has already been done in Prince Edward Island. A great scholar, Dr. A. H. Clark has published a book entitled "Three Centuries and the Island", and has gone back in the geographical, historical, sociological and economic situations for three centuries. As is stated in the dust jacket of the book, he went back to a time before the potato was born. That is a fairly long time. The book includes tremendously accurate and
[Mr. Macquarrie.l
comprehensive sets of statistics which I would commend to the experts of the minister's department who will be carrying on statistical studies in relation to this legislation.
Prince Edward Island, like the area mentioned by the hon. member who has just spoken, has long been a region of small farms and independent farmers. We have always had limited acreage, and if it were not for the fact that we were able to produce excellent crops such as the potato-the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Montgomery) is not in the house so perhaps I will affirm that the Prince Edward Island potato is the outstanding potato of any on the market-we might have suffered from some of those things the hon. member has just mentioned.
We have not suffered from a decline in farm income as the recent statistics indicate, but there has been a steady departure from farms. Although the province of Prince Edward Island, in recent years has had an increase in population, it is not as populous now as it was in the 1890's. The 1891 census showed a population of 105,000 people. It is only recently that we have again reached the 100,000 mark. This arises from the departure from the farms of many of our young people. My colleague the Minister of Fisheries once said that the polling district in which he lives has now as many people on the voter's list as were qualified to vote in the days before the women of the country were given the franchise. The number of our abandoned and vacant farms is, I think, the most fundamental problem in our province. It is fundamental not only in agricultural terms but in human terms, because it indicates the constant export of our greatest resource, our young people, to other parts of the continent. For a long time, as everyone knows, the maritime provinces contributed to the great intellectual development of New England and there are very few maritime families that do not have a branch or two in New England, that intellectual heart of the republic. In the maritimes we are now contributing to the growth of Toronto. Probably this is one of the reasons why this city is developing so rapidly and reaching a degree of acceptance that it did not have in years gone by.
The future of agriculture in Prince Edward Island will be brightened by what this bill foretells. We must have not so much more specialization but greater diversification. Vacant farms must be brought into productivity. A wider range of agricultural commodities must be developed. Within the last two or three years we have been developing with great success tobacco crops in the eastern portion of our province. This offers new vistas. This is also true of activities in

the small fruits field, and certainly in reforestation. In the early days, as Professor Clark points out, there were great stands of pine in Prince Edward Island. It was a heavily forested province. It has not been denuded of trees nor has it suffered from unwise cutting down of forests which has caused erosion in so many parts of Canada, but nevertheless there are areas which might now be turned to profitable forest production.
I may say to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) that, when he starts his activity, which is a co-operative venture, he will find few provinces better prepared in a legislative way than the province of Prince Edward Island. In that province we already have an exhaustive plan for a comprehensive resources survey, an economic development program which will dovetail magnificently with this A.R.D.A. bill.
I should like to particularize; I should like to be specific, as was the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell), but at this stage I will say only generally that in the A.R.D.A. bill we have but one more of those pieces of legislation which will do a great deal to bring not only material gain to the maritime provinces but an uplift in spirit, because agriculture in the maritime provinces needs this. For instance we are today importing things which we should be exporting. Leadership, mobilization of ability from the dominion authority, co-operation with the provincial governments, will fit in with the new spirit that prevails in our eastern seaboard provinces and will bring to our major and ancient industry a new feeling of confidence which we hope will be reflected in an increase in population, in an increased diversity to our income. It is another forward step, and there have been a great many in the last four years, to bridge that gap which too long has existed in economic standards between the maritime provinces and the rest of Canada.
Because I firmly believe that this is one of the most imaginative steps that has been taken by the government, I heartily endorse this A.R.D.A. bill and commend the minister on his vision and initiative in bringing it forward.


Edwin William Brunsden: Mr. Speaker, it may not be unfitting for one from the far west to follow the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell), who gave us a picture of his local agricultural situation, and the hon. member for Queens, to say something about agriculture in western Canada as applied to this particular bill.
Let me say at the outset, sir, that the only governments that ever have shown any
Marginal Lands Development initiative or interest in soil and water conservation have been Conservative governments.


Mr.   Mc@: What about water conservation on the eastern slope of the Rockies?


Edwin William Brunsden: I repeat the statement, sir, the only governments that ever have shown any interest in water and soil conservation- and I am speaking now particularly of the west-have been Conservative governments, of which this is one.


Mr.   Mc@: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Edwin William Brunsden: I go back to the days of the 1930's-


Mr.   Mc@: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Edwin William Brunsden: Will you help me by waiting until I conclude my remarks.


Mr.   Mc@: It is relevant.


Edwin William Brunsden: Yes.


Mr.   Mc@: My question is, will the hon. member tell the house what government it was that passed the measure having to do with water conservation on the east slope of the Rockies?


Edwin William Brunsden: The Prairie Farm Rehabili-tion Act was Conservative policy.


Hazen Robert Argue: Prairie Farm Assistance Act.


Edwin William Brunsden: That is not water conservation. I am sorry, but the hon. member for Assiniboia is confused. He is confusing water and soil conservation, with crop relief. The only governments that have shown any interest in water and soil conservation have been Conservative governments and this is a statement that cannot be challenged.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I challenge it right now. I hope the hon. gentleman does not get very near Mr. Gardiner for some time, after making that statement.


Edwin William Brunsden: Believe me, sir, I live in the province of Alberta and I remember when the government under the leadership of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett was formed. He introduced the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. It was his own initiative; it was established by him and his government, and it has continued to this day.
With regard to the comment made by my friend from Bonavista-Twillingate, let me say that Mr. Gardiner made a very fine political vehicle out of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act for a good many years. In the west we are concerned with this bill. We think it is long overdue. We would have liked to see

Marginal Lands Development it many years ago. We now have it. It means a great deal to us. There are large areas in western Canada-and I think no one realizes this more than the Minister of Agriculture- which, by reason of deficient rainfall and certain other natural impoverishments, simply cannot continue on a crop production basis.
My hon. friend from Queens talked about trees; my hon. friend from Carleton talked about market gardening in the Ottawa area. They have their problems. Our problem is that of tremendous tracts of land without too sound a basis. Our objective must be changed. We must bring about some reforms. We must convert large areas now devoted to the plow, the seed drill and the binder or reaper, to natural grass as was the case many years ago.
I have said in the house before that a large section of western Canada lies within what we call the Palliser triangle, an area of very limited rainfall. Last week I was in my constituency on official business and what did I find? I found that we have had no rainfall and very little snowfall. Each year for the last four years we have had less and less precipitation, and I hope the minister will appreciate in relation to the bill before us, that each year for the last four years we have moved more and more toward the drought conditions of the thirties.
As far as I am concerned as a resident of western Canada, as one who has spent his adult life in Alberta, I feel that a very grave emergency is arising. I am delighted that finally, for the first time in the history of Canada, we are to have a comprehensive program which seeks to alleviate and control the problem we face in the prairie provinces.
I have spoken before of the diminishing water supply in western Canada. We are building the South Saskatchewan dam and I think one of the reasons it is being rushed to completion is the small supply of domestic water in the towns and villages of Saskatchewan. This reduced supply of domestic water comes about by virtue of the fact that each year the run-off from the eastern shed of the Rockies is less and less. That is true of my district. I live in an area which has 200,000 irrigated acres and we have witnessed with alarm the receding water supply. We need water conservation and this bill promises it to us. I should like to commend the minister and to say to him and through him to the government which I am proud to support, that this is one of the most progressive steps, agriculturally, that has been taken by any government in the history of Canada.


Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few remarks on the bill I should first like to


express my congratulations to the minister for all he has done on behalf of agriculture since he took over the portfolio. I am sure that the farmers of Canada appreciate the great effort he is putting into his work. This farm rehabilitation program is something that should have been thought about many years ago. I have farmed for upward of 23 years and when I first started in 1937 we had a Liberal government which never gave any thought to such a program. I remember the year 1938 when wheat was 40 cents a bushel and cattle four or five cents a pound. I remember the years of the drought with the dust flying across the country. What did the Liberals do to rectify that situation? Absolutely nothing. A horrible war began and took the Liberals off the hook.
Today we have a very important piece of legislation before the house, and when I go home and tell my farmers how the obstructionists of the Liberal party this morning delayed consideration of this bill by the house today, I do not know what those farmers will say.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was not intended to come forward today.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: I thought that was a
terrible thing to do in respect of very important legislation like this. They have sat in their seats today. Not one of them has risen to say a word about the bill. They cannot make political hay out of it so they have not a word to say. They just sit there in their seats.
The government realizes the importance of agriculture and has brought in a great deal of legislation to help the industry. I remember when they brought in advances on wheat. Our Liberal friends said that it could not be done, that it was a terrible thing, that it could not be worked out. It has proved successful. The government introduced acreage payments to help the farmers. The Social Crediters in the Alberta legislature cried for two days for a two-price system. They do not know what a two-price system is because that was a two-price system. Our farmers were paid $42 million and we consumed 50 million bushels of wheat which means almost 90 cents a bushel. We distributed that sum to the farmers on an acreage basis but we are criticized by people for doing so.
The Department of Agriculture now handles the sale of wheat and has made a great effort to expand our sales. Just recently a big sale was made to red China which is going to bring a lot of currency into our country and develop the industry. The western farmer would like to save his money but he will spend that money and it will return to Ontario where industry is located.

The Liberals had a great circus last January at the Ottawa coliseum and they said they would recognize red China, but what did the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) say about this sale of wheat?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have been following the hon. member with interest but I fail to see how what he is saying or has been saying for some time is connected with the bill.


Hazen Robert Argue: A Tory filibuster.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Mr. Speaker, the bill is relevant to what we have done for agriculture. The South Saskatchewan dam is in line with the bill from the point of view of water conservation. We have brought in crop insurance. 1 would say to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton), and I trust he will heed what I am saying, that I hope he will pick the best men he can possibly find to administer this legislation and not make use of political patronage as the previous government did under Jimmy Gardiner in trying to spread their political views among the farmers. I hope we will not do that. I am sure we have not and will not because we simply want to help the farmers. That is the main idea of the government.
This program will be of great assistance to the farm families. The government has always taken a great interest in farm families. A farm family is rather hard to define but I would say it is the family that believes that farming is a way of life and a wonderful education for young people. Some of our great men were farm boys and benefited from the education they received.
This bill refers to the development of alternative economic uses for marginal agricultural land. Examples of this are the encouragement of farm woodlots, of tree farming, of county forests, of reversion into crown lands, recreational areas and so on in eastern Canada. Last year, Mr. Speaker, I was fortunate enough to be able to travel through eastern Canada. I saw these small farms at that time which consisted of a few acres under cultivation and on which there was a milk cow. The farmer was trying to raise a family on the income derived from these farms. I noticed the same situation in parts of Quebec and New Brunswick. I feel that this bill will be of great assistance to these farmers because they will be able to start in the wood business and in the production of pulpwood. I admit that it will take years to see any results from this program. At least it is a start toward assisting these farmers to earn a livelihood for their families.
The conversion to grass of marginal cropping land in western Canada by means of 90205-6-283
Marginal Lands Development the community pasture technique and encouraging wildlife habitat areas, recreation development and crop diversification are other examples. In certain parts of the west there is land being farmed which should be turned over to grass for the production of cattle. This step could be taken under this act with the assistance of the government. Some of this land has been farmed for years, and this year, particularly in my part of Alberta, we have noticed that the water level has dropped drastically. Many people who have cattle are already concerned about water and pasture. If we do not get our June rains, some of these people are going to be in dire circumstances. It is comforting to realize that under this act a program for water conservation could be developed.
Just recently the P.F.R.A. organization has moved into our area. The farmers are now able to obtain dams and dugouts, so there is going to be an abundance of water for the cattle. This government changed the farm loan board to the farm credit corporation, and this move is working out very well. The young farmer is able to get a start through the credit provided by this organization, and those farmers already established can expand their operations into an economic unit.
These community pastures are very important. There are a few of them being organized in Alberta. I am very interested in a tract of land in my constituency which was purchased by the previous government to add to the Wainwright army camp. This land is used for army manoeuvres for only two or three weeks during the year. I would be interested in having the Department of Agriculture investigate the possibility of making better use of that land by turning it into a community pasture. Many of our farmers are short of pasture land and, therefore, have had to reduce the size of their herds. They are going to find it very difficult to finance their operations if they cannot keep cattle on their farms.
I do not think I should take up much more of the time of the house, but I should like to express my thanks to the minister for all the work he has done in connection with this measure.


Hon. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I rise really for the purpose of asking a question of the minister before he closes the debate. I think everyone, no matter how non-rural his constituency may be, is greatly impressed with a measure of this kind which is designed to improve the conditions of life in that part of our community which we all know means so much to the whole life of the state. I was once, before I was sent about my business, a representative of a rural constituency containing some of the most

Marginal Lands Development beautiful farmland in Ontario. I got to know something about farming and realized the great distress and difficulties which even in good areas have arisen and which have been so clearly exposed today by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell).
The question I want to ask the minister is this. It is in connection with the other activities which the measure contemplates, and which we all hope will be highly successful. Will there be regard for the increasing need of education which will arise to the extent that the measure succeeds in its aims? When I say "education", I do not mean merely technical education but education in its broader aspects because it is well known that we all look to the country for leaders in the professions, in business and politics. I am thinking of a broader education, not merely technical education, which those in the country and who can have such an influence on our whole way of life, should have. I am quite satisfied the minister, with his own background in the teaching profession, would be the last one to be careless about this or to ignore it.
I raise the question merely because I should like to have the matter mentioned. Those of us who have even a tincture of Scottish blood in us like to look back to Scotland where, in the poorest country homes education was cherished and from the most unlikely surroundings the most distinguished people arose to guide and assist the life of the state.


Mr. G. D. Clancy (Yorkion):: I wish to take a small part in this debate. I should like to sincerely pay a compliment to our Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) whom I have known for many years. I know that this type of legislation is not only very dear to his heart but is something upon which he has spent a good many years. I was very surprised this morning to hear the official opposition state this was a controversial measure. I cannot understand how the principle of the bill can be controversial in any part of Canada. There could be controversy over details, but certainly not on the general principle of the bill.
This measure, as has been said before in this house, is long overdue. It is a bold step and it is being taken without any hope of political kudos in the immediate future. It is a long term measure. As the minister has said, the implementation of the bill will involve the co-operation of every level of government, municipal, provincial and federal. As a member from a constituency which has a very wide range of problems, I think I can speak for my constituents when I say that we welcome this legislation.


Mr. F. J. W. Fane (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I, like the other members who have spoken, feel that I must first congratulate the minister upon the introduction of this Bill No. C-77. During the six months during which he has taken over the Department of Agriculture he has been untiring in his efforts on behalf of the farmers of Canada. He has travelled the country over and has obtained the opinions of farmers of all kinds throughout Canada with regard to this bill. Consequently he has a wide and accurate knowledge of the good this bill will do.
At this time I feel that I should thank the minister for giving me the opportunity of being host to him in my constituency at the town of Andrew in January of this year when he was on his tour of all the provinces of Canada. He made a very good impression on the farmers in my area and he was very well received. His reception was much different from that of his predecessor once removed, in 1957, in that same town of Andrew. I am speaking now of Right Hon. James Garfield Gardiner who, when he was Liberal minister of agriculture, addressed a meeting in the same hall in which the present Minister of Agriculture spoke.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have been listening to the hon. member's line of argument and it seems to me that it is somewhat removed from the principle in the bill. Perhaps he could come back to that matter.


Frank John William Fane: 
Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Cumberland.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member for Pictou.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I am next door to Cumberland; hence you are not too far out in the designation of the constituency.
I should just like to say a few words on the bill now before the house to provide for the rehabilitation of agricultural lands and the development of rural areas in Canada. I commend the minister for this bill. The reason I am speaking on this matter is because I believe it will be of the utmost importance to the province of Nova Scotia and especially to my constituency, the county of Pictou. As was pointed out in the statistics, 90205-6-283i
Marginal Lands Development 61 per cent of the farmers in the province of Nova Scotia earn under $1,200 per year. This is the highest percentage, next to Newfoundland.
This bill is a wide and most general one. It will take some time, as was pointed out by the minister, to get it working. One of the most important things about it, as I see it, is that it enables the minister to enter into agreements with provincial governments or agencies to undertake jointly with these governments and agencies the provisions of the bill. That is most important. It shows a spirit of co-operation in the Department of Agriculture which I believe wlil go through this country. Indeed, the minister himself is exemplifying this spirit.
Last week the minister was in the neighbouring constituency of Colchester-Hants which is represented by my good friend on my left. The minister was attending the closing exercises of the agricultural college, which is no doubt one of the best in this country. He met with some of the farm groups in the province of Nova Scotia and he accompanied the provincial minister of agriculture, the Hon. E. D. Haliburton, who is doing as terrific a job in the province of Nova Scotia as the minister is doing here in Ottawa.
The reason I point out that the provisions of this bill are important to my constituency is that there are many vacant farms throughout the county of Pictou. For example, there are vacant farms in Lansdowne, Gairloch and throughout that area. Steps have been taken in the last few years by various individuals and some companies to grow Christmas trees in these areas. This has become quite an industry and some of these vacant farms are also growing blueberries.
I believe this bill and the A.R.D.A. program will assist with regard to many of these vacant farms, particularly in Lansdowne and Gairloch. This program will help in the growing of trees in these areas and I believe it will put new life into the agriculture of the county.
There is another area where there is a vacant farm which was owned and operated by my grandfather, the late Daniel Cameron, at Elgin, above the village of Hopewell. That was a good farm. I believe this program will be of great benefit to the Elgin area.
My late grandfather was a justice of the peace and forest ranger in the area for some while until politics stepped in. He was known as a Tory, which in those days was not the party in favour, and he was removed. Perhaps the job did not pay too much. However, that is one thing I remember from the things he told me when I was growing up; he was on the opposite side of

Marginal Lands Development those who were in power at that time. That probably had something to do with my attempting to come to Ottawa on the right side of the house.
I should just say that I believe this bill is an important one. As was pointed out by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), it is a means of meeting the small farm problem. The government has under consideration ways and means to improve the standard of living of farmers on small farms by better land use and improvements for small farm units.
These farms are important, and I believe this program will have a terrific impact on the province of Nova Scotia. I agree with what many hon. members have said today about this bill and I commend the minister for introducing it.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, while we are not in the position of congratulating the minister on the excellent job he has done in this connection, we certainly agree that the work which is outlined particularly in the ARDA pamphlet, is an indication that organizations across the country, the provinces and indeed all those who are interested in conservation, will be asked to give it some assistance.
We question the publication of this pamphlet prior to the passing of the bill, particularly in light of what was said about it when this matter was raised. That is, if the avowed purpose of publishing this pamphlet was to ask for additional information from farm organizations, provincial governments and others, it would have been advantageous to refer back this matter, after these questions had been asked of these various organizations, to the agricultural committee so that consideration could be given to those answers.
Unless the minister is prepared to bring in amendments which will put into effect some of the suggestions which have been made by the various organizations, I suggest that the minister, to say the least and to put it in the mildest manner, used poor judgment in presenting this as an application of the bill prior to the time it was put into effect.
In many parts of Canada this rehabilitation program, particularly for agricultural land, is of the utmost importance and necessity. Even in farming areas such as those in northern Ontario, which in many cases are less than 50 years old, we find we have already done many of the things that scientists in the agricultural field say we should not do. One of these, of course, is that we have eliminated all the reserves for water conservation in the agricultural areas and we are now experiencing a terrific run-off of our topsoil in many parts of this area. This is unusual because of

the fact that it is a very new area. This is an area which has not yet been completely developed, and we are already experiencing many of the problems which have developed in other parts of the country.
I notice that we are going to ask a number of other organizations to be brought into the working of this bill. We have the stabilization act, the Farm Credit Act and the Crop Insurance Act. Much of this legislation can be utilized in this connection. I should point out that some of these measures apply very little in some areas, particularly in those areas where conservation is very badly needed.


Hazen Robert Argue: Five o'clock.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order under which I seek instruction. I understand that this being Saturday, on your ruling we are now operating under the order of precedence applicable on Friday, which means that between five o'clock and six o'clock we will be concerned with private bills and orders. May I ask your instructions on this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: That was not the substance of my earlier decision on the question of which item on the order paper should be taken first. It was that we proceed with the first item on the order paper, the order paper having been carried forward with the items in the same sequence and order that they were in at the adjournment on Friday.
I certainly did not intend to indicate that the rules specifically applicable to Friday are applicable to today. I simply had to decide which item should be called first today. I made the decision on the basis of the order paper as it was on Friday. It does not follow from that that the rules applicable to Friday also apply to today's proceedings.
To make the matter clear perhaps I should indicate to the hon. member and the house that standing order 15, which provides for the consideration of private and public bills between five o'clock and six o'clock, makes that provision specifically, with respect to Monday on page 9, and with respect to Friday on page 11, but not to any other day.


Harold Edward Winch: This is Saturday and I understood Your Honour to say this afternoon that we were following the procedure of the United Kingdom parliament, which is that the procedure of Friday shall be the procedure of Saturday.
Does that mean that we should now be dealing with private members' bills?


Mr. Speaker:: No. The decision made earlier today had to do with which order should be called first today and that was determined in reference to the order paper as it was left on Friday night. There are a number

of specific rules relating to Friday and other named days which apply only to those days unless by an express order of the house. The situation now is that today the order of precedence of business has not been provided for nor is it governed by any specific rules. It is not a government day nor is it a private members' day. We have settled precedence of business by taking the orders appearing in the order paper in sequence beginning with the first order; that being a government order, it followed that we should proceed with government orders. However I did not intend to imply that specific standing orders about the business of the house for Friday should be taken as applying to today.	.
(Translation):


Mr. Maurice Johnson (Chambly-Rouville):: Mr. Speaker, as a member from the province of Quebec, it gives me great pleasure-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I interrupted the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), as a point of order intervened when the hon. member for Timiskaming had the floor.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word or two on this point of order. I should like to direct your attention to Beau-chesne's fourth edition where the business for Saturday is set out at page 381 under form No. 36, which reads as follows:
That on Saturday the ....and every Saturday
thereafter until the end of the session, the house shall meet at three o'clock in the afternoon and the order of business and procedure shall be the same as on Fridays.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is referring to a draft form of order which unfortunately the house has not passed, so it really has no bearing on the problem. If the hon. member wishes to continue in the debate he may do so.
(Translation):


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I was therefore saying that, as a member from the province of Quebec, it give me great pleasure to support the motion of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) for second reading of Bill C-77.
In describing myself as a member from the province of Quebec, I do not intend to infer that I do not regard myself as a member for the other provinces of Canada. However, our Liberal opponents often make it a point to accuse the members from Quebec of not supporting the principle of certain bills coming under the joint jurisdiction of the federal and provincial governments. I know this to be a fact because I have read about it in a number of newspapers and have often heard
Marginal Lands Development it stated in this house. In certain remarks which were intended to be either amusing or critical, some Liberal members from Quebec and Newfoundland have suggested that the members from the province of Quebec always drag their feet when it comes to such measures, or even ignore them completely.
Mr. Speaker, when, in the past and in recent times, the members from the province of Quebec or the government of the province have opposed certain bills introduced by the federal government, it was because they had to in view of certain conditions and in the interest of their province.
The Liberals have, in the past, taken us to task for failing to take a stand on some of those bills.
It gives me pleasure to say that in this case, the members from the province of Quebec as a group support this piece of legislation.
First of all, the bill deals with something which, under the constitution, comes under the joint responsibility of the provinces and the federal government.
Of course, it concerns the disposal of part of the provincial territories, but it must be noted that this measure respects the provisions of the constitution regarding the ownership of the lands, the soil and the territory, since the federal government will not undertake any step unless there has been a previous agreement with the province concerned.
This is an example of the kind of bill introduced by a Conservative government which is respectful of the rights of the provinces, and is at the same time anxious to fulfill its duties towards the people of Canada. This is a relief after the centralizing bills of the previous era when Liberals always used to introduce measures designed to make gradual inroads upon provincial jurisdiction in certain fields, so that they might take advantage of those infringements to increase their responsibility, and then refuse to leave the taxation fields they had grabbed during the war.
The Conservative attitude is quite different. We do not deny the existence of national problems. The problem of the distribution of arable land is one of them.
Here you have this Conservative government, respecting the constitution and the jurisdiction of the provinces, introducing a bill that takes into account the constitutional framework, which must always be taken into consideration when it is a matter of legislating for the whole of Canada.
Therefore, I want to congratulate not only the Minister of Agriculture, but the whole cabinet, for their initiative in introducing this bill entitled:

Marginal Lands Development
Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act.
Mr. Speaker, if I were allowed to make a few remarks about the implementation of this bill, I would ask the government to see to it that, when regulations are adopted in relation to this bill, they, as well as the agreements signed between the various provinces, should be flexible enough to apply to the particular problems of each province.
There is not one province where farm problems or rural establishment problems are not altogether different from those in other provinces.
In the province of Quebec, agriculture is mostly based on the family farm principle and this will create a problem, namely the avoidance of anything that would tear whole families away from their usual surroundings for the purpose of establishing them elsewhere. Certain difficulties would arise then. But I am sure that, with the wholehearted co-operation of every provincial government, the problems will be easily settled between the parties involved, through the agreements provided in this bill.
I shall not venture to discuss the problems of other provinces, because I know that my colleagues from other provinces, especially Conservative members, are qualified to do so. However, I shall endeavour to point out in particular the problems facing the government in a possible agreement with the government of the province of Quebec.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I take the liberty of requesting of the premier of the province of Quebec that he refrain from playing petty politics in this field, as he appeared to indicate during the last federal-provincial conferences on fiscal matters. I know that the premier of Quebec has only recently become a convert to autonomy but he does not seem to understand it thoroughly-
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder precisely what this attack upon the premier of Quebec has to do with the legislation before us?


Mr. Speaker:: If that is the argument that is being advanced it would be difficult to connect it with this bill.
(Translation) :


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Chairman, I am precisely dealing with a problem, or with a bill, that especially refers to fiscal agreement between the province of Quebec and the federal government. It is a case of two governments having to discuss a joint issue. This issue will arise, not only out of agreements under this bill, but also out of joint projects in general. I was precisely stating, and I say it again for the benefit of the member for

Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill), who apparently understands only half of what I am saying-incidentally I advise him to listen to the simultaneous interpretation, and this will enable him to understand what I am saying-
The Quebec premier raised that question of joint projects. Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, I am coming back to what I was saying about the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. However, I would not want to insult him. Although I am sure he is very intelligent, blessed with a quick ear, he still cannot pretend, even if he is bilingual, that he can, at one and the same time, write a letter, listen to his neighbour, talk to someone behind him and still hear the remarks I am making in French and understand them. (Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member has recommended to me that I should use the simultaneous translation system to listen to his remarks. It so happens, sir, that I find his remarks quite as comprehensible and quite as insulting in the one language as in the other, and I have no need of crutches of the kind the hon. gentleman has recommended to me for the purpose. I would suggest that if the hon. gentleman would address himself to the legislation before the house and not to extraneous attacks upon a former distinguished member of this house whose shoe laces he is not fit to touch, it would be better for the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that perhaps the latter discussion on both sides is not relevant at all to the bill or to the point of order, and I would counsel the hon. member who has the floor to return to the subject matter of the bill and not to deal with personalities.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: I do not want to prolong this discussion, but if the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate had listened to what I said-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows the course he should follow, and I suggest he proceed with the discussion of the principle of the bill.
(Translation):


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Chairman, I had been speaking of joint projects when I was interrupted by a remark completely out of order.
I was saying I hope that the province of Quebec will share in those joint programs and find solutions acceptable to its people so that the federal government may be in a position to enact regulations and propose arrangements having regard to the particular position of the provinces, especially the province of Quebec.

While I am on this subject, I was saying that I wanted to make a distinction between joint programs which come under the concurrent jurisdiction of the federal and the provinces in the field of agriculture and others mentioned by the prime minister of Quebec at the tax conference last summer, when he stated that the government of Canada ought to withdraw from joint programs and leave them entirely to the provinces.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member, as I followed him, is referring to other kinds of joint agreements between the federal authority and the provincial authority in Quebec, other than those covered by this bill, it seems to me to cite what has been said with respect to those other arrangements has no relevance to the provisions of this bill although it does permit in general terms the negotiation of agreements with the provinces. I trust that he can adapt his remarks to this direction.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your ruling. I just want to make this distinction between these two joint programs of the federal and provincial governments. I think I made my point.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I find that the bill deals with agreements which may be concluded between the federal government, through the Minister of Agriculture, and the government of any province, or any agency of the latter, in order to establish research and investigation programs with regard to the development and conservation of water supplies and the improvement and conservation of soil in that province.
Once again, I hope that the rules will be set so as to avoid any too wide interpretation which would allow the federal government or its officials to interfere in a field which is strictly under provincial jurisdiction. It is not because the Quebec government has changed since June 22 last, that we, in Quebec, are going to reverse our principles, as happened with our friends opposite.
Mr. Speaker, I shall limit my intervention to those few remarks. I shall not presume to say that I have dealt with the whole subject. I simply wanted to bring in a few ideas and more particularly to make my humble contribution to the discussion so as to show that when the federal government introduces a joint federal-provincial project, which in no way impinges upon the jurisdiction of the provincial government of Quebec, member from that province will wholeheartedly rejoice and congratulate the minister and the government.
Marginal Lands Development


Mr. Harold Hicks (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I feel I would be remiss if I did not say a few words this afternoon about Bill No. C-77. As I have sat across the house from the good Manitoban-now the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate-I have often wondered how such an eminent scholar as he is ever got to Newfoundland. Being a fellow Manitoban of some years before he saw daylight there-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not see daylight there.


William Harold Hicks: -I feel entitled to say that he made a little error this afternoon. I should like to correct this, all in fine spirit. I wish to read from the Lethbridge Herald of Tuesday, February 28, 1961:
Twenty five years of progress.
While we here in south Alberta are showing special interest in the resources for tomorrow conference scheduled for the coming autumn, it seems worth while to recall that just a quarter century ago one of the finest pieces of legislation in the history of the west was passed by parliament at Ottawa.
That was the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, for which we give full credit to the late hon. Robert Weir, then minister of agriculture in the Bennett government, and a farmer of the Melfort, Saskatchewan, constituency, who brought the measure into the house at a time when the prairie west was in a parlous state due to a combination of the lowest world price for wheat in 400 years, plus drought, plus soil drifting with its black blizzards.
Our problem in the Fraser valley is not like that of a good many other places where water is in short supply. We very often have too much water and the problem is one of drainage. All hon. members will recall the floods of 1948 and 1950. Dikes were built and after they were completed in 1949 and 1950 the understanding was that the provincial government would assume the responsibility of keeping them in good condition.
During the last winter quite a number of authorities in the Fraser valley have come to the view that the dikes have greatly deteriorated. Not only have they become lower but water gets in under them and erodes the foundation and some of the dikes are falling into the river. The board of trade of Mission City has organized quite an effort to try to get the federal government to assist in putting the dikes back into shape and they are supported by several boards of trade in the Fraser valley, those of Chilliwack, Abbotsford, Hope, Langley and so on, and also by the associated boards of trade. There is great fear that if a flood does occur some spring the result will be disastrous. If such a flood should take the same form as on the last occasion the cost would be a very serious matter not

Marginal Lands Development only in the case of the farms, about which I am concerned, but also in the towns and other communities.
There is a $27 million dairy industry in the Fraser valley whose product is handled by the Fraser valley milk producers association, one of the largest co-operative associations in Canada. It is well organized and anything that interferes with its operations interferes with the revenue derived from the farms. The moving of stock, the flooding of pastures and the flooding of grain are very serious matters and in my view such situations could be alleviated under Bill No. C-77 which, as I said at the resolution stage, is one of the finest bills to be brought before the house in the field of agriculture.


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have one or two comments to make. I do not come from a rural constituency but I appreciate the benefit that the bill will confer upon the economy of Canada. I should like to refer to the pamphlet explaining the bill and to correct a misapprehension as to the farming situation in British Columbia. It is indicated in the pamphlet that 46 per cent of the farms in that province have an annual income of less than $1,200. It is also shown that the figures for Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are higher. I suggest that the reason for this is that we have a lot of part-time farmers in British Columbia, people who have small acreages and who may also be fishermen or lumbermen. In fact, I think the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. McQuillan) would be classed as a farmer because he happens to have five acres of land around his house.
I suspect that the bill will actually apply only to these people who are legitimate farmers and who work full-time on their farms but still cannot develop a reasonable annual income. I think that the figures in the pamphlet are somewhat misleading as to the state of agriculture in the province of British Columbia.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to bring about a greater measure of conservation, improved land use and an improvement in agricultural income by means of various projects. We were pleased to support the resolution which preceded the bill and we shall vote for second reading of the bill. However, the fact that the government has introduced a measure of this kind does not tell us to what extent the government hopes to use the measure or to what extent the provinces are prepared to co-operate with the federal government. It tells us absolutely nothing about the amount of money or even the proportion of money that the government will provide for these various projects.


In introducing the resolution the minister told us he wanted to place the bill on the order paper, have first reading and then he would go back and forth across the country meeting the farm organizations and provincial governments in order to discuss projects under this bill and to learn the attitude of the provinces and the farm organizations so that he would be in a position to change the bill in any way that seemed advisable. I hope that when he closes the debate he will inform us as to how many provincial governments he has interviewed, how many are interested in this measure, how many projects he thinks may be forthcoming under the measure during the present year and to what extent the federal government is prepared to put money into this measure. After all, it is not going to be good enough to have on the record a well-worded long term program unless the government is prepared to push it.
It is fine for hon. members on the other side to get up and compliment the minister and express great support for and faith in the measure, but we are not quite so confident that the government is going to use the measure to the fullest possible extent. We have had other rather bitter experiences in the house of the government introducing measures that read well, were promoted most capably and were given a tremendous amount of publicity but under which the farmers have found they got less than under the legislation replaced by these measures and the programs for which the new legislation was substituted. I refer, of course, to the old bill 237 under which the government has allowed the prices of eggs and hogs to collapse. Therefore it is necessary to have more than good phraseology, well meaning statements and complimentary remarks.
This has been a Conservative field day, almost a Conservative filibuster, although it does not bother me too much if the Conservatives want to put forward a dozen or more speakers on the same day one after the other. The main theme of these speakers has been that the minister is a great fellow, that this is a wonderful bill, that they are a fine party, that the Liberals were in power for 22 years and did nothing and that the people had to wait for a Conservative government to introduce a measure of this kind aimed at the conservation of agricultural resources.
This bill has a title. We know that the government is stuck with the title of the act before the bill has been approved by the house. They have used the title on a pamphlet. I think it was rather insulting to parliament that the government should bring out a pamphlet entitled, "Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act" before parliament had approved or the governor general had

given royal assent to that act. I think this is an affront to the House of Commons. This is a rather stupid way to conduct public business. I think the government should be above this kind of back door method. I think the government should have more respect for parliament than to put out this very fine, very fancy little pamphlet.
One finds it difficult to ascertain whether the pamphlet was printed by the Department of Agriculture or whether it was done on the authority of a man by the name of Grosart, because it is about that type of job.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps it was John Fisher?


Hazen Robert Argue: Well, it is difficult to say which one. I understand there is a little competition between those two gentlemen at the moment. They do not know which one is in control of publicity for the Tory party, whether it is the one who is paid with public funds or the one paid with other funds obtained from undisclosed sources. However, it is a very fine looking Conservative pamphlet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: There is loud applause. They know it is a Conservative pamphlet and not a government pamphlet. They know it is a very fine Conservative pamphlet, designed as an attractive piece of propaganda containing some measure of truth but a lot of propaganda. It is an insult to the House of Commons because it indicates that despite the attitude of parliament there will be an agricultural rehabilitation and development act.


Edwin William Brunsden: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Medicine Hat.


Edwin William Brunsden: The hon. gentleman has applauded the idea of the minister getting the opinions of municipalities and provinces, and now he is referring to a pamphlet containing a very lucid explanation-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to a point of order in respect of this question of privilege, such as you allowed earlier today.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member is rising on a point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, the hon. member said a question of privilege, sir, and I am rising on a point of order. I submit no question of privilege arises.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If it is a question of privilege, it could not arise very well or could not intervene at this time-well, it possibly could, but what the hon. member
Marginal Lands Development is really speaking to is a question of order in the debate. I have not heard as yet what his point is.


Edwin William Brunsden: The point of order is simply this. With all due respect, the hon. member is referring to a document which explains the legislation and is calling it propaganda. It is not propaganda.


Mr. Speaker:: I see no point of order there. However, I have been in some doubt as to how the hon. member connects his reference to the pamphlet to the principle of the bill.


Hazen Robert Argue: I believe that is rather easy. The pamphlet is headed "ARDA-The agricultural rehabilitation and development act; Bill C-77, an act to provide for the rehabilitation of agricultural lands and the development of rural areas in Canada." The minister's own statement in introducing the measure, taken from Hansard, is contained in the pamphlet. I think they are part and parcel of the same thing.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the fact that the pamphlet relates to the bill. The point about which I was in doubt was>
the relevance of the issuance of the pamphlet to the debate on second reading of the bill. I did not rise, myself, to stop the hon. member, but he has not made very clear the connection between the pamphlet and the principle of the bill, other than to complain about the affront to parliament in publishing the pamphlet.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think that is a fairly important point, too.


Mr. Speaker:: If it were a point, it would be a point of privilege. However, I trust the hon. member will proceed with the discussion of the bill.


Hazen Robert Argue: I submit it is not a point of order to say that this government has held parliament in contempt. This is exactly what has been done, and it has been within the rules of the house in the past, day after day. When the Liberals were in office, opposition members held up anything they might have which they felt indicated contempt of parliament. This pamphlet has a real connection with the bill. We are being told what we are going to do. We are being told we are all rubber stamps, and no matter what we do we cannot amend the bill because the pamphlet gives the title. I feel a mistake was made, and I think it is an insult to the House of Commons.
However, Mr. Speaker, I had been saying that hon. members opposite, during this miniature Conservative filibuster, have seemed to take the attitude that under the Liberal administration nothing had been done in

Marginal Lands Development this field. They applauded very loudly when I made that statement as interpreting what they have been saying, and many of them made exactly the same statement. One wonders, then, what the record of the Conservative party is in the field of conservation. A Conservative government introduced the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. Did they do so early in their term of office? No, they waited until the spring of 1935, almost the end of their legal term of office under the constitution. They had become so frightened of the electorate, they had become so timid, that they were apparently desperate to try to discover something that might be done which would be popular and which would be good legislation, thus saving them from the wrath of the electorate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the hon. gentleman seeking to draw an analogy?


Hazen Robert Argue: I was not seeking to draw an analogy and I am not certain there is an analogy. We shall learn after a certain time whether or not this government, at this time, is following for identical reasons the same course followed by the Conservative administration in 1935.


Richard Albert Bell: The hon. gentleman will not be here.


Hazen Robert Argue: I heard the hon. member for Carleton say I would not be here. I have heard that for many years, "You won't be here". I have heard a lot of things, that I will not be here or that I will not get some other place. However, I have been around a long time-


An hon. Member:: Too long.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have heard that before, too, and I am willing to take my chances. I think they are probably as good as those of most members in this house. "These interruptions are most entertaining", the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) says, especially those from the Social Credit members from Alberta who sit with the Conservative party.
The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, which was introduced by the Conservative party, was a good act. A great deal has been done under that act to assist western Canada. We believe that that act has proved itself to be a good act, and one that is worth keeping, one that should be maintained on the statute books. I feel this measure might have another title, an act to replace the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. Another

title might be, a bill to wipe out the record of the Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner in this field. This bill may represent an effort to cover up, to make the public forget, that the Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner, as minister of agriculture for Canada for many years, was very devoted to the question of agricultural conservation and rehabilitation. While he was not the minister responsible for the bill which established the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, nevertheless under his auspices as minister of agriculture a great many worth-while projects were undertaken and completed under that act.
I think any member of parliament, no matter how biased he may be in the belief that his own party is more often right than are other parties, should be prepared to state the facts; and the facts are not as they have been alleged, namely that a Liberal government did nothing in this field. The fact is that most of the conservation measures have been undertaken and completed during the course of Liberal administration. The Conservatives could not do it from the opposition so we shall not blame them entirely. If they had been in office, I am sure they would have introduced some of them.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Since the hon. member is seeing the leadership of the new party going to Mr. Douglas, is he trying to work his way into the Liberal party?


Hazen Robert Argue: I am afraid I did not hear the question, Mr. Speaker. I heard one or two things about it which might suggest what it was. However, I think perhaps the facts should be placed on the record. This afternoon the Conservatives have said that the Liberals did nothing. I have here in my hand the annual report for the first year in which the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act was operating. In this report I see no reference indicating water projects completed. Certain regrassing projects were undertaken. I see no record of these projects having been completed. Yet the latest annual report of the administration under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act-that of 1958-59-shows that during the period of the operation of this act 49,204 water development projects were completed, 5,400 of them during the time of this Conservative government, but as far as I am able to ascertain, none of them by a former Conservative government. Therefore, out of 49,000 projects, the Conservatives can take credit for 5,000. The Liberals were in office when 44,000 were completed.


An hon. Member:: What is the point?


Hazen Robert Argue: The point is that we have heard this afternoon a great many foolish remarks that were not true and that have no basis in fact.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member is continually looking over at the seat of the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Brunsden) in referring to this particular act. I think that is whom he meant. The hon. member for Medicine Hat said that the legislation was brought in by a Conservative government and that Mr. Gardiner had used it as a good political vehicle. He never said that nothing was done.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has not raised a question of privilege. Perhaps he did not intend to do so.


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member not only wants to tell me what I am saying but where to look when I am saying it.
Under the community pastures project under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act-and it is a very important development-a great deal has been done. A tremendous number of acres have been brought under the community pastures system. Land has been regrassed. There has been allocated and reserved for grass land which might otherwise have been put under the plow when it was not suitable for that purpose. The total area of land in pastures as shown at the end of this report for 1958-59 was 1,815,265 acres. Yet if one looks back at the acreage given under this project, one finds none before 1938. In other words prior to 1938 under a Conservative government not a single community pasture had been established. There are 64 community pastures today. The records show that 61 were established under the former Liberal government and that three have been established during this government's period in office.
I therefore suggest that the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act has proved to be a good act under which many worth-while projects have been established. I suggest that it is not accurate to say that under a Liberal administration nothing was done in this field. The fact of the matter is that members in all parts of the house, in all parties, over the years have been very much interested in conservation. John R. MacNicol, a long time Conservative member of the House of Commons, used to make this matter almost a full-time cause. Although he had little connection with the prairie areas or the agricultural areas of Canada, representing as I believe he did, a constituency in the city of Toronto, nevertheless, I think even the members of the Liberal party and the house will agree that he made an important contribution to conservation and to agricultural development.
Marginal Lands Development


George James McIlraith: The minister of agriculture of the day always said that.


Hazen Robert Argue: Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner was prepared to give him credit for that contribution. Therefore, I do not think it should be necessary for the members on the government side of the house to try to pretend that nothing was done until this government arrived on the scene and that all of a sudden, by bringing in this bill and by printing a pamphlet and distributing it, agricultural conservation or improvement of soil productivity has become the order of the day.
When I rose, Mr. Speaker, I said that what we are really going to be interested in is to learn from the Minister of Agriculture the projects he has under way with the provinces or how many projects will be established. We wish to learn from him whether any provincial government intends to establish any projects during the present year and whether this program really will be under way and in operation during the current year. I should like to know the proportion of these projects that the federal government is prepared to finance.
I say to the government now that they had better do better under this act than they have done under the Crop Insurance Act. Twenty per cent will not do the job. Under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act the federal government paid the whole shot. The provincial governments and the community pastures provided much of the land. As far as dug-outs are concerned, the farmers have put up some money. It has been a smaller amount in recent years because the proportion paid by the federal government has been increased. The Prairie Farm Assistance Act, another act in the field of the maintenance of farm income about which this act has some things to say, has been paid for by the federal government and by the farmers, and under that act there was no endeavour to load the financial responsibility on the provinces.
I am not saying that the provinces have not some responsibility. I think they have some responsibility. I am not saying that the provinces should not be asked to contribute something under this act. However, I express the hope that, more in keeping with the responsibility accepted by the federal government under P.F.R.A. and under P.F.A.A., the federal government will accept the major financial responsibility and will not endeavour to foist it on either the provincial governments or the agricultural producers themselves. This act could be an excellent one. Time will tell. The administration of the measure will determine its real value, but I can tell hon. gentlemen opposite that in my

Marginal Lands Development judgment the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act has been a good one and much has been accomplished through that act. This will need to be a very good act before it justifies replacing the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.
I think the two can work together, and before we junk one we should be certain that this bill adds a great deal to the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and does in fact bring about a very important extension of that act.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I have listened rather attentively to the debate this afternoon. I could not help but wonder, until the last speaker took part in the debate, what the line of debate would have been had the item of business appointed for today, the motion-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George James McIlraith: -by the hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken), been proceeded with, and had the debate on that motion occupied three or four hours of the sitting. Had this bill come forward after that length of time, I wonder whether the content of debate on this bill would not have been sharply changed.
I am driven to the conclusion that it would have been sharply changed, because it has become apparent from the remarks of hon. gentlemen that they were using a pattern that they have developed on second reading of bills in this house; that is, the procedure of getting up and politely ignoring the part of the rules that has to do with repetition.
In any event, none of us raised a point of order about the repetitious nature of their speeches so I cannot raise it now. However, I should like to draw to the attention of hon. members the fact that the substance of their argument was repeated many times. It seemed to be that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) is a fine fellow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George James McIlraith: I have a recollection of reading in some of the books about the origin of our parliamentary system that all hon. members were presumed to be gentlemen. Indeed, that is the basis of the development of our system. In any event, that argument was made by all hon. members who spoke.
Then they went on to say that the minister was to be congratulated for bringing in this bill. Some hon. members went so far as to congratulate the minister, in effect, for using the taxpayers' money to put out-and one hon. member later admitted this in the crossfire-what was a piece of party propaganda, namely the pamphlet describing this act which has not yet been before parliament.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: That was never
admitted. On the contrary, it was denied.


George James McIlraith: Hon. members have followed this procedure and one can only draw the conclusion that had there been other business of the house ready perhaps there would not have been such repetition in debate. This measure was debated in the resolution stage; it was debated in the second reading stage. This is the second occasion on second reading of this bill on which the remarks seem to have been unduly extended by repetitious arguments.
Perhaps it would be in order to remind some hon. members who were hard pressed for remarks, and obviously ill-prepared for discussion of this subject-for instance, the maritime hon. members-that the marshlands rehabilitation legislation at the conclusion of the war was useful and proper legislation. I think hon. members will agree, and I notice the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan) nods his head in approval.
That was a piece of Liberal legislation, as was the legislation having to do with water conservation on the east slope of the Rockies. That was also useful legislation in this field. All this legislation is of a nature that has always been of interest to hon. members of the House of Commons from all parties.
I recall very distinctly the speeches-I must say they were sometimes a little repetitious in the sense that they were repeated year after year; but I only say that by way of commendation of the hon. member-of the late hon. member, Mr. MacNicol. His speeches on this subject of conservation came up each year and he always had a new facet to add to them describing one of his trips to one or other part of the country by way of illustrating the need for conservation.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: He seemed to know every crossroads in western Canada.


George James McIlraith: In any event, what I wish to point out here is that the hon. members supporting the government today have obviously been dealing with this legislation in the way they have chosen-as is their right- because of the situation that the government simply had not taken the time to organize its business and prepare legislation for submission to the house.
That has become a habit this session and I would hope that at some time between now and Monday the house leader will see fit to bring forward the necessary provisions for submission to the house so that it will be in a position to deal with the government business that the government wishes to bring forward. I should also-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Either talk about the bill or give me the right of reply.


George James McIlraith: I also wish-


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand there is a rule in the house that nobody in the gallery shall make notes and I notice this being done.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: I see that it is six o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, on Monday and Tuesday there will be a supply motion. The business for the balance of the week, subject to change if the necessity arises, will be estimates, commencing with those of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and followed by those of the Department of Fisheries. If the house makes good progress, another department will be called.
Business of the House


John Whitney Pickersgill: I deliberately did not ask for the business because, since the government does not adhere to these statements any more, they do not seem to be useful.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That statement is completely wrong and decidedly childish. It should be withdrawn, because the government does adhere to its order of business-


George James McIlraith: You said we would be dealing with estimates.


An hon. Member:: Since when?


Gordon Minto Churchill: -unless something occurs to prevent it or there is a lack of co-operation on the other side.


Mr. Speaker:: The house sometimes sits beyond six o'clock to discuss the business of the house. I see that has been concluded. The house stands adjourned until 2.30 p.m. on Monday next.


[Stage Direction]
It being two minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special 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. Regier: 1.	How many temporary government buildings are there in Ottawa that are now over 10 years old?
2.	Approximately how many employees are ordinarily working in these buildings?
3.	Is the federal government intending, at an early date, to replace these temporary buildings?
Answer by: Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):
1.	17.
2.	Approximately 12,000.
3.	The intention is to vacate and demolish all these temporary buildings progressively as soon as permanent accommodation can be made available.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT PUBLICATIONS
Mr. Denis: 1.	How many copies of the publications:	(a)
Letter Perfect (b) A la lettre; have been printed and distributed to date under the authority of the postmaster general?
2.	What has been the cost of such publications?
3.	How many persons:	(a) regularly employed
by the government (b) from outside the government staff; have taken part in the preparation and drafting of these publications, and what has been the cost involved in each case?
Answer by: Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster
General):
1.	(a) Printed, 30,000; distributed, 20,000. (b) Printed, 5,000; distributed, 3,750.
2.	$3,107.14.
3.	(a) Several regular government employees spent short periods, over some months, in the preparation and drafting of the publication. It is not possible to assess the time spent or the amounts of money involved in this aspect of the work.
(b) Screencraft of Ottawa-$581.74 included in No. 2).

Monday, May 8, 1961