1961-04-10

[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 10, 1961

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief report to the house on the fourth meeting of the development assistance group which took place in London from the 27th to the 29th of March. As hon. members will recall, this group is a temporary body; when the organization for economic co-operation and development comes into being later this year the present group will be transformed into the development assistance committee of that organization.
At these meetings Canada, like the other countries concerned, was represented by officials from the various departments concerned with our international aid program. The other members of the group are Belgium, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Portugal, the United Kingdom, the United States and the commission of the European economic community. Mr. Kristensen, the secretary general designate of the O.E.C.D., as well as representatives of the international bank and the inter-American development bank, also participated in the London meeting.
This meeting of the development assistance group was one of special significance. It was the first since the new administration took office in the United States. The administration, as hon. members are no doubt aware, has shown a very strong interest in improving the quantity and quality of the aid flowing to underdeveloped countries from the more advanced countries of the free world. In line with this interest, the administration put forward proposals for enlarging and intensifying the activities of the group.
The conclusions of the meeting in London were set forth in a communique to which are attached two important resolutions. With the consent of the house I should like to table these documents at this time. By way of summary I might say that the group agreed to recommend, as a common objective, an expansion in the aggregate volume, and an improved effectiveness, of the resources made available to the less developed countries. Accordingly it was agreed that the members
of the group would periodically review together the amount and nature of their contributions in terms of multilateral and bilateral aid, and also agreed that a study should be made of the principles by which governments might equitably determine their respective contributions to the common objective, having regard to the different circumstances and capacities of each country.
The group also decided to strengthen the effectiveness of its work by inviting the delegations of the United States and France to nominate a chairman and vice chairman respectively of the group to serve until the O.E.C.D. is formed, and to be available in these capacities thereafter. Under this arrangement the chairman will be expected to devote most of his time to the work of the D.A.G. He will co-operate with the secretary general of the O.E.E.C. and should be able to provide the kind of leadership and continuity of purpose which the important objectives of the group require but which could not be easily achieved under the former arrangement whereby a different chairman was chosen for each meeting, with his responsibilities being confined to the actual conduct of the meeting in question.
I need hardly say that the government of Canada, representing a country which has itself played a significant role for more than a decade in the provision of bilateral and multilateral aid to the underdeveloped countries, is in sympathy with the purport of these resolutions. We recognize that an increasing number of the more economically advanced countries are now in a position to initiate or expand their aid in various directions and by various methods, and that by consulting together in the D.A.G. we can all improve the effectiveness of our assistance programs.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I think hon. members will have had the opportunity, to some extent at least, to follow in the press the activities of this important meeting in London and the communique that was issued at the end of that meeting. On this side we will be happy to support anything that can be done to co-ordinate and extend development assistance, especially on multilateral lines. If the London meeting, as I understand from the minister's statement is the case, has made some contribution to that objective, then I think it should be strongly supported.



O.E.C.D.

[Stage Direction]
There was one omission from the minister's statement, at least according to press reports of this meeting. That omission concerned a reported proposal by the United States that each member of the development assistance group should contribute 1 per cent of its gross national product to international assistance, and also that unless there were balance of payments considerations which made it impossible, there should be no obligation imposed by contributing countries to have their contributions spent within their own borders.
I do not believe the communique makes a reference to this proposal by the United States. A great deal of publicity has been given to it, and it would have been interesting to have secured from the minister some indication of the attitude of the Canadian government toward the proposal. Perhaps we will be able to do so on some subsequent occasion.
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: We have heard the announcement by the Minister of Finance. All I will say at this time is that we regret the fact the record proves that Canadian assistance in the field of international aid has declined since this government assumed office. As the leader of the official opposition has-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is going beyond the scope of the announcement, which was a factual account of a meeting of officials in Europe, and is commenting generally on the actions of the government in the field of economic aid. These comments seem to me to be more appropriate for a time when the subject can be debated rather than the present time when the hon. member has the opportunity, if he wishes, to reserve comment with respect to this announcement but not to introduce controversial discussion.


Erhart Regier: In the light of your remarks, Mr. Speaker, all I will say is that I hope the Canadian government, at a very early date, is going to reverse this trend of declining participation in the field of international aid to underdeveloped countries, so that there will be more aid given rather than a decline in this respect.



MERCHANT SEAMEN COMPENSATION ACT


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-81, to amend the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to widen the discretion of the merchant seamen compensation board to make an allowance to a person who undertakes the care and maintenance of those orphans of a merchant seaman who are entitled to compensation under the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act. Under the present wording the allowance is paid only if the person moves into the household of the deceased seaman or deceased seaman's widow. This bill would permit the allowance to be paid, in the discretion of the board, when the orphans are cared for and maintained elsewhere than in the former household in a manner satisfactory to the board.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, may I make an announcement with regard to the business of the house. When the house rose for the Easter adjournment it was the intention to have a supply motion today and tomorrow. However, during the interval it seemed advisable to change that order of business and postpone the supply motion. After consultation with the parties on the other side of the house we have reached the conclusion that we might move into supply today without debate or amendment and consider the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.
I hope this announcement will not take too many members of the house by surprise. Perhaps it will, inasmuch as we have been considering Department of Agriculture estimates on three preceding occasions for about eight hours and there has been considerable discussion on the first item. I presume that everybody interested in agriculture will be prepared to go ahead with the estimates today.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: As I understand it, this is just a postponement of the motion to go into supply. We are certainly quite agreeable to this request made by the government.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, our group is quite prepared to go along with it.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it, then, that by unanimous consent the house is prepared to resolve itself into committee of supply without question put, and that the motion to resolve into committee of supply will not be counted as one of the six supply motions provided for in the rules. On that understanding, is it

the pleasure of the house that, when the orders of the day are reached, a motion to go into committee of supply be accepted as unanimously adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of a resolution adopted at the United Nations which requested all member states to consider taking such separate and collective actions as are open to them to bring about the abandonment of policies of apartheid in South Africa. My question is this. In view of the fact that Canada supported this resolution, does this mean that the Canadian government, when South Africa leaves the commonwealth, will seek modification of existing arrangements regarding commonwealth trade preferences with that country?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: The resolution in question, co-'sponsored by India, Ceylon and Malaya, makes abundantly clear the assembly's abhorrence of and concern over South Africa's racial policies and requests "all states to consider taking such separate and collective actions as are open to them in conformity with the United Nations charter ..."
It is, of course, up to members to interpret United Nations resolutions as they deem fit. The language to which the Leader of the Opposition has called attention is admittedly broad, but as the Canadian representative pointed out in his explanation of the vote, this clause does not in the government's view condone the use of force or punitive measures by member states. Our interpretation of this clause is rather in terms of moral suasion than of concrete measures such as various forms of sanctions.
The general question of trade relations with South Africa is under consideration, but we do not consider that the terms of this resolution would bind us to repudiate existing trade arrangements with South Africa.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I wish to ask a supplementary question. Is it a fact that these trading arrangements with South Africa which the Prime Minister has mentioned are dependent upon South Africa's membership in the commonwealth?


John George Diefenbaker: I have not before me at the moment the various arrangements, but my
Inquiries of the Ministry understanding is that in general these arrangements are the result of bilateral agreements going back to 1932.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice, or in his absence for the Solicitor General. Could the minister advise the house what action, if any, has been taken as the result of a prank involving the flying of an unauthorized' flag in front of the supreme court building in Ottawa on Wednesday last?


Hon. W. J. Browne (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I must thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. This matter has been investigated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and is presently being considered by officials of the Department of Justice.
(Translation) :

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Arlhabaska):: Mr. Speaker, following the incident which happened a few days ago with regard to a distinctive national flag when a young student sought to express his enthusiasm for such a flag, could the Minister of Justice or his parliamentary secretary tell us whether proceedings will be taken against this student?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would allow that question to be added to the earlier one on the same subject, and taken as notice.


Lionel Chevrier: No, the
question is not the same.


An hon. Member:: Do you want them to prosecute?


Lionel Chevrier: That depends on the government. The question concerns legal proceedings, and I think it is a different one.


Mr. Speaker:: I have no intention of preventing the minister from answering if he wishes to do so today.


William Joseph Browne: If the hon. member did not hear the answer I gave to a previous question dealing with the same subject, may I repeat that that matter is being studied by the officials of the Department of Justice at the present time.

Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation):



SASKATCHEWAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State or, in his absence, to the acting minister.
Is it true that the lieutenant-governor of Saskatchewan, Mr. Frank L. Bastedo, has reserved a bill on behalf of the crown concerning the right to renegotiate certain ore contracts with private corporations?
(Text):


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think I might most appropriately answer that question. The first information the government received on this matter was on Saturday, when the lieutenant governor telephoned the under secretary of state that he had reserved a bill of the Saskatchewan legislature for the signification of the Governor General's pleasure. The bill, I am informed, purports to empower the provincial government to alter mining contracts and is entitled the Mining Rights Alteration Act.
We have no other information on the matter. There was no consultation in advance in any way, and any action in this regard would be taken by the lieutenant governor himself.



SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General and Acting Minister of Justice. Is the minister in a position to confirm the arrest of a Montreal engineer allegedly charged with an offence under the Official Secrets Act?


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, according to the information of the Department of Justice a landed immigrant residing in Montreal was arrested by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police last night under the Official Secrets Act. He is appearing in court today. Under these circumstances I believe it would be improper to make any further comment on the matter.



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Min-[Mr. Browne (St. John's West).!
ister of Transport. In view of the report in Le Devoir of April 6 to the effect that in Windsor, Ontario, a city of 35 per cent French speaking people, it is impossible to telephone a telegram in French to the Canadian National Telegraphs office, would the minister make urgent representations to the C.N.R. to the effect that bilingual persons in a reasonable proportion be employed at the C.N.T. offices in Windsor and in other comparable localities across Canada?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to make such a representation to the management of the C.N.R.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour, notice of which I sent to his office this morning. In the absence of the minister I would ask that the question be taken as notice by his parliamentary secretary.
Will the minister advise the house whether instructions have been issued by the unemployment insurance commission to all post offices throughout the country to discontinue the issuance of unemployment insurance stamps for casual employees. If so, on what date were such instructions issued, and does this mean that U.I.C. form 419-C has now been discontinued?


Mr. R. D. Thrasher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, notice of this question was brought to my attention just before I entered the house. I have asked for the information, and it will be given tomorrow.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister say whether the Montreal engineering firm of Surveyer, Nenniger and Chenevert is engaged in performing any contracts for the Department of National Defence or Defence Construction Limited?


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has not given notice perhaps he will put his question on the order paper.



INTERCEPT ACTIVITIES AGAINST STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND PLANES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: May I address a question to the Minister of National Defence-I regret no notice has been given-and ask him whether orders have been given prohibiting air intercept activity by NORAD planes against aircraft of the United States strategic air command.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Not as far as I am aware, Mr. Speaker.



IMMIGRATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any observation to make on a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that the Immigration Act supersedes the bill of rights and is the supreme authority, and that the bill of rights passed by this parliament is subservient to the Immigration Act.


John George Diefenbaker: I have not had the opportunity as yet of studying the judgment in question. In any event, I would have no observation to make on the Supreme Court of Canada in the discharge of its responsibilities.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twil-lingate):: I wonder if I may address a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and ask whether the firm known as Dimensional Investments Limited has yet made the payment which is already in default in connection with the Indian land at Sarnia.


Mr. John Charlton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I think I mentioned previously in answer to a question on the subject that the firm had 30 days grace in which to make the payment. That time has not yet elapsed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But has the payment yet been made?


John Alpheus Charlton: I will obtain that information and give it to the hon. member tomorrow.
90205-6-221
Supply-A griculture


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the order made earlier this day, is it agreed that I do now leave the chair by unanimous consent without question put, for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply, the order covering both today and tomorrow?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. MacEwan in the chair.
(Translation):



AGRICULTURE


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, before this first item is passed, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he could make a statement concerning agricultural prices stabilization for the year 1961-62, and especially as regards milk products.
(Text):


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: The government still has this matter under consideration. There has been no announcement yet.


Samuel Boulanger: When does the minister expect to make an announcement with regard to the price of butter and cheese especially, and powdered milk?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The same
answer applies; this is still under consideration.


Erhart Regier: It is not very often that I have the privilege of speaking to an item of the Department of Agriculture. However, I cannot easily forget that I represent an industrial area. Many of the people of my constituency are pensioners, either because they are veterans of world war I or world war II or are old age pensioners. However, the bulk of the constituents whom I represent are industrial workers.
I may assure the minister at once that the industrial workers of my constituency are very much concerned about the welfare of agriculture. These union members in my riding remember very well the appeal of the Prime Minister who at the time was a leading spokesman in the opposition. They recall when the member for Prince Albert at that time, now our Prime Minister, raised his finger in anger at the prime minister of the day and said, "Canadian agriculture demands parity, not charity."
I have spoken to a great many people at many labour meetings and meetings of unionists, and each and every time I have appealed to them on behalf of agriculture for parity instead of charity they have responded. I well

Supply-Agriculture
remember one time when the milk producers of the Fraser valley of British Columbia were in difficulty, and the international woodworkers of America went so far as to spend roughly $1,000 of their own union funds to organize mass meetings in the Fraser valley, which were designed to help the milk producers of that area. They organized them most effectively. We had mass meetings of up to 1,000 milk producers. The end result was that orderly marketing was restored in the lower mainland of British Columbia. This was a contribution that organized labour made to agriculture in our province.
Organized labour contends that Canadians engaged in agriculture are entitled to the same rights and blessings as are all other Canadians. We would like to see agriculture organized to the point where it is not merely an organization that is kowtowing to a particular government in office. We would like to see organized agriculture speak its own mind and express its own needs regardless of the consequences. A number of years ago organized agriculture was most vehement in its desire for parity prices. I regret very much that many major sections of organized agriculture have changed in this respect and are now kowtowing to the government of the day asking for little bits and pieces, a little more of this and a little more of that. A few branches of organized agriculture have forgotten the basic rallying call of parity, not charity.
When I look at agriculture on the national scene I cannot help but remind the committee of my observation of agriculture in the Atlantic provinces. The capital needs of agriculture are simply fantastic and completely staggering. A billion dollars and more will be needed by way of capital investment to put Canadian agriculture on its feet. I would say -and I do not think any member from the maritime provinces would refute my contention-that about 80 per cent of the so-called farms in that region of Canada are not really farms at all; they are only farms as a last resort. When we look at the statistics of the income of agriculture in the Atlantic provinces we have to realize that there is an urgent need for major reform. A farm which consists of 18 acres and has three cows, 80 laying hens and four pigs is no longer good enough. Remedial action is urgent and necessary in order to build up economic units of agricultural production.
Hundreds of millions of dollars of capital investment are urgently needed, and I am afraid that existing legislation is most inadequate in this regard. It is equally important that agriculture not only be given parity but that measures' be undertaken in order to enable farmers to produce at an economic 
level. There is room in our nation for the farmer who can operate at an efficient cost of production. However, we have a long way to go before farmers in Canada generally will be producing at minimum cost, and I believe it is one of our major national responsibilities to help to bring this about.
I know that the minister represents a Saskatchewan riding, and I realize that in the main wheat growers are producing at cost. They are very highly organized. However, I do not think members of the House of Commons have ever realized that there are more farmers in Canada who have never produced a bushel of wheat than there are wheat producers. The minister comes from Saskatchewan but I hope he will keep in mind that there are many more farmers in Canada who do not produce a bushel of wheat than there are wheat farmers. There are farmers engaged in all kinds of agriculture in the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. These people are not overly interested in the welfare of the wheat farmer.
I know that because of the history of our party our group has usually been the spokesman for the wheat farmers of the prairies. I know that the minister's predecessors have also come from the prairies. I should like to see the day when the Department of Agriculture will pay some attention to those farmers who do not grow wheat, because there are many more of them in almost every province than those who grow wheat. It is in the interests of all of us that farmers in general receive an equitable share of the national income. I regret that almost everything the present and preceding governments have done has been solely in the interests of the wheat farmers of Canada.
I believe the minister has the intelligence to realize the over-all position of Canadian agriculture. I can remember the Saskatchewan election of 1938. At that time I happened to meet him on the sidewalk outside the Star-Phoenix office and we were watching the election results as they were posted on the signs. The minister and I were both born and raised in Saskatchewan, and I know he has the intelligence to look beyond Saskatchewan, to consider the needs of agriculture in other parts of Canada and to realize that the wheat farmers are not the only farmers in Canada. They represent only one branch of farmers. My great-grandfather, my grandfather and my father were wheat farmers in Saskatchewan, and I admire the wheat farmers. They have come a long way and they have had to sacrifice much. They now have orderly marketing of their product. By reason of their very strength of organization they are able to obtain a certain degree of equity.

However, there are many other types of farmers in Canada. There are dairy farmers, onion farmers, beef producers and others engaged in various branches of farming that I could mention. These people greatly outnumber the wheat farmers. I should like to see the day when the government of Canada will pay some attention to these other branches of agriculture and help them to organize at least to the same extent that the wheat farmers have been able to organize despite the governments that have been in power.
The wheat farmers are not receiving parity at this time, but other farmers in Canada are much worse off. I do not know where the fault lies. I think it lies with these other farmers themselves. They have not organized in order to be able to exert pressure in the same way the wheat farmers have, but I hope they are equally deserving of consideration in this House of Commons.


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, at the outset of my remarks, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) whether he has received a request from the government of the province of Quebec, expressing the desire of the provincial authorities to share in the crop insurance scheme, in order to help the farmers generally, and particularly those specializing in certain crops such as cigar and cigarette tobacco?
At the present time, cigar and cigarette tobacco producers in the province of Quebec sustain considerable losses every year as a result of such weather hazards as frost and hail. Of course, producers of special crops can go to private concerns to ensure their crops, but only at prohibitive cost. That is why I ask the Quebec provincial authorities to co-operate with the federal government in the implementation of this crop insurance scheme, which is a necessity for farmers generally, and particularly those who grow special crops like the ones I mentioned a moment ago.
Cigar and cigarette tobacco is grown in the Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm area. It provides considerable income, not only to the farmers but also to the workers involved in the tobacco processing industries, such as Imperial Tobacco in Joliette and the Cooperative des Tabacs de Saint-Jacques.
I therefore ask the minister to indicate whether the authorities of the province of Quebec have been in touch with him, either by telephone or by letter, because I was reading in he Devoir for February 21, 1961, 90205-6-221i
Supply-Agriculture
the following statement made by the provincial minister of agriculture:
The days of splendid isolation are over; Quebec intends to and will do its share in the development of agriculture and of all aspects of Canadian life, in co-operation with the federal government and with the governments of Canada's other provinces.
I think it is about time that the government of the province of Quebec made up its mind once and for all to co-operate with the federal government in putting into operation this crop insurance scheme which will be of great benefit to the agricultural class of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has been in existence now for 25 years. May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to this national organization which has been and still is of great service to the agricultural class. A great many agricultural associations of all provinces are members of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. In the province of Quebec, the Union catholique des cultivateurs, the Cooperative federee and the Quebec farmers' association are all members. The U.C.C. and the Cooperative federee each pay about $6,000 a year for their membership in the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. However, I would suggested to the authorities of the federation, to its president and its vice president, Mr. Lemoyne, and to its other directors, that the brief which the Canadian Federation of Agriculture submits every year to the government should be in both languages.
The federation recently submitted a brief to the federal government, but it was in one language only. I think it is most important that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture take steps to correct this situation and submit its annual brief in both languages.
Mr. Chairman, Quebec turkey breeders have been living anxious hours at the thought that the federal government would yield to pressures for the removal of controls over the importation of turkeys from the United States. The maximum import quota was 4 million pounds.
I know the members of the opposition support the removal of tariffs. I have a letter from the Cooperative avicole du Quebec, asking me to urge the Minister of Agriculture not to yield to demands or pressure for the removal of tariffs or quotas. I quote:
In 1960, such imports reached 6J million pounds, including all turkey meat other than whole turkeys. This figure is equal to one sixth of the total Canadian production, and to 6 per cent of the tremendous American production, estimated at about

Supply-Agriculture
45 to 50 million pounds. It is expected that in 1961, there will be an over-production of turkeys in the United States.
Judging from past experience, we have every reason to believe that American turkey producers would immediately object, if Canadian turkey producers ever shipped even a small percentage of that quantity beyond the 45th parallel. In 1959, towards the end of the season, Canada shipped a few thousand pounds of turkey. Representatives of the turkey producers in "Washington soon got the authorities to put a stop to those shipments.
The Canadian turkey industry is, of course, concerned. What would happen if, this year or later, we allowed our market to be flooded with low grade incubator eggs or with turkey chicks and grown turkeys?
Whenever Canada imports those products, she is in fact buying birds fed with American grain. That means tons of food, thousands of hours of work, while our own grain remains unsold at a time when unemployment is rife in this country.
To set this right, to avoid failure for our producers and to safeguard the interests of that industry, the government would do well to stand fast and not yield to any pressure aimed at abolishing quotas or customs tariffs, and maintain a controlled ceiling of 4 million pounds.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that in maintaining the quotas the government would greatly assist fowl producers.
On February 18, 1960, a brief was submitted by the cigar and pipe tobacco vendors co-operative, to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming). That crop being very important in my constituency, may I suggest that those imports constitute a permanent threat to Canadian production.
For instance, in 1960, manufacturers used nearly two and a quarter million pounds of imported tobacco; this was almost 28 per cent of the total quantities used. And there is a new factor: those imports are becoming diversified. Whereas, traditionally, manufacturers import mainly from Cuba and the United States, in 1959 and 1960, there was a trend to buy from underdeveloped countries, like the Dominican Republic and others, at prices which dangerously competed with our Canadian production. A quarter of a million pounds from those countries entered Canada in 1960.

In order to complete the comparison, let us add that except for imports from Cuba and the Philippines, the American tariff rate is considerably higher than ours. It is 16.1 cents for unstemmed leaf and 23 cents for stemmed leaf, whereas the Canadian rates are 12J cents and 20 cents a pound respectively.
That is why the Quebec cigar tobacco producers are asking the government to consider the situation and see that nothing is allowed to impair that production which, economically speaking, represents a large amount of money for the province of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, in closing my remarks, I would like to say a word about the proportion of Canadian bilinguals in the federal civil service, and more particularly in the Department of Agriculture. I know that the Department of Agriculture cannot be blamed for the situation, because the civil service commission is an organization independent from the government.
However, I would ask that each year, if possible, a representative of the civil service commission, or a commissioner, visit the various faculties of agriculture and veterinary medicine in Quebec, or the various research departments of our universities-a procedure which might also be applied to universities in other provinces-in order to explain to graduates and other students what opportunities they have to serve the Canadian government in the federal civil service.
If a member of the civil service commission would visit the universities of Quebec and explain to those about to graduate and to graduates the advantages to be gained from employment with the Department of Agriculture, I think this would help remedy this situation.
Those, Mr. Chairman, were the few remarks I wanted to make in the best interests of our farmers and of agriculture in general.
(Text):


Mr. Thomas:: There are a few comments I should like to make on this first item of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. I should like to say a word concerning the difficulties facing all sugar beet growers in Canada. As hon. members are aware, beets are grown in four areas, namely Alberta, Manitoba, southwestern Ontario and the province of Quebec. Due to a number of circumstances the growers, especially those in southwestern Ontario, have had a very difficult time and for some years the industry there has been in a marginal position. It is very questionable under present circumstances whether it pays the farmers of southwestern Ontario to continue growing beets.

However, as a result of the co-operation of the provincial government of Ontario, the federal government, the Canada and Dominion Sugar Company and the growers of Ontario, special arrangements were made to carry the industry through the crop year of 1961. This has been done in the hope that it will be possible, during the course of another year, to create in Canada a national sugar policy which would place the sugar beet industry of this country on a sound financial basis.
The beet growers themselves estimate that a quarter of a cent per pound on sugar in Canada could be used as a stabilization fund which would establish the industry in a sound financial position and permit the producers and the sugar refining companies to lay their plans for the future with confidence. In these days when we are trying to retain our employment in Canada and are trying to build up our Canadian industry I submit that it is important that the matter of a national sugar policy should be given close and careful consideration.
I hope and trust that the matter of establishing a sugar policy will be pursued with energy and vigour, and that it will not be lost track of during this coming year. We should get at the matter without delay, and should continue our efforts until we have arrived at some satisfactory formula for the proper establishment of our sugar beet industry on a sound financial basis. I make this recommendation for the consideration of the Minister of Agriculture.
Another matter I wish to mention has to do with storage for Ontario wheat. As members of the committee well know, the wheat producers of Ontario have established a wheat producers marketing board in this province. They try to finance their own operations as much as possible. They have the authority to levy a charge of nine cents per bushel on all wheat handled in Ontario. This nine cents per bushel is used for the purpose of a stabilization fund to take Ontario wheat off the local market and put it into the export trade. During their three years of operation the Ontario wheat producers marketing board have been seriously restricted by lack of storage space. Ontario fall wheat, which is a soft wheat, owing to the warm weather of the harvest season is subject to bin damage through overheating. It is necessary for the wheat to be taken from the field to proper drying establishments or to be stored where adequate drying facilities are available so the excess moisture can be taken out of the wheat and it can be properly dried for storage.
No such space exists at the present time. For several months the Ontario wheat producers marketing board have been negotiating with the national harbours board, through
Supply-Agriculture
the Department of Transport, for the use of space in the Port Colborne elevator for the purpose of storing and drying Ontario wheat.
I would urge upon the Minister of Agriculture the desirability of using his good offices to assist the Ontario wheat producers marketing board in reaching a satisfactory arrangement with the national harbours board and the Department of Transport with regard to this necessary storage space.
Another point I should like to raise is in connection with the farm loan corporation. I suggest that careful consideration be given to extending the provisions of the legislation so that loans may be made by the farm credit corporation to small or part time farmers. This is a way of life which is becoming more prominent in our Canadian economy. People live on small farms where they are not fully occupied; they take jobs in industry while they continue to live on the farm and enjoy the advantages of rural life. Such loans, if extended to this type of farmer, might require different regulations from those governing loans now being offered by the farm loan corporation. In the interests of our Canadian economy I believe it is advisable to give careful consideration to the extension of loans to small and part-time farmers.
Then again, when the new farm loan act came into effect the deposit which applicants were obliged to make in connection with an application for a farm loan was increased from $10, the amount which formerly applied, to 2 per cent of the value of the loan or $50. Since the value of land and the size of loans have greatly increased, there are few applications which do not call for the full $50 deposit.
This provision acts as a serious brake on the consideration of applications for farm loans. I would recommend that consideration be given to reducing this $50 deposit, which now applies, to the former amount of $10. I submit that the deposit of $10 is enough to prevent nuisance applications having to be considered by farm loan corporation field men, and that the increase to $50 was enough to discourage many people from applying for loans from which they might profit and from which the economy as a whole might reap benefit.
I think that is about all I have to say, Mr. Chairman, with the exception of one point. From time to time representations have been made to the effect that farm labour should be brought under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I suggest to the minister that, in the interests of agriculture, he should use his influence to have this matter given proper consideration. There may be difficulties in the way of bringing farm labour under the Unemployment Insurance Act, but certainly at

Supply-Agriculture
the present time the farmers are handicapped when they try to obtain help in the labour market. Labourers are loath to accept farm jobs because they are not covered by unemployment insurance. Because of the high wages prevailing in industry it is difficult enough for farmers to obtain the help they need without this added handicap of trying to hire people when those people know they will not be covered by unemployment insurance.
(Translation):


Mr. Martel:: Mr. Chairman, before the first item of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture is carried, I would like to make, as briefly as possible, a few remarks on points of particular interest to my district. I will not repeat the arguments already advanced since the beginning of the discussion on the Department of Agriculture estimates; I will simply raise a few questions of particular concern to my area.
I want to refer the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) to the correspondence exchanged with his predecessor since the request I made here, in committee, at an earlier session, regarding the establishment of an experimental farm in northwestern Quebec.
This matter has been brought up regularly for many years-for over 20 years, I would say.
At one time, we had in our region, near Amos, in a locality known today as La Ferme, the beginning of an experimental farm. But one day, the federal Department of Agriculture decided to transfer quietly this farm to Kapuskasing, in northern Ontario.
Since then, farmers of my district have to go to northern Ontario, that is a distance of 300 miles, to get the results of the research and experiments that are carried on at the federal experimental farm of Kapuskasing.
It is generally recognized today in our region-the minister can readily confirm this with his officials-that the experimental farm which serves that part of the country and which is situated in Kapuskasing, Ontario, covers a very large territory between Hearst, Ontario, and Senneterre, Quebec. So, it covers a good part of the Chapleau constituency that I have the honour to represent in this house.
This territory is about 400 miles long in an east-west direction and 200 miles wide in a north-south direction. It is more than a territory; we could even say it is a province.

According to the information I could get from the people concerned and especially from the U.C.C. of the diocese of Amos, several requests have been made in this connection.
The U.C.C. has sent me a copy of a resolution that was passed at a meeting of delegates from 40 branches of the federation of the U.C.C. of the diocese of Amos, which reads as follows:
Because of our needs and further to the wishes repeatedly expressed at our recent conventions, the officials of the Amos U.C.C. federation urge you to do your utmost to establish in the northwestern part of Quebec an experimental farm that would meet our needs and would be situated in the centre of our region.
I have described the territory which is served by the Kapuskasing experimental farm. May I add that the farms of that region, of which there are about 11,000, are spread on an area of one and a quarter million acres and are occupied by northwestern Quebec farmers of my region. In fact, a great many of them live in my constituency.
This figure of 11,000 farms distributed over one million and a quarter acres is four times higher than that of the corresponding area of northwestern Ontario, where the Kapuskasing experimental farm is situated.
Furthermore, I should like to add that the rapid development of the mining industry will affect, in future, that of agriculture proper. In this connection, I should like to digress a moment to mention the forthcoming opening of new mining districts in the Mattagami lake area where, precisely, the federal government will build a railway line in the course of the next two years; thanks to that new territory, it will be possible to open up a new agricultural area in the immediate basin of the Allard river, about which a fine future is predicted from the agricultural standpoint, since it is one of the most promising agricultural districts not yet developed in our area; I would even say that it is one of the rare districts not yet developed in the province of Quebec where agricultural possibilities are immense.
So, with the development of the mining industry to the north, northeast and east of Abitibi, there is no doubt that agriculture will continue to progress in our area. This means that the most important agricultural part of our territory is in northwestern Quebec, at about 300 miles from Kapuskasing. That, you can imagine, presents some inconvenience

both for the personnel of the Department of Agriculture, stationed in Kapuskasing, and for the farmers and agronomists of my area who have to get there to obtain information about agriculture or research being made at that experimental farm.
The agricultural research work of the personnel of the federal Department of Agriculture in that area is enormously handicapped by that distance, since not only does that staff have to cover that enormous distance to carry out their work and observe it results, but also distance makes it difficult for those officials to have direct contact with farmers of my area; consequently, the efficiency of their work is curtailed by the loss of time incurred in covering that distance.
It is the same for the agronomists of our area who have to cover such a distance if they want to keep up to date and study their various problems on the spot at Kapuskasing, and observe the results to the benefit of the agricultural class.
I wish to make these remarks, Mr. Chairman, before this item carries, on account of its importance for the farmers of the area and on account of the representations made several times by the representatives of the farmers' catholic union of the diocese of Amos.
I am not asking, of course, for the closing of the Kapuskasing experimental farm; far from that-I would not even think of such a thing-but in view of the geographical situation of the immense territory to be served by that experimental farm, it is my duty to ask for an experimental farm for the Abitibi area, which will look, at the same time, after the northern part of the constituency of Temiscamingue. However, I presume that if such a decision were taken, it would be wise, before selecting a definite site, to consult the people most concerned, that is to say the farmers of the area as well as the local farm associations I mentioned a moment ago, namely the farmers' catholic union.
Now, before resuming my seat, there is another point I should like to mention. It is about the setting up of a regional slaughterhouse to serve the farmers of Abitibi and Temiscamingue. That matter has been under consideration for several years, and most particularly these last few years. Studies have been undertaken in this connection both by the farmers themselves and by the chambers of commerce in order to prove to the provincial government the advisability of setting up a slaughterhouse in that area, which would help the marketing of beef products obtained from cattle which could easily be bred in our area. Such a regional slaughterhouse would provide a proper market or a natural
Supply-Agriculture
outlet for the marketing of cattle and other livestock which could be bred in the Abitibi area. That part of the province of Quebec is progressively developing and its possibilities are immense.
I realize that the decision to set up a slaughterhouse in that district must be taken by the provincial government. But already, unofficially, as was suggested by the slaughterhouse committee organized in my area, the city of Rouyn has been selected as the site of that slaughterhouse. Of course, as far as I know, no official decision has yet been taken by the provincial government nor by the Department of Agriculture, although the provincial members of my area have already anounced the selection of that site.
I presume it is in order to draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture on the subsidies which might be granted under the Cold Storage Act. Therefore, I strongly urge the minister to kindly consider, as he always does, that problem in order that the farmers from the Abitibi area may obtain the subsidies to which they are entitled, in connection with the setting up of that slaughterhouse.
I shall now bring my remarks to a close. I might add, however, with regard to the slaughterhouse, that our farmers could no doubt arrange, as far as possible, to produce in Abitibi the feed needed for their cattle, because if they have to get it from western Canada, for instance-even though this helps to reduce the surplus of western grain-I imagine that breeding costs would increase and accordingly our farmers would make fewer profits.
Therefore I trust, Mr. Chairman, that the department will look favourably into the two suggestions I have just made, namely the establishment of an experimental farm in northwestern Quebec and the construction of a slaughterhouse in our area in the near future with the assistance of the Department of Agriculture.
(Text):


Mr. Baldwin:: I intend to take advantage of the latitude allowed during the discussion of this item to deal with several matters of local interest to my own constituency, but first of all I feel I must take exception to the statement by the hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam when he suggested that this government had in the main restricted its agricultural legislation to those farmers in Canada who are wheat growers. That is far from being the case, and I am greatly surprised at the statement made by the hon. member. That statement can be explained

Supply-Agriculture
only by the fact, as he admitted, that he comes from an industrial riding and therefore cannot have information available to him which is available to those of us who come from more versatile agricultural districts.
I think all hon. members recognize that the facts are otherwise. One has only to look at the titles of the statutes which this government has passed in connection with agriculture since it came into power in 1957 to realize that they cover a very broad field. I have here a book which is frequently quoted by members of the opposition when they find that their own sources of information are more unreliable than usual. They turn frequently to this little pamphlet "The Record Speaks", and I am glad to see they recognize true facts when they see them.
This little pamphlet makes it obvious that help for wheat growers is only one of a wide variety of subjects with which this government has concerned itself. Consider the Agricultural Stabilization Act. The very names of the commodities brought under support in connection with that measure speak for themselves. There are nine items, and only one of them is wheat. Then again, anyone who has had experience with the excellent work that is being done by officials of the farm credit corporation will realize that those officials are going above and beyond the call of duty in attempting to round out the farming operations of those who come to them for assistance, particularly those taking advantage of the provision which deals with supervised loans. A notable effort is being made by those officials to make the farming operations of these people more versatile and economic. Certainly in my constituency I know that people who have applied for assistance under that act are being advised, where that is deemed feasible and proper, to round out their farming operations and not restrict them merely to the growing of wheat, in order that there may be several prongs of economic support. Then again, the acreage payments are in themselves a firm indication that this government has not concerned itself with the wheat farmers alone but with all the farmers of Canada.
The amendments which were made two years ago to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act made provision for using grains other than wheat as a yardstick in reaching a decision as to whether or not a particular area should be entitled to assistance under that act. Then, finally, there is what I would call the crowning jewel of the diadem of agricultural assistance, the rural development act which is now before the house for second reading.
That is a brief list of some of the enactments brought in by this government, and

it is sufficient to indicate that attention has not been entirely restricted to wheat farmers. I think it indicates a recognition by this government that the problems of agriculture are of long standing in their nature and in time. They are ailments which, like certain ailments of the body, require deep rooted and fundamental changes. That has been the difficulty in the past; we have seen only dilatory, temporary and short term attempts to deal with effects, and no attempt at all to deal with causes. This government has recognized that there are causes responsible for present difficulties, and it has directed its attention to those causes. I am convinced, as are those who live in the agricultural districts of Canada, that, given time, the cures which this government is putting into effect one by one will be efficacious.
I noticed that when the minister was speaking on the rural development act he mentioned that the provisions of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act were to be made applicable to all parts of western Canada. In particular he mentioned the Peace River district. I was very glad to hear him say that, because this is something which all the farmers in my district will be glad to see. I am sure the hon. member for Cariboo, who has joined his efforts to mine in an attempt to make those provisions applicable to the northern part of Alberta and British Columbia, was also pleased to hear that statement by the minister.
Perhaps the hon. gentleman will be good enough to advise me before the discussion of these estimates is completed whether it is correct that it is not necessary to bring in an amendment to the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act in order to make the provisions of that act applicable to other parts of Canada, but that the same result may be achieved by regulation or order in council. I hope this will be done and that suitable publicity will be given to this action, because I believe there are people in my own constituency as well as in other parts of the north who would very much like to take advantage of the provisions of that legislation this year.
I wish also to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Jasper-Edson some time ago with regard to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. The provisions of this act have been made far more flexible and useful. I think we can almost say, in fact, that within the four corners of legislation of this kind we have gone probably as far as we can go without actually making it applicable on an individual basis. From an examination of this act and the way in which it was conceived and has been changed and amended I do not think it would be possible

for us to make it applicable on an individual basis. But, with that limitation, it has been very useful. The changes have been most effective, and I am sure the people in my constituency would wish me to compliment the government on having made these changes and on the way in which they have been administered.
Recently I noticed that the legislature of the province of Alberta saw fit, in dealing with agricultural matters, to pass a resolution suggesting that the government should embark upon a two-price system in this country. Without in any way commenting upon that, I would think it would be more in the interests of the people of Alberta if the government of that province were to take steps to implement the provisions of the Crop Insurance Act, which they are entitled to do, by passing complementary legislation in the province of Alberta.
The province of Manitoba did a noble job last year in connection with the two or three trial areas. I understand they are going to amplify it this year. I do believe-although I may be wrong in this-that the province of Saskatchewan has passed enabling legislation, but thus far the province of Alberta has seen fit not to recognize in any way that they can, if they wish, take advantage of this federal legislation. I am suggesting that, instead of passing resolutions dealing with subjects which are beyond their competence, they might be better advised to do something which will be of some use to the people of the province of Alberta.
I wish to compliment the personnel and the officials of the department in connection with a most useful service performed by the two experimental farms in the Peace river country. One of these farms is situated in the Fort Vermilion area, some 500 to 600 miles north of the city of Edmonton, in the centre of a tremendous area of unexploited agricultural land. I suppose that at this time none of us knows to what extent in the future the people of the world may require the production from lands not being used at the present time for agricultural purposes. All we can do is to make a guess; but the valuable service which these people are performing in testing and assessing the merits of the different soils and finding out what crops can be grown there has been a great benefit to the people of the north.
I would suggest that when the minister examines the estimates of his department from time to time that he make certain that these people have every opportunity to pursue the very useful work in which they are now engaged. I say the same thing with regard to the experimental farm at Beaver Lodge. As a result of the work done there these
Supply-Agriculture
people have made available to the farmers of the Peace river country fescue grasses and grains which can be grown in our country. This has enabled many of our farmers to branch out, to diversify, to get out of cereals into the type of agricultural production for which the world has need, for which there is a market and which can be sold for cash. I hope that these people will not be forgotten but will be permitted to continue their experiments.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to deal briefly with another point raised by the hon. member for Jasper-Edson. I refer to the basis on which acreage payments have been made over the last year. At first blush I think we can say the government was wise to take advantage of existing machinery. The statistical information gathered together by the officials of the Canadian wheat board for the purpose of issuing grain permit books, in large part, gives all the facts and information necessary on which to base those payments. I think the government was wise to do that rather than to embark up on the setting up of expensive and extensive machinery and personnel to go out and gather the facts required to make those payments.
It has been found in the past that where payments of this kind have been made the cost of administration was excessively high. Certainly that has not been the case in so far as the acreage payments are concerned. Nevertheless, I think we should remember that the statistical information gathered up and brought together by the officials and the agents of the wheat board is for the purpose of a specific act, namely the Canadian Wheat Board Act, and will not necessarily suit the purposes in all respects in so far as the making of acreage payments is concerned. 1 am afraid that this is what has happened in several instances.
I realize it is utterly impossible in any kind of remedial legislation to provide 100 per cent relief and benefit to all people who are entitled to it. There will always be a few left out on the fringes. This is something we have to accept as basic, but I do feel that there could have been more flexibility in connection with the administration of the payments even with the information which was available. I have three particular types of cases up in my district, particularly in the areas more remote from railhead.
Sometimes the farmers will feed as much grain as possible and by the time their feeding operations are concluded they find it simply does not pay them to haul what grain is left a distance of 200 or 300 miles to the elevator at Grimshaw, which is the nearest point to which they have access. Consequently, in most instances they do not

Supply-Agriculture
bother to apply for grain permit books. When the announcement was made, as it was in this case, that those payments were available up there, they were unable to take advantage of the legislation and obtain payments which other farmers in the country were able to get.
Sometimes a farmer has a poor crop which does not justify his applying for and obtaining a grain permit book. Because of the provisions of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act it may happen that they cannot obtain the compensation and benefit which the act makes available to them. They also are left out.
Finally, we have the farmers who grow grasses and oilseeds. I am thinking particularly of rapeseed. We have a great many farmers who have gone in for the growing of rapeseed in our part of the country. When they apply for grain permit books they are told they are not eligible. I am inclined to think that the officials of the wheat board have been too rigid in their interpretation of the legislation. Their interpretation is not altogether acceptable. I want to call to the attention of the minister to section 2, which is the interpretation section, of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Section 2(1) (a) reads as follows:
"Actual producer" means a producer actually engaged in the production of grain.
I call the minister's attention to the fact that it does not necessarily say "engaged in the production of grain in the particular year in respect of which the grain permit book was applied for".
Second, the interpretation of "grain" is quite significant. The word "grain" is defined as follows:
(e) "Grain" includes wheat, oats, barley, rye and flaxseed.
I emphasize the word "includes" there because I think it is not a restricting word. Elsewhere throughout the interpretation sections of this act and in other legislation we find that the word "means" is used. For example, "elevator" is defined as follows:
(d) "Elevator" means a grain elevator, warehouse or mill-
There is a distinction between the use of the word "includes" and the word "means". When the word "means" is used it is restrictive, and you cannot go outside of it. I submit with all respect that when the word "includes" is used in the act for the purpose of making these acreage payments it could include rapeseed, for example, and the officials should have been more flexible and a little more liberal-I use "liberal" with a small "1", Mr. Chairman-and they should

have permitted people within the three categories I have mentioned to become entitled to the acreage payments.
I trust that the minister will pay some heed to these words and that reasonable consideration will be given to those who are still engaged in the process of making application. I know there are several hundred in my constituency who feel they have not obtained a reasonable application of the provisions of this scheme and they would like to be given consideration.


Mr. Soulham:: Mr. Chairman, before item No. 1 of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture carries I should like hon. members to bear with me for a few moments while I make some observations about agriculture. As hon. members know, I come from a riding in southeastern Saskatchewan which is basically agricultural. I had hoped to make some of these observations in a previous debate but sickness in my family prevented me.
Before continuing I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the new Minister of Agriculture. His riding adjoins the riding of Moose Mountain on the north, and during the five years that he was the leader of our party in Saskatchewan he spent a great deal of time doing research into agriculture and its economic aspects not only with respect to Saskatchewan but Canada as a whole. Therefore his assignment to this portfolio afforded me a great deal of pleasure. I am sure we can all look forward to great achievements in this department as he continues to hold this office. I should also like to congratulate his parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Provencher. I am sure that his wisdom and knowledge so far as agriculture is concerned will mean that we can look forward to a great contribution in this field from him.
In listening to the comments of other hon. members in the house from time to time it has come to my attention that apparently there is still a lack of appreciation of what the government has done for agriculture in the over-all picture. In order to summarize the situation I should like to refer to a few statistics and thus emphasize my observations in this respect. For the three years prior to the present government taking office, the following were the figures for the agricultural estimates. In the year 1954-55 the total figure was $88,310,304, in the year 195556, $93,881,452, and in the year 1956-57, $90,068,594, or a total for those three years of $272,260,350. The comparative figures for the three years after the present government took office are as follows. In the year 1957-58 this government pumped into agriculture

$143,109,180.50, in the year 1958-59, $222,173,607.75, and in the year 1959-60, $191,626,946, or a total of $556,909,734.25 for those three years. That was the total compared with a total of $272,260,350 for the previous three years, or more than twice as much money. Simple as they are, I think these figures point up the fact that the government is taking a very practical and active part in doing something for agriculture.


Erhart Regier: Would the hon. member care to say where he got those figures?


Richard Russell Southam: They are taken from the estimates of the Department of Agriculture for the years in question. I should also like to add that the total figure I have given does not include approximately $58 million allocated to agriculture under the stabilization act which was enacted by the present government to assist agriculture.
In appraising the agricultural situation I was very interested in reading an article on the front page of the Western Producer, a representative farm paper published in Saskatchewan. I refer to the issue of Thursday, March 16, 1961. In this paper there is a headline which reads as follows: "Farmers' net income rises about 12 per cent in 1960". I am not implying that the government has done everything I should like to see done as far as agriculture is concerned but I should like to impress on hon. members and the public at large the net result of the agricultural legislation that we have been able to apply. The article elaborates on the headline in these words:
Total net income of Canadian farmers last year rose 12 per cent above a year earlier, reaching an estimated $1,352,200,000, the dominion bureau of statistics reported last week. The total was up 6.5 per cent from the five-year (1955-59) average of $1,270,100,000, the bureau said in its annual advance preliminary estimates. Quebec, Manitoba and Alberta were down in net income. British Columbia showed a slight increase. Saskatchewan had the sharpest increase-more than $100 million at $354,373,000.
Cash income in 1960 from the sale of farm products was only slightly below the 1959 level. On a commodity basis, the more important reductions were recorded for barley, flaxseed and hogs, while the more important gains were registered for potatoes, tobacco, cattle and calves. There was also a substantial increase in cash advances in farm stored grains in western Canada.
Supplementary payments to farmers in western Canada in 1960 amounted to $77 million and included payments made under the provisions of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, the western grain producers' acreage payment plan and the federal-provincial emergency unthreshed grain assistance policy. This is in contrast to 1959 when farmers received $22 million, most of which was received under the provisions of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.


Samuel Boulanger: May I ask the hon. member a question? Is there an increase for the province of Quebec?
Supply-Agriculture


Richard Russell Southam: The article says that Quebec, Manitoba and Alberta were down but British Columbia showed a slight increase. The situation varies, of course, from year to year depending on the type of crop. Last year Saskatchewan was fortunate in having an increase of $100 million which resulted from the very large wheat crop. These variations in income depend a lot on the vicissitudes of nature but the over-all picture is very bright. As I pointed out, however, the over-all increase was about 12 per cent in 1960. This is due in large part to the program of the government and I think we should remind ourselves of this program and discuss it- possibly by criticizing it in a constructive and practical way-so that we can improve it.
I was very interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Peace River who referred to certain observations that the hon. member for Jasper-Edson had made about cash advances. This was one of the first pieces of legislation enacted by the government and in making a survey of my riding last fall I found that the farmers in that part of Saskatchewan had utilized this legislation very effectively. In fact, rural municipal secretaries and elevator agents who are involved in handling this type of payment told me that about twice as many farmers were availing themselves of this legislation, and from talking to municipal secretaries I learned that tax collections were considerably above those of preceding years. I questioned them about the reasons for this and they gave the credit to the cash advances legislation, so that this is one of the most effective and practical pieces of legislation that the government has implemented.
The hon. member for Peace River referred to the farm credit corporation, as did the hon. member for Middlesex East. This has been a most effective piece of legislation and it has been widely utilized by farmers all over the west. Because of the changes that are taking place there was need for a more flexible credit program in order to help to develop more economic farming units.
I should like to associate myself with the remarks made this afternoon by the hon. member for Middlesex West. I feel consideration should be given to a reduction in the cost of the initial application for an appraisal. The charge at the moment is $50, and the former assessment was $10, which 1 believe was too small. I believe we would have a flood of applications to be handled by an already overworked department if the charge made were too small. In my opinion a more realistic price to charge for the initial application would be $25, and in this way we would

Supply-A gricu Iture
get as many people as possible to take advantage of this flexible plan without any undue abuse.
In so far as crop insurance is concerned, I believe it has played a very effective part in our agriculture economy, especially in Manitoba. I have been disappointed, however, at the indifferent attitude displayed by our C.C.F. government in Saskatchewan with regard to this crop insurance plan. I do not know what we can do to rectify the situation unless we change the government. I believe the royal commission headed by Professor Baker indicated very strongly that a crop insurance plan should be instituted for the whole of Canada. Particular reference was made by this commission to the need for such a plan in Saskatchewan. I have been disappointed, therefore, to find that the province which is most in need of a crop insurance plan has been the most reluctant to enter the plan. I do not know the reason for this reluctance unless there is some political expediency involved. I wonder why Saskatchewan could not set up a plan similar to the one which has been working so effectively in Manitoba?
I should like to see the provincial governments take a more practical view of these crop insurance plans. As we know, the federal government contributes half of the administration costs of the plan as well as 20 per cent of the premium. Perhaps the provincial governments, and especially Saskatchewan, could see their way clear to contributing another 20 per cent of the premium, and in this way the legislation would become very effective. A province like Saskatchewan is particularly susceptible to the vicissitudes of nature. This province is about an equal distance from the two oceans, the Pacific and the Atlantic, and as a result is sometimes the most arid region of Canada. Therefore, the need for this type of protection in this area is great.
I find that most of the agriculturists in my riding have been very pleased with this agricultural rehabilitation and development act, an outline of which was presented recently by the minister. On August 30, 1958, as recorded at page 4347 of Hansard, the Prime Minister summed up our national agricultural policy, and the fifth point was as follows:
Fifth, as a means of meeting the small farm problem the government has under consideration ways and means of improving the level of living for farmers on small farms by means of better land use, encouraging the formation of economic family farm units, improving technical training, extending unemployment insurance benefits to certain classes of farm workers, and by extending the vocational and technical training agreement for the benefit of those who wish to enter new occupations.
This is a long term program and we will have to wait a number of years before we

feel the full impact of it. In looking at the Ulster Commentary, dated January, 1961, I find that the minister of agriculture for Northern Ireland, Mr. H. W. West, indicates that Northern Ireland has adopted the same type of developmental policy. I should like to quote this short paragraph from the minister's statement:
The other source of satisfaction is the development of afforestation which is making tremendous strides, particularly in areas where there is little hope of attaining a good return from the land by other methods. At present some 5,000 acres are being planted annually and it is hoped that within 25 years some 5 per cent of the land area will be covered by forest as against less than 1 per cent in 1945.
I quote this paragraph to ilustrate that Canadian federal governments-and this government in particular-are not the only governments interested in this type of policy.
As the hon. member for Peace River has said, the P.F.R.A. and P.F.A.A. have been amended since this government came to power. These amended pieces of legislation have proven very effective, and there has been a lot of favourable comment from the farmers of my area who are interested in water conservation. The amendment of P.F.R.A. to increase grants for dugouts from $125 to $250 and for small dams from $300 to $600 has proven very beneficial, and a great number of farmers in Saskatchewan have reacted most favourably.
In addition, we have heard a great deal of favourable comment on the aggressive sales program of our government in respect of farm products. I am thinking now particularly of wheat. The recent sales to China, to Russia and Czechoslovakia are going to increase our total sales to well over 300 million bushels, the amount the minister suggested as the approximate total sales this year. There are suggestions that we may surpass this target, and this brings a great deal of satisfaction to the people of Saskatchewan who have these large carryovers of wheat and who are looking forward to the results of this aggressive sales program launched by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Agriculture and the wheat board which has been working in conjunction with them.
In speaking of a sales policy and its relationship to free trade, I may say that I was interested to notice an article in the Star-Phoenix of March 18 which referred to a statement by Premier Douglas in the Saskatchewan legislature. He was expressing his views on the thinking of the people in the west with regard to free trade. It was very

interesting to see the change in attitude, and I should like to quote this part of his statement:
-free trade alone will not solve farm problems, because farmers would be competing with their products on the open market and would be buying things they need on a controlled or subsidized market.
The article continues:
"We are facing a difficult and unique situation in the agricultural economy," he said.
Trying to meet the current problems by seeking to regain policies of the past would not work.
The concept of free trade is out of date, he said. The world is moving towards trading areas and trading blocs and the trend will continue in this direction.
I quote this statement because it does indicate a change in the thinking of some western people with regard to the sale of products.
I should like too see encouragement given to a more realistic approach on the part of our dairy industry in Canada with regard to the mounting butter surplus. This is something which I believe disturbs most of us. Butter production is a very important income producer for our farmers, particularly in eastern Canada. I think there is a trend on the part of the general public toward greater consumption of vegetable oils and an indifference toward butter consumption. This indicates we should take a very serious look at the problem before we find ourselves in a serious situation. Perhaps we could encourage the dairy industry to be a little more aggressive in their sales efforts in this product.
In studying some of the statistics relating to the consumption of butter on a per capita and regional basis, I find that there has been a large decrease in butter consumption in the areas in which the greatest increase in butter production has taken place. This would indicate that many of the dairy farmers themselves have decreased the consumption of their own products and have increased their consumption of vegetable oils. To me this does not seem to be fair, particularly when organized agriculture in this particular facet comes to the government and asks for subsidies in order to help to keep them in butter production. I think they themselves should take a more realistic approach to this situation.
Considering the basic importance of milk as a food, having regard to the health and welfare of our population, I think we could do something to encourage greater consumption of milk among the populace, especially among the younger generation. Possibly milk could be made available to all school children at least of public school age. I also think we should encourage the dairy industry to enrich their milk up to a minimum of about 3J per
Supply-A griculture
cent butterfat rather than have it go through the skimming process which it now goes through, as a result of which it ends up with a larger amount of butterfat that has to be disposed of by other means. I think this is something at which we could take a serious look.
With respect to the stabilization act as it affects two of our basic commodities, namely eggs and pork, may I say this. I am quite in agreement with the switch-over to controlled production, limiting the payment to 100 hogs and, with regard to egg production, on the basis of a flock of 500 hens. However, if we are going to apply this type of legislation, I think it would be more effective if we were to pay this deficiency payment on a semi annual basis rather than on the annual basis that we are now contemplating. Having regard to the nature of the products involved, I think this procedure would be practicable. It would mean a little bit more administrative work on the part of the department but I think it would result in a fair application of the taxpayers' money with regard to agriculture.
As to the problem of farm labour I should like to make a few observations. I agree with other hon. members who have spoken previously that our government, working through the Department of Labour and the Department of Agriculture, should bring in some type of unemployment insurance plan for agricultural workers. I think this is something that is more necessary now than it was in former years. With the trend towards the larger economic unit, the large investment in machinery and the large over-all capital investment in land, we find quite a number of people who are making changes from one location to another and would still like to stay on the farm but possibly have not the required capital or do not want to invest large amounts of capital in order to be the owners themselves. However, they would like to be assistants or farm labourers and work on some of the larger farms. As a result, in order to cover this type of seasonal unemployment, I think it is more necessary than ever to have us take a serious look at this matter of bringing farm labour under the Unemployment Insurance Act. We find now quite a number of our more progressive farmers who are doing a good job and who are more or less self-sufficient with regard to capital machinery and so on but who find themselves quite embarrassed or having quite a problem in the fall with regard to getting adequate help to take off their crops and to assist them with their agricultural industry. I feel that this is a question we should examine seriously as soon as possible.

Supp ly-A gricu Iture
I should like to see our government continue the acreage bonus payments. I think this has been one of the fairest applications of government help for the purpose of meeting the cost-price squeeze that we know exists in the farming industry. It has been greatly appreciated by the farmers in my riding. There may have to be some modifications as to the administration of it so that any particular discrepancies we find now existing could be removed. But in lieu of a straight domestic two-price system which I have advocated on a previous occasion, I think this is a very effective piece of legislation and that it should be continued.
There is one other problem that affects my particular area of Saskatchewan. It has been referred to by others and I have referred to it myself previously. I have reference to the invasion of the boundary areas of Canada by United States farmers from the Dakotas and Montana. I am personally at a loss to know what is the answer to this particular problem. I think it will bear study by several departments-possibly the Department of National Revenue, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Department of Agriculture-in order to see what steps may be taken to make sure that these people coming into Canada would take a more serious part in the economy of the particular areas into which they come. We find that this invasion by United States' farmers has been the result of the agricultural policy in the United States of subsidizing the farmers there through the soil bank, taking large areas out of wheat production and putting them into grass. We find that these farmers in the Dakotas and in Montana, being good farmers and having large amounts invested in machinery, hate to see it lying around idle. Immediately they look for some area where they can put their machinery, ingenuity and so on to work again and get back into agriculture. They therefore migrate across into Canada and either lease or purchase land. In most cases they lease it because they feel that their own agricultural policy at home may be only temporary. They lease large amounts of Canadian farm land that some of our own Saskatchewan and Canadian farmers themselves would be greatly interested in either buying or leasing. In other words, with the capital they have available from the soil bank they are providing fairly strong competition. In some cases it is increasing the value of the land. In a few cases the Canadian farmers feel that it is making it almost prohibitive for them to compete.
The situation has a few other interesting aspects. One is that in many cases the

Americans who are coming over here are producing registered seed and are taking it back across the line with them to sell. This is something which does not aggravate the over-all wheat surplus particularly. In other cases municipal authorities, where some of this marginal area land has been put back into production, find that their tax revenues are up. But by and large quite an opposition is being developed on the part of our Canadian farmers. In order to stay in the agricultural industry those farmers who want to fit into this agrarian change to the larger economic unit especially those who have sons, feel that they should have access to this Canadian farm land rather than that it should be taken by groups coming in from the south.
As I say, I am not just too sure what the answer is to the problem, but I think several departments of government could give it very serious consideration. If our American friends should come in-and we naturally call them our American friends because we work with them on a very friendly basis apart from this matter-I personally feel that they should be encouraged possibly to come in here as landed immigrants and become permanent residents if they are going to take over this land in competition with our Canadian farmers.
In my closing remarks I should just like to say this with regard to wheat quotas. I have watched them fairly closely in our part of Saskatchewan. It happens that geographically we are about equidistant from the port of Churchill, the Pacific coast and the great lakes. When there is a demand for a certain type of grain from European countries I find that the wheat board themselves, in order to meet this demand quickly, have reached out and have drawn the grain from the closest areas adjacent to some of these ports. As a result there has been a big rectangular area, which includes my riding and some areas to the north and west, that has not had its fair share of the quota allocations. I should just like to mention this matter again. It is, of course, a matter of wheat board supervision of quotas. However, I think it is something that should be watched very closely.
We find that our farm population are very jealous with regard to their rights to equal distribution of these quotas, and rightfully so. As you know, Mr. Chairman, we get a quota of only up to about six bushels or seven bushels annually. In many cases, this does not take a great deal of the grain out of the area. As a result, in order to meet the demand of the agricultural economy now, our population in these areas wish to see that these quotas are watched closely.

With these remarks I shall conclude for the moment my observations on the agricultural estimates.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I was very interested in the remarks of the previous speaker. I noted that at the opening of his remarks he was rather political in what he had to say. He regretted-and I use his own words-that the Saskatchewan government appeared most reluctant to co-operate in the legislation dealing with crop insurance. He also announced with considerable flourish that in Manitoba this was working very effectively indeed.
I believe that no province has yet had any experience with crop insurance and I do not completely appreciate how he can depreciate his own province in comparison with another when we consider that no province has yet had any real experience with crop insurance.
As I understand it, the Saskatchewan government is most reluctant regarding this scheme because of the heavy costs that have to be borne by the provincial government and the individual farmers concerned. In my opinion Saskatchewan is doing nothing less than its duty, and that is to protect the interests of the provincial treasury and the interests of the individual farmers concerned.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre also expressed the opinion that those engaged in agriculture in his constituency were very, very pleased-and these were his words-with existing legislation in connection with agriculture. I believe the hon. member should get outside the bounds of the city of Moose Jaw and visit a number of farmers in his riding. I believe that if he talked to the rank and file of the farmers of his riding he would feel that they were anything but very, very pleased with legislation concerning agricultural matters as it affects them.
Before we carry item 1, which is the main item and involves the salary of the minister, I should like the minister to explain to the committee and the nation why we cannot have parity prices for Canadian agriculture. Why cannot Canadian farmers who are producing those things that are consumed within Canada have the same rights as organized labour to sit across the bargaining table, perhaps with the Canadian association of consumers and the government acting as referee, and determine a price level in order to give them parity of income with all other workers of our nation?
I know this condition prevails wherever Canadian agriculture is adequately organized. This particular condition prevails in most of the major urban areas of Canada for our milk producers who market in those areas.
Supply-Agriculture
We have milk boards in most of the major cities of Canada; we have milk boards in most of the provinces of Canada, and when the milk producers feel they are not getting a fair deal they argue their case of rising costs or otherwise before the milk board and obtain a certain degree of equity.
Why cannot all segments of agriculture be organized in a similar way? What is the government going to do in order to help other segments of Canadian agriculture obtain at least the limited amount of equity that Canadian producers of fluid milk in the urban markets have obtained for themselves in most of our major metropolitan areas?
Our wheat farmers have a long history in this connection. I believe their history is some 80 years in length; 80 long years of organization, fighting and bitter struggle. Our wheat farmers have at least obtained orderly marketing in Canada. Why cannot other agricultural producers obtain an equal amount of equity? Why can we not have parity prices for those products that are consumed within Canada, and deficiency payments for those products that must be exported?
I see nothing wrong with the two price system for wheat. I see nothing wrong with Canadian producers of wheat being granted equity in connection with wheat consumed within Canada, and in order to give them parity of income why should they not be granted deficiency payments because of the fact that world prices may be lower than called for by parity of income calls?
I hope the minister will explain why the government has deserted and, I regret to say, persuaded many leading agricultural spokesmen of Canada to desert the basic principle of parity of income for Canadian agriculture. I am heartbroken when I have to attend a meeting of organized agriculture and realize that organized agriculture takes a penny today rather than a pound tomorrow and bows down to political expediency rather than obtaining equity and a fair, square deal. Organized agriculture kowtows to political partisanship rather than insisting on the fundamental and basic rights of the man who tills the soil.
If we can have parity of income for the fluid milk producers of Canada-and I hope we are getting near to having this for the wheat producers of Canada-why can we not have it for the potato grower, for the small fruit grower and the tree fruit grower? Why must potatoes be imported into Canada when we are able to produce potatoes at an economical price? This reflects a lack of planning and of organization. Why should strawberries be dumped on our market to the ruin of our own berry producers?

Supply-Agriculture
Mention has been made of the family farm.
I indicated earlier my opinion that an efficient family farm is not a farm of 18 acres with a couple of cows, a couple of laying hens, a couple of acres of wheat and a couple of sows. I support the efficient family farm, but this government is doing nothing whatever to support such a farm when it introduces legislation which would support a farm which would have 500 laying hens. The minister knows enough about modern agriculture to realize that an economic family farm unit is not constituted by 500 laying hens. If he limits his guarantees to that, all he is doing is subsidizing the inefficient agricultural producers of Canada and helping to prolong the agony of such farm families. We maintain that the efficient family farm should be a farm unit where husband, wife and family are able to recover their cash outlay plus a reasonable percentage of their investment and, in addition, receive an income on a par with that of the ordinary Canadian citizen. This cannot be accomplished by a policy of curtailing production, and I hope the minister will not follow the example of his predecessor who used to march around the country telling farmers: if you want a fair price you have to produce less. The former minister of agriculture was as ill-advised then as he is now in his new role as an advocate of nuclear weapons. The conception of restricting production in order to maintain prices is an outmoded capitalistic idea which even capitalists will no longer buy. However, the Minister of National Defence, when he was minister of agriculture, bought that concept. What an inhuman and unrealistic attitude that is, and what a typically Tory attitude it represents. The present Minister of Agriculture, unlike his predecessor, is a native of Saskatchewan and I know he has a little bit of the progressive in him. The words "Progressive Conservative" are not entirely inapplicable to him, and I hope he will not pursue the policy of his predecessor and advise all kinds of organizations across the nation that if they want a fair and equitable deal they must produce less, create scarcity, and thereby obtain better returns per unit.
I was very interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Peace River. I should like to remind him that the wheat growers of Canada are organized. Even though I sometimes may have to disagree with what they advocate, they have come a long way over many long years. They have made sacrifices, and other branches of Canadian agriculture have not even begun to realize the potentialities of organization. I hope the minister will supply some leadership to these other branches of agriculture in order to help them to help themselves to get a fair deal. We have

often heard of lobbying legislators. I know of no group in all Canadian history, outside the investment dealers, the Canadian chamber of commerce and the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, who have lobbied more effectively in this House of Commons than have the wheat growers of Canada. I should like to see the day when the onion growers, the potato growers, the tomato growers and the poultry farmers are organized to the point when they can make their unified voices heard, and I hope, as I said, that the minister will supply some leadership so as to enable these people, who together outnumber the wheat growers by far, to obtain equity on the national scene.
Much has been made in speeches of the minister's "trees galore" plan. I admire the plan. I think it is wonderful. I think it is good. However, it will do very little to help the farmers of Canada in either the minister's lifetime or my own. This is a long range program which the minister is advocating and there are matters of much greater urgency to be attended to now.
The hon. member for Moose Mountain had some good words to say about the minister but his words of praise also included the minister's parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Provencher and that, I think, was an error. The hon. member for Provencher, as I understand it, is in favour of the factory farm. We in this group and I think I can speak for my colleagues-are in favour of the family farm as opposed to the factory farm.
The hon. member also mentioned the problem of unemployment insurance for farm workers. I agree that they should be covered by unemployment insurance. However, what is basically needed is to give to the farmers an adequate income so that they can afford to pay a proper wage to their help. If they can pay an adequate wage they will be able to get the help. I realize the farmer is unable to do so because he does not get fair treatment. He is unable to pay the wages that industrial firms are able to pay, and therefore very often is unable to get the help he needs. Unemployment insurance will not provide the answer even though it ought to be introduced and made applicable to farm workers. But that is not the real problem; the real problem is to give the farmer enough net income so that he can pay his employees a wage which would make the position attractive and the wages comparable to those which are paid in industry today.


Mr. Pitman:: Before the item carries I would like to ask the minister a question. Is the federal government planning to introduce legislation which will permit the federal government to co-operate with the provinces to

pay compensation to farmers whose animals are destroyed because of rabies? I understand that some time ago there was an outbreak of rabies in various provinces in Canada and by order in council compensation was paid on the basis of the federal, provincial and municipal governments co-operating. Since then in my own particular area one or two animals have died and no compensation has been forthcoming. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this is unjust. Simply because no epidemic is raging at the particular time certain people suffer losses, they should not be denied compensation. Farmers are quite co-operative with the federal Department of Agriculture. Indeed, they are quite enthusiastic about the help they receive. I think it would build up confidence on the part of the farmers if such legislation were forthcoming. Will the minister inform the committee in the course of his reply.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the item carries, and since I do not think it would be appropriate on any other item, I wish to put one or two queries to the minister to give him the opportunity to explain to us what is happening with respect to the view of one correspondent who described the minister as doing political farming. Perhaps I can make my point clear by reading this piece from the Victoria Daily Times of January 17, by a very distinguished member of the press gallery, Mr. Tom Gould, which is entitled "Political Farming":
Agriculture Minister Alvin Hamilton has a decided advantage over opposition critics of the government's farm program. Since taking over the agriculture portfolio, the minister has discovered a way of using the taxpayer's own money to distribute what amounts to political propaganda. The information division of the department has for a number of years been producing a twice-monthly publication entitled "Farm News", that is sent to every newspaper and radio station in Canada. In the past, ministers left it alone. It was a purely departmental publication, dealing in matters of concern to Canada's farming population.
It carried articles on the control of wild oats, on the use of chemical fertilizers, and a wide range of problems studied by the labs and experimental farms operated by the government.
Mr. Hamilton has decided to take advantage of this publication to spread the government's views on agriculture. He made his debut as a columnist in the current issue, on the highly-controversial subject of allowing feed mills to purchase grain directly from producers without first obtaining delivery quotas from the Canadian wheat board.
The column bears his picture, and is titled: "The Minister Reports."
Officials of the information division have been informed that the minister intends providing them with a similar column once a month to start, and may step it up to twice-a-month to make sure he gets in every issue. His first effort takes up one sixth of the print space in the current issue.
It is an out-and-out defence of the government's action in the feed mills controversy, and a denial of the claims made by critics of the action.
People close to Mr. Hamilton say the use of what was a purely departmental information outlet is
Supply-Agriculture
but one of the first steps towards becoming what the minister describes as "the most political agricultural minister Canada has ever known."
One of his first moves on taking office was to set up a "political file" in his office, something that didn't exist under former minister Doug Harkness, who is now Minister of National Defence.
Mr. Hamilton obviously plans to spend far more time out on the road, convincing farmers they have never had it better, than in sitting in Ottawa running the department. He has made a dozen major policy speeches.
This emphasis on the political aspects of agriculture is readily understandable. The Tories currently have a solid hold on the prairies,-
Well, 1 think some of us would question that.
-and they want to retain that hold in the next federal election.
I now turn to the Winnipeg Free Press of February 18, and to a report by Mr. Victor Mackie, a respected member of the press gallery, and an exceptionally well-informed one, who seems to be able to get advance information about the reports of royal commissions, who had this to say:
Agriculture Minister Hamilton is out to build up an efficient, high pressure and extensive public relations and information service for his department. He wants more publicity for his policies.
He has hired on a contract basis an editorial writer from the Toronto Telegram, Harry Halliwell, for six months to do the job of rebuilding the agriculture department's publicity agencies.
We all recognize, of course that the Toronto Telegram is a leading agriculture journal in an agriculture area of the country, and no doubt that would fit one of their editorial writers specially for this function. I continue:
Mr. Halliwell has obtained leave of absence from his newspaper.
That would not surprise anybody who is aware of the very close relations, not entirely agricultural, between that newspaper and the government.


Mr. Jones:: Mr. Halliwell also used to write for the Star-Phoenix in Saskatoon.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He may have written for the Star-Phoenix in Saskatoon-


Henry Frank Jones: As an editorial writer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -as an editorial writer, but I do not know that that would necessarily qualify him, any more than would writing for the Toronto Telegram as an expert on publicity for the Department of Agriculture. I continue with the quotation:
Also, at the minister's suggestion, the Canadian wheat board has hired Ralph Hedlin, a free lance writer in Winnipeg, on a contract basis, to act as a part-time public relations man for the board.
I now turn to the Russell Banner, published in Russell, Manitoba, a province quite near to the one in which the minister lives. Incidentally, perhaps I ought to correct what I believe was a misstatement by the hon.

Supply-Agriculture
member lor Burnaby-Coquitlam. I do not believe the minister is a native of Saskatchewan any more than I am. I understand he was born in that little farming settlement of Kenora, Ontario.


Erhart Regier: I saw him there in 1938.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He has been in Saskatchewan quite a long time, just as some others who were not actually born on the western prairies have spent a lot of time there. The Russell newspaper, the Banner, in its issue of February 23, contained this article under the heading "Selling Mr. Hamilton". I do not suppose it was really suggested that there was any reintroduction of slavery; I suppose they were using the word "selling" in that modern sense of Madison avenue and not in the old-fashioned sense of the Louisiana slave market. I quote:
Surpluses would soon vanish if the federal minister of agriculture put as much effort into selling farm produce as he does in selling Mr. Hamilton to the public. As though he didn't get enough press releases from various government departments, Mr. Hamilton has hired himself a special editorial writer to build up an efficient, high pressure and extensive public relations and information service. And we in the newspaper field are feeling the effects already, for there is hardly a mail coming in without one or more releases from his information service, which often include a text of one of his speeches. All have that stereotype beginning "Agricultural Minister Alvin Hamilton said today." One would need a fair sized daily to relay all the material to the public. Offhand, we would say that 25 mimeographed pages are received each week and multiply this by some 800 weeklies in Canada, as well as dailies, radio and T.V. stations, and you have a lot of paper. No wonder we all have such big waste paper baskets.
Perhaps that would explain the minister's new policy on planting trees. If this proliferation of press releases is going to continue at the rate that, according to these writers, it has already reached since he became minister, he may feel that the existing crop of spruce trees in the country will not produce enough paper for all his press releases and therefore we must increase the production of wood in order to produce the necessary paper and thereby produce a crop that will not be in surplus.
The minister was not here, of course, but I remember the days when the minister's friends were over here where I am now and there was no theme on which Mr. Drew, the former leader of the party, and other members spent more time than the extravagance of the previous Liberal government in its information services in the various departments. Promises were made in those days that when the Conservatives came into office they would fire all these publicity people, get down to the business of dealing with the problems of the country and let their solution of the problems speak for itself.

That does not seem to have been the practice that has been followed in many departments but I do not think there is any department where there has been such a conspicuous increase in the crop as in the minister's department where, notwithstanding some of the other undisposable surpluses, I have no doubt that from the look of things it will not be too long until the biggest agricultural surplus will be the surplus of the minister's press releases and other propaganda of one kind and another. Apart from any harvest of votes the minister expects to get out of these press releases, which is hardly a legitimate expenditure of the funds of the Department of Agriculture, it did seem to me that he should explain to the committee precisely what advantage he thinks the farmers get from seeing his picture in this information bulletin which, according to this story, was formerly a compilation of technical information of one sort and another.
I think he should explain just what justification there is for this proliferation of propaganda and expenditure because it does seem to me that we have enough real problems that should engage the full time and attention of ministers instead of their indulging in this practice of building up huge propaganda machines with the avowed purpose or at any rate the apparent purpose- perhaps the minister would not avow it-of political self-glorification. I felt that perhaps the minister had been so busy issuing these things, so busy making these speeches and had spent so much time on the road that he had not had much time to read the newspapers to see what kind of reception his road show was getting and that perhaps it would be helpful to him if this were drawn to his attention. I may say that these are just a few random samples and I could produce many more if it would not weary the committee and take up time unnecessarily.
I know that the minister should not be expected to give an answer when he replies on item No. 1 with respect to another matter about which I should like him to give the committee some information. However, I felt that I might give the minister notice now so that when the appropriate item is reached- I think the matter will perhaps come under the P.F.R.A. item-he can give us a progress report as to water control on the Fairford river in Manitoba. There was an order in council passed on October 28 last, a copy of which I have in my hand, setting out the basis on which the government of Canada is undertaking this work as part of the over-all flood control program, I understand, in Manitoba.
If I understand the situation correctly, and the minister can correct me immediately if I

am wrong, the control of the Fairford river is being undertaken by his department as an entirely separate project from the proposed Red river flood control which would come under different legislation and presumably under another department. I might say that I have the greatest possible sympathy for this project and I would not want to be misunderstood at all in that regard. I lived within ten miles of lake Manitoba for a very large part of my life, the most impressionable part of it, and it was one of the saddest things to see the lakeside meadows inundated with water year after year and to see, as I saw several years ago, farmers watching their holdings vanish because of the water.
I know this is a very difficult problem. There is a danger that by running down the level in flooded areas of lake Manitoba you may create a problem on lake Winnipeg. I know it has not been easy to work out a scheme that we can be sure will be satisfactory. I always like to give credit for encouraging things when they do happen. I think it is encouraging that a start is being made on this problem and I think there are many people who would like a progress report under the appropriate item.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether the minister would deem it advisable to reply with respect to why farmers cannot have parity of income with respect to Canadian agricultural products consumed within Canada and why they cannot have deficiency payments on exported agricultural products adequate enough to bring prices into line so that the farmers will have parity of income with all other workers in Canada?
I should like to ask the minister one other question. Since the minister comes from a wheat growing area of Canada, namely, Qu'-Appelle-Wolseley, I should like to ask him why it was deemed advisable to appoint a parliamentary secretary who comes from the riding of Provencher in Manitoba which I understand is also largely a wheat growing area. I cannot ask the minister about his appointment but why were all the other types of agricultural production ignored in the appointment of a parliamentary secretary? Why was a balance not obtained within the department? Why was an onion farmer from Ontario, a tomato grower from the interior of British Columbia, a dairy farmer from Quebec or even a florist from Nova Scotia not appointed to this office? Why did the government decide that the minister and the parliamentary secretary should represent in the main the wheat farmers of our nation?


The Acting Chairman (Mr. McGee):: Shall item No. 1 carry?
Supply-Agriculture


Erhart Regier: No. I think the minister would like to tell us why Canadian farmers are not entitled to parity of income.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, one reason why I was reluctant to speak was the fact that any reasonably intelligent person listening to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam would say that the kindest thing that could be said to the hon. member is that he should have kept quiet because never have we heard such a hodgepodge of contrary views and confused economics in the history of this chamber. I have always felt that those responsible for agriculture have the responsibility of letting the people know some of the facts concerning their industry.
Now, I am not going to deal with all the points raised by the hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam because, quite frankly and honestly, I wish the hon. member would read his speech and think about it a little instead of talking. I am sure he will not be proud of that speech when he reads it.


Erhart Regier: I think the farmers will read it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: During the hon. member's speech, Mr. Chairman, he not only attacked the wheat farmer but he attacked the intelligence of farm organizations. He came out against the importation of food supplies into Canada. He came out for producing surpluses beyond our own needs. He came out for controls and he came out against controls. If the hon. member will just read that speech over it will save me the unhappy task of exposing the depths of the ignorance that was expressed.
I have no right to say anything about why my parliamentary secretary was appointed. Once again, I would ask the hon. member to get out of these city districts he represents and learn something about the geography of Canada.


Erhart Regier: I was born in Saskatchewan.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, I know, but after your speech we are not proud of it.


Erhart Regier: I am very proud of it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member should learn something about the constituency which the hon. member for Provencher represents. He will find onion growers there, sugar beet growers, cattlemen, dairymen, fur farmers, almost every type of farming except wheat farming. I mention that only in passing. I just point out that if it is not apparent to the hon. member it must be apparent to all the rest of us, that it is only kindness on my part that keeps me in my seat.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture
Research branch-
5. Branch administration including Canada's fee for membership in the international society for horticultural science and $139,045 for grants in aid of agricultural research in universities and other scientific organizations in Canada, $1,899,219.
(Translation):
Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, on item 5, I should like to say a few words about markets for our agricultural products. The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) delivered a fine speech about research and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) himself commended him for it.
I should like, however, to add a few words concerning market research for agricultural products. I feel that the prosperity of our agriculture will depend on our exports to other countries.
Some time ago, I read certain publications where it was mentioned that the British market was quite extensive, but that we were not taking full advantage of it as far as Canadian exports are concerned. For instance-the latest figures I have are for 1957-it is stated that Denmark exported 249,000 tons of meat to the United Kingdom, Holland, 16,000 tons, Poland, 49,000 tons and other countries also exported 39,000 tons of meat, while Canada exported 832 tons.
I feel that in the matter of research, the government should make every effort to expand our markets.
With regard to dairy products, last year, that is in 1959, British imports of dairy products reached $511 million, tobacco products, $228 million, fruits and vegetables, $633 million, while the Canadian contribution was only 2J per cent in the case of dairy products, 0.9 per cent in the case of tobacco products and 0.7 per cent in the case of fruits and vegetables.
Since the Canadian government maintains rather close relations with the United Kingdom, I fail to understand why we cannot increase our exports to that country.
As for the studies and research the minister intends to undertake during the coming year, that is in 1961-62, since this item in the estimates has gone up by 28 per cent, I would ask that export markets be given prime consideration. This is our only hope to achieve a prosperous, an expanding agriculture.
(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I should like to tell the hon. member that the subject he has raised is a very important one, namely, the development of market

research for products abroad as well as in Canada. This subject should really have been discussed under the item relating to the economics division, but perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words about it under this item. This is one item that I feel has been overlooked.
In the speeches mentioned by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, I outlined several proposals that I thought we should follow. The emphasis today is on market research and getting new products in front of the consumer to keep pace with our competitors. Within the last four or five months we have had an interesting experience along these lines. A certain number of potatoes from the United States were coming into Canada. Upon investigation it was ascertained this was because the patent that was held for processing these potatoes into instant potatoes was a United States patent. The department immediately got busy and bought a patent from the United States department of agriculture and then went ahead on its own with the development of a patent under Dr. Asselbergs. This is an example of market research where the laboratories we had were used to develop a process that would enable Canadians to put up a product more suitable for the Canadian market.
I agree with the hon. member that this is one thing we should push. So far the Department of Agriculture has not done too much about it. We are just reorienting ourselves toward this approach. I think I can guarantee the hon. member that I will give it all the push I can.
In so far as markets in the United Kingdom are concerned, I think the hon. member is aware that our prices in Canada for dairy products and almost all other farm products are very much higher than world prices. We have lost our hold on the United Kingdom market. However, this must not stop us from trying to get back into that market. We do have good products such as wheat and tobacco that we can sell on a competitive basis anywhere in the world. We will have to develop specially products, such as high quality fruit, cheese and so on. As I have said a good many times good, plain Canadian products have a taste advantage that makes them attractive even at higher prices.
I should like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for permitting me to discuss this subject for a moment. I think the Department of Agriculture is well advised to reorient itself and think more of marketing than it has in the past.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, according to the remarks of the minister, he will exert

more efforts than were made during the last four years.
I remember that during the election campaigns in 1957 and 1958, they were going all around Canada trumpeting that when the Conservative party would be brought into power, an army of agents would look after the marketing of our products.
After three and a half years, I am glad to note that the minister has at last decided to do something in this field.
(Text) :


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Morton):: Shall
item 5 carry?


Mr. Knowles:: I have one question I should like to put to the minister. It is in connection with the experimental work that is done in my area in the Delhi substation in connection with tobacco. The people of that area have appreciated the work that has been done there over the years, but we sometimes feel that it would be better if the station were operated on its own rather than under the direction of the station in Harrow. It is not that we have any objection to the work that has been done. There has been the closest co-operation. However, when diseases strike, there have been instances where farmers have lost their whole crop within a very short period.
One example is weather fleck on which the department has done a considerable amount of work in that area during this past year and it is much appreciated. However, we feel that if the station were operated on its own it could probably move faster when some of these serious diseases strike. If it were on its own it could probably bring its staff up to greater strength. We would probably need a biochemist, probably more work in plant breeding and also a disease specialist. I believe these additions would facilitate the work carried on by the station. I do not expect the minister to give an answer at this moment but I should like him to give the matter consideration as to whether this station could be operated on its own in the future.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Institutes, stations, farms, laboratories and services-
6. Operation and maintenance including the costs of publishing departmental research papers as supplements to the Canadian Entomologist, $21,175,694. (Translation):
Samuel Boulanger: I would like to have some clarification on item 6, which shows an increase of $1 million. Could the minister give us some explanations concerning this increase?
(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This increase is as a result of salary increases. The item is about the same except for the $800,000 increase in salaries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
10, 1961	3505
Royal Commission on Transportation Production and marketing branch-
8. Branch administration including contributions to agricultural organizations to assist in the marketing of agricultural products, subject to the approval of treasury board (also includes the former item for agricultural products board administration), $1,001,970.
Mr. Benidickson:: What are the organizations that are referred to under this item? I have looked hurriedly at the details on page 103 but I did not see any reference to the organizations. The main item on page 5 refers to contributions to agricultural organizations to assist in the marketing of agricultural products.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am informed that this changes from year to year but usually it deals with some marketing organizations like honey growers or fruit growers who have a particular problem and to whom we give grants.


William Moore Benidickson: Can the minister indicate what grants were given in the year 1960-61? Perhaps that information could be put on the record later if the minister does not have it readily available.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, if the
committee would allow it, I would ask that we revert for a moment to motions. In view of the fact that the function in honour of the prime minister of the United Kingdom and his wife begins at a quarter to six, would it be possible for the house to revert to motions just for a moment so that I might table the report about which I spoke earlier?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Prime Minister leave to revert to motions for the purpose of tabling a document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



TRANSPORTATION


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table two copies in English and in French of the report of the royal commission on transportation. Copies are being distributed to hon. members immediately. At the same time I should like to express the thanks of the government for the public service rendered by the commissioners and their staff and in particular, appreciation to Mr. M. A. Mac-Pherson, Q.C., who took on the onerous duty
3506	HOUSE OF
Royal Commission on Transportation of chairman of the commission when Hon. C. P. McTague, Q.C., had to relinquish his place on the commission because of ill health.
A statement of information and a summary of the report has been furnished to me by the secretary of the commission. I should like as well to table that summary from the secretary in both English and French.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is the Prime Minister going to make any statement on the report at this time?


John George Diefenbaker: No, Mr. Speaker, I think that any statement will be given in due course but not at this time.


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps the Prime Minister would allow a question or two in connection with the report which he has tabled. Does the report which he has just now tabled involve legislation?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, the report is simply a compendium of the recommendations of a royal commission. After study has been given thereto, the question as to whether legislation shall be introduced will be determined and the house will be advised thereof.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the Prime Minister another question? The Prime Minister will recall that, during the course of the debate on the resumption of work legislation, he indicated that in this interim report or first report of the commission there would be found a formula which would deal with the freight rate structure and also with the resumption of work. The Prime Minister has seen, if not the report, at least the summary handed to him by the secretary. I think the opposition should know whether that formula to which the Prime Minister made reference is to be found in the report.


John George Diefenbaker: As I recall it, I expressed the hope and expectation that the report would contain recommendations which would tend to alleviate or remove the detrimental effects of horizontal increases in freight rates and would suggest means whereby discrimination against various localities and regions in Canada might be removed. After the hon. gentleman has had an opportunity to read the report he will be in a position to understand the nature and degree of the recommendations that are made.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) also suggested that in it would be found a formula which would not only do away with the inequalities but would also deal with the resumption of work and, in effect, avoid the strike. The question I am putting-
	I


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think perhaps the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) should reserve his questions until the orders of the day. What has transpired is that the house, by leave, has permitted the Prime Minister to revert to motions for the purpose of noting the filing of a report, but he has not made any statement thereon. Our practice has been not to discuss a document when tabled, which is all that has been done at this stage.
I	intervened because I thought the hon. member had perhaps only a minor matter upon which to raise a question, but if there is to be any prolonged discussion of the matter or further questioning, I suggest it be done on the orders of the day or deferred until the matter can be debated.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am not complaining about the inference in Your Honour's statement, but Your Honour will remember that the Prime Minister asked for leave to revert to motions which, as is the custom, was granted. However, when that has been done, and particularly when it concerns a report of this importance from the royal commission on transportation, which everybody has been awaiting with interest, I think it is only fair and reasonable that the opposition should be allowed to ask one or two questions.
I had another question or two, in the light of what was tabled, and I thought perhaps the Prime Minister would not have any objection to replying to them.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in so far as
the hon. gentleman's interpretation of my remarks in the previous debate is concerned, may I say that I do not accept the interpretation of those remarks which he has just given. Therefore a debate would certainly result if any further questions were allowed at this time.
After the hon. gentleman has read the report he will be in a better position to ask questions and he will then receive answers.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask this final question? The Prime Minister has not refused to reply to my questions. The question I was going to ask was-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Prime Minister has indicated that he felt, as I did, that a series of questions would lead to discussion and debate. At the most, the hon. member for Laurier would have the right to comment on the report, and I take it that he would not wish to do that without having an opportunity to read it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order arising out of the procedure which we are now following. I am not objecting to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) having asked for unanimous consent to revert to motions. We all agreed to that. However, normally these reports are tabled at the begining of a sitting and therefore the opposition has a chance immediately afterwards, on the orders of the day, to ask questions relating to them and those questions are given publicity at the same time as the report is tabled.
When we revert to motions at a quarter to six we cannot ask questions, as we can on the orders of the day, until the next day. Therefore there is some difficulty about this procedure when we consider the conventional procedure of the house.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure the hon. gentleman understood the reason for the delay until this time. I have found by experience when sitting over there that if I had a little more time to think over the questions I asked better questions than simply shots in the dark.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there would have been a very good reason for delay if the Prime Minister had intended to make a statement. All the Prime Minister has done is table a report and the press release has been issued. He has made no statement. I should have thought this should have been done at the beginning of the sitting.


Lionel Chevrier: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has disagreed with my interpretation of what he said during the course of the earlier debate.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: On that occasion the Prime Minister stated-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry, but I am afraid I cannot allow a debate to arise out of the tabling of the document. No statement was made other than to record in our proceedings that the document has been tabled. While I thought it would be in order to comment, the procedure that we have followed is quite contrary to our usual practice. I suggest the hon. member for Laurier reserve his questions until the next appropriate time for such questions, which would be at the opening of the next sitting of the house.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will answer just one question, and then I will resume my seat?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Supply-Agriculture


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: The question is this. In the light of the report which the Prime Minister has just tabled, has the government a program laid out as to how it will proceed in carrying out the legislation which I understand is contained in the report?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has said, "the legislation which I understand is contained in the report". I can simply say to him that after he has perused it he will be in a position to understand the situation, which apparently he does not at the moment.


Lionel Chevrier: I have reference to the recommendations, which might involve legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: The house will now resume the business which was interrupted by unanimous consent to permit the Prime Minister to table a document.

The house resumed in committee of supply, Mr. Morton in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Production and marketing branch-
8.	Branch administration including contributions to agricultural organizations to assist in the marketing of agricultural products, subject to the approval of treasury board (also includes the former item for agricultural products board administration). $1,001,970.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I was asked a question and I have the information here: 1959-60, materials and supplies; Canadian beekeepers council, poultry products industry, Canadian restaurant association, Corporation des agronomes, Salon national de l'agriculture, Ecole superieure de l'agriculture de Sainte-Anne, consumer publications.
Then 1960-61, rent for exhibit space and materials at conventions and exhibitions, mat service for consumer section publicity in newspapers and T.V. shows, pamphlet "Canada Observes World Seed Year". Poultry products institute, Canadian beekeepers council and miscellaneous.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
9.	Agricultural Stabilization Act administration, $536,013.
(Translation):
Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I have a few comments to make on price stabilization of agricultural products.

Supp ly-Agriculture
I think I ought to say a few words concerning figures which were given in an article which appeared recently in a periodical following the Tory convention and which amounted naturally to political propaganda.
It said that during the last three years of the Liberal administration, $234.9 million were distributed to farmers under the Agricultural Stabilization Act as compared to $494 million for the same number of years under the Conservative government.
I fail to see the kind of propaganda they wanted to make with those figures since, after all, those payments were paid by the taxpayers.
Besides, in spite of the millions paid under the Agricultural Stabilization Act farmers still had to sell their products at lower prices.
I have here a few recent prices for beef. In 1959, grade "A" beef sold for $24.80 in Toronto while in 1960 it went down to $24.75. According to the cattle market review, beef graded as "good" was selling for $25.10 a hundredweight in 1959 and only $22.65 in 1960.
Eggs, grade "A" were priced down from 39 to 36 cents.
Butter remained at 71 cents.
Cheese was at 28.7 cents in 1959 compared with an average of 27.5 cents in 1960.
Milk went down from $2.75 to $2.74 a hundredweight.
It is not surprising then that millions had to be poured into the scheme in order to obtain an increase of 12 per cent for 1960. According to Current Review on Agricultural Conditions in Canada and as was explained a moment ago by my colleague, revenues increased by 12 per cent in 1960 compared to 1959. But an analysis of incomes by provinces shows that incomes have decreased in Nova Scotia, Quebec, Manitoba and Alberta while they have increased by 43 per cent in Saskatchewan.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: According to the hon. member, incomes have become smaller in the province of Quebec. Would that not be because of the provincial government?


Samuel Boulanger: Here we go again. When serious matters are being discussed, there is always someone to make the most silly remarks.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Is that your best answer?


Samuel Boulanger: For an answer, I would refer the hon. member to his friend and colleague, former Premier Barrette, whom he knows so well.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: He is a better man than you on many counts.


Samuel Boulanger: He was defeated.
Let us therefore take a look at the Saskatchewan incomes. According to the report, additional payments totalling $77 million have been made to help the farmers in the western provinces; but seemingly the province of Saskatchewan has benefited more than the other provinces, which would explain why today the incomes are 43 per cent higher than in 1959.
Considering the differences of incomes to be found among the provinces, I ask the Minister of Agriculture what he intends to do in order to increase the incomes in those provinces where they have decreased during last year, and particularly in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Manitoba. In New Brunswick, there has been an increase of 12 per cent over the previous year and, like the farmers of that province, I am happy to note it.
Now, since we are discussing the Agricultural Stabilization Act, I should like to say a few words about the stabilization prices promised to the western farmers for their grain in 1957 and 1958 by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), the Minister of Agriculture himself and the other candidates at that time.
The government has been in power for four years and a half and they have done nothing yet to meet the demands of those farmers. In 1958 and 1959, they even denied an answer to the farmers who came here to beg stabilization prices from the government. And if we look at wheat prices that are set in other countries, we notice a large discrepancy. Before quoting those figures, Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock.
(Text):
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m. (Translation):
Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned for lunch I wanted to show the government the difference in the price of wheat in some countries as compared to the price that prevails in Canada.

In 1960-61, the price of wheat in France was set at $2.07 a bushel for soft wheat and $2.61 for durum wheat. As for rye, the price was $1.34; barley was $1.35, while the Canadian price of barley Canada-West No. 2, was only $0.77 a bushel, in 1959.
The price of oats was set at $0.68 a bushel.
In New Zealand, the price of wheat was $1.85 a bushel in the southern parts of the country and $1.99 in the north.
In Australia, the price of wheat for the current year was set at $1.66 a bushel, or $0.37 more than last year. In Denmark, the price of wheat was set at $1.86 a bushel, or $0.38 more than last year.
If we compare those prices to those we obtained in our own country last year, we notice a marked difference.
Last year, according to the report of the Canadian wheat board, wheat sold for $1,596.
That is an indication of the interest shown by the government in the field of agricultural price stabilization, particularly as regards wheat.
I must say that the Minister of Agriculture and the government he is associated with were more interested in talking about agricultural price stabilization three years ago than they are now.
I would ask the minister, and I base my question on the representations made to me by the western grain producers, whether he intends to announce a price setting policy for grain.
I have more remarks to make about agricultural price stabilization, but I would rather wait for the minister's reply before starting on other farm products. I would like information as to the government's policy on the price of western grain.
(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: To give a short answer to the question, the prairie wheat farmer knows that his products are sold on the export markets of the world. Until recently, no support or extra subsidy was given to the Canadian wheat farmers; they paid the complete cost of the operations of getting their product to market, and so on.
The hon. member mentioned the high prices in other countries of the world. I could give a list of every country in the world that is a producer of wheat to show that their support prices are very high. In this particular case, we are an exporting country and are trying to get into their markets. Our prices are set on two general bases: first, on the international wheat agreement; and, second, on world prices, which are set by competition according to the laws of supply and demand.
90205-6-222
S upp ly-A griculture
Therefore, outside of the existing subsidies for the handling of grain through the payment of the excess storage charges, there is no intention on the part of the government to go into the rat race of trying to compete with those other importing countries and subsidize all export grain grown in Canada.


Mr. Nasserden:: With respect to the administration of the Agricultural Stabilization Act, I should like to touch on one or two things that have been bothering some of the people in my riding. One of these is the application of this act to eggs. When I was in my riding at Christmas eggs were selling at about 18 cents to 20 cents a dozen; at the present time they are selling at from 20 cents to 22 cents a dozen. There does not look as if there will be any possibility of deficiency payments being made to individual producers on the national average price as set out by the legislation. I do not think anyone has suggested that 18 cents to 22 cents is a high price for eggs. The producers in the province of Saskatchewan certainly have not been able to share in the benefits of this program to the extent that producers in other parts of the country have been able to do so.
The situation with regard to hogs, of course, is still in a state of flux and there is also that same measure of uncertainty in that industry as there is in the egg industry in all parts of Canada. The other day hogs went down $4 a hundred on the prairies. This was another indication of the uncertainty, and the fluctuation in price certainly is not to the advantage of the producers in that area.
It has been suggested in some quarters that farmers should receive support prices on those products at whatever quota the government wants to set, and that some policy be entered into along the lines of the permit books that we have for the sale of grain in western Canada. There may be one or two objections to such a program but it would give the individual producer solid support for a minimum of production and would certainly have a greater stabilizing effect than does the present policy. The stabilization program in general has been such that Canadian farmers have received greater benefits than they did under the old price support act. However, with regard to eggs and hogs I think there is some danger and producers in Saskatchewan certainly would like to see the policy revised to some extent. Can the minister give us any indication whether there is a possibility of some revision in that regard?
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, before the minister answers the question just put to him, I should like to make a few comments

Supply-Agriculture
on the Agricultural Stabilization Act, as the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden) just did.
I do not think that the act is presently beneficial to farmers and especially to western egg producers. I have here the average price paid for eggs in various provinces for the year 1960. The average price in Alberta for last year was 23.2 cents a dozen; in Saskatchewan, 20.8 cents; in Manitoba, 23.4 cents; in British Columbia, 31.4 cents; in Ontario,
31.2	cents and in Quebec, 33 cents.
Those figures show a difference of eight to ten cents a dozen between the price paid in the west and that paid to farmers in the east. The deficiency payment paid last year under the Agricultural Stabilization Act was
1.2	cents a dozen, which represents a difference between the final price to the western farmers and to eastern farmers. That shows that the act has discriminatory effects against a certain class of producers, and that is the reason why the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) urged the government last year in rather positive terms to change the price setting method, that is, he asked the government to stabilize prices on a regional basis rather than on a national basis. In fact, as reported on page 1367 of Hansard for February 23, 1960, here is what the hon. member said:
When prices lor the same commodity vary from one region to another, a national system of deficiency payments discriminates against those regions where prices are low and which, therefore, need more assistance, and in favour of those regions where prices are higher and which, therefore, need less assistance.
The Agricultural Stabilization Act has been enacted for the purpose of correcting certain shortcomings in the marketing system, and it is normal that the producers in a less favoured area get the same protection from the state as those who live in other provinces where products sell at higher prices.
Due to that policy, which I would call discriminatory, production of chicks will be substantially reduced in the west this year. Thus, in Alberta, production has fallen by 11.7 per cent; in Saskatchewan, by 25.1 per cent, and in Manitoba, by 16.4 per cent, while the national production has only fallen by 8.6 per cent.
I therefore repeat the request put forward last year by the hon. member for Essex East, who is known as an expert on agricultural matters'


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to note that hon. members recognize the competence of the hon. member for Essex East, and I thank them for their appreciation.

Therefore, this is the request we are submitting: that a regional price be set in order to protect the egg producers in the west.
(Text):


Mr. Hicks:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word or two about item No. 9 which has to do with the Agricultural Stabilization Act. First of all, may I refer to page 2561 of Hansard for March 1 at which time I made a few remarks in connection with the sale of butter. I am concerned about the amount that is paid for the storage of butter in the different plants. It seems to me that something should be done to advertise butter rather than having it condemned as one of the causes of heart disease. I quoted figures at that time showing that the consumption of butter had dropped whereas the consumption of margarine had risen and so also had the incidence of heart disease.
I think something should be done to advertise butter. I have before me this evening two advertisements for margarine. One of them is by Canada Packers and it is set forth in the advertisement that a person can get two pairs of 60 gauge, 15 denier nylons for the price of one pair and there is a picture of a beautiful pair of limbs here. That is the enticement to buy margarine. Why can we not do something like that for butter? They also advertise that silverware can be had at half price if a person buys a pound of margarine, tears off the yellow end of the package and sends it in. Here is another advertisement for Parkay margarine. Maybe I am advertising something I should not be but it seems to me that if the people who are selling butter would do something like the people who are selling margarine are doing we might sell more butter.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Chairman, is the minister prepared, if he has not already done so, to amplify the indication he gave earlier in the session that he was giving serious consideration to bringing pulpwood under the Agricultural Stabilization Act or some form of legislation that would give a better price to the settlers or farmers for whom pulpwood is becoming increasingly a very large source of income?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, several questions have been posed. The Agricultural Stabilization Act was one of the first major efforts under the government's agricultural development program to get at one of the fundamental weaknesses in agriculture, namely, the rise and fall in prices.

The act covers some 17 products and with respect to most of these products it seems to be working quite well. From listening to various hon. members and having in mind the way the act is working it is obvious it is not entirely satisfactory in relation to hogs and eggs. I think the fundamental reason for this is that as a result of the plentiful supplies of feed, particularly in western Canada, it has been and is so easy to expand the production of these two items. Any slight adjustment upwards in price immediately attracts tremendous production and a surplus situation.
On several occasions I have indicated that I, personally, am not completely satisfied with the way the stabilization act has worked out with regard to these two products. I would suggest that if I have been honest in saying that, then other hon. members could be equally honest by searching their own consciences, and calculating the known effects of their suggestions on economic production in this country, before they make suggestions which have not been thoroughly thought out. If the hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska is suggesting that western farmers receive a price for eggs comparable to that received by Quebec farmers, his suggestion would be very well received by western farmers. However, the majority of western farmers are aware that, with their ability to produce cheap feed, they can produce eggs or hogs in unlimited quantities at prices with which the eastern farmer could not compete. If the western farmer did this, then not only would he destroy the price for himself but for all producers of eggs and hogs in Canada. I think producers generally owe the western farmer a great deal because of his restraint in not rushing into the production of these two products.
I should like also to sound a small warning to the eastern producers of products for which prices are not as high as they are in the west. I am referring particularly to sugar beets. If the sugar beet producer in eastern Canada were to ask for a price comparable to that received in western Canada, the result would be a great increase in the production of sugar beets. This, in turn, would destroy the market for the western producer. We have to realize, therefore, that in this country the basic economic rules should continue to apply. Meanwhile, as I said earlier, I do not believe the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska really implies that we should have the same price for these products all across Canada. If he is implying that there should be a regional price, and regional supports, then of course that is something different. I believe that is a suggestion worthy of consideration.
90205-6-222i
S upp ly-A griculture
For instance, the differential in the price of eggs between eastern and western Canada usually amounts to the freight from western Canada to Montreal which is one of the main egg markets. If one suggested to the eastern producer of eggs that there should be one price all across Canada, this might win you a good many friends in western Canada but it would destroy the egg producer in eastern and central Canada. I just point out, therefore, that there should be honesty on all sides because with agriculture in the state in which it is, it is a dreadful thing to build up false hopes which, in the end, would destroy not only the producer you are trying to help but other producers as well.
The hon. member for Port Arthur asked about bringing pulpwood under the stabilization act. I think this will eventually come about. However, some time has to pass before there will be active tree growing operations on farms. We are very pleased to see the promotion, through farm associations, of the movement to have trees on farms. I intend to encourage this in every way possible. I believe a good deal of time must elapse yet before we get to the stage of putting pulpwood under the stabilization act. I do not want anyone to get the idea I am opposed to putting pulpwood under the act because, eventually, I think this will happen. If our program under the other legislation is going to be successful, then within a year or two we will have to begin working out some kind of formula for giving to those who are producing trees the protection of the stabilization act.
In so far as the tree industry is concerned, I think the preliminary step will have to be a marketing board set-up or some arrangement whereby the farmers get into an organization to protect themselves. The hon. member for Fraser Valley mentioned the need for advertising butter. No person could agree with him more than I do. We have one item in the estimates for advertising. I believe it is about $200,000, which is not nearly enough to compete with the advertising of the big corporations. I think the producers will have to consider enlarging their advertising program and instead of setting aside an amount each June for this purpose they will have to do so on a monthly basis.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The minister has said he looks forward to bringing pulpwood under this act. I should like to suggest to him that some effort be made under his rural rehabilitation program which he hopes to put through the house this year, to switch marginal areas to the production of wood. I cannot think of a better incentive to get more farmers interested in the production of wood than the knowledge that they will get a fair price

Supply-Agriculture
for their pulpwood. Despite the inquiry into pulpwood prices in eastern Canada, and despite the penalties that were incurred by the companies for contravention of the combines act, it seems to me that there is no real indication pulpwood prices are a great deal better in the province of Quebec. I think there is a real indication that prices are better because of the action taken by the provincial government to set up marketing boards.
I think perhaps hon. members know, especially the hon. member for Cochrane, that in Ontario there is legislation under which marketing boards for pulpwood could be set up. However, the provincial government will not give any lead in this respect. I have a communication from the minister of agriculture to the effect that he has no intention of encouraging such a step. The department of lands and forests will not encourage it. Surely the minister must concede that marketing boards must develop within a provincial framework. In the second largest pulpwood province we have a government whose policy is diametrically opposed to the policy followed in Quebec, the other main pulpwood producing province. We need some way of resolving this difference in order to arrive at a uniform framework.
Can the minister suggest to us how Ontario could be brought to the stage of establishing some rudimentary marketing organization? Perhaps the minister could tell us how this step could be taken and what leadership his department could give in achieving this development. I should like him to suggest to me what kind of regional set-up would be evolved for pricing if we had pulpwood under this stabilization act. It is quite obvious that the price of pulpwood in Sault Ste. Marie is quite likely to be lower than the price of pulpwood in Port Arthur because in Port Arthur there are more mills competing. It is quite likely that pulpwood prices in Ottawa are almost certain to be lower than in areas where there are very few settlers and very few farmers such as up in northwestern Ontario. Can he suggest to us how he sees this act working in view of these regional differences, and in view of the fact that the province of Ontario has given no lead at all in establishing marketing boards?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have not too much to add to what I have already said. It is a subject on which I have put some considerable thought. However, this is not a problem upon which I wish to elucidate at the present time. We have made great strides in the last few years. Quebec has set up marketing boards for pulpwood production, and this has resulted in increased prices. I

hope to have some discussions with the provinces in the not too distant future, and this is one subject we will be discussing. We, on this side, have some hesitancy about imposing our will on the provinces. We do not believe in centralization. We do know that, at least in theory, if you are one who does not consider the powers of the provinces you can push these things upon them. However, I should like to discuss these things with the provinces and do them on a voluntary basis rather than by means of pressure techniques.


Douglas Mason Fisher: There is one last qualifying remark I should like to make in this respect. During the last election campaign the Prime Minister, I believe at Rimouski, Quebec, according to the documented record of some of his promises produced by the Liberal party, gave an indication that pulpwood was going to be brought under this particular act. It is all very well for the minister to say that he does not believe in pressuring, that he is not a centralizer nor is the government of which he is a member, that they want to go slowly, that they do not want to strain things too much. What I am afraid of is this. We are going to have another election campaign shortly. I think it would be a pity if again we had this promise dangled of pulpwood being brought under this act without any clarification as to how it could be done. The minister will remember that his predecessor-who, if I could phrase it in this way, was a bit more of a hard rock than he is-rose in his place in this house a number of times and in effect threw completely chilled water upon this whole idea. The present minister has given an indication that he has more interest in or compassion for the subject. In view of past election promises, in view of an election campaign coming and in view of the switch that he has made in the intentions of the department towards this project, I think we deserve to know more about how this department plans to bring it about.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
13.	Assistance in construction of potato warehouses under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, $134,015.
Edward Nasserden: I should like to take this opportunity to say how much the people of my area appreciate this particular vote and the money that is available for the encouragement of greater potato production in a province such as ours. At Rosthern the newest industry in the province of Saskatchewan is Prairie Potato Products Limited. It will employ more people than did many of the industries that the government of the province of Saskatchewan have boasted about

encouraging in the years gone by. Their product is going out under the brand name Mary Ann Potato Chips.
I know we have some competitors down in the maritimes but I promise them that we will not ship potato chips down to the maritimes for a few years, anyway. It may be that there will be other plants going into operation in Saskatchewan in the next few years. Of course, this will take some acreage out of grain. In view of the money going into our province I feel that this vote is a very desirable one indeed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health of animals division
[Stage Direction]
14.	Operation and maintenance including Canada's fee for membership in the office international des epizooties and authority, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year from packers requiring special services, $9,940,601.
(Translation):
Samuel Boulanger: I should like to hear from the minister what has been done since last year concerning the eradication of animal tuberculosis in Quebec?
(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to announce that, after many years, in the year 1961 the Department of Agriculture intends to complete its tuberculosis campaign all across Canada, including Quebec. I hope that I shall be present when the final herd is tested. This does not mean an end to the tuberculosis campaign. It means it will have to continue. But this year, after many years, it will mean that the whole of Canada-every district, every county-will have been covered. (Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Could the minister tell us the number of Quebec counties which have been certified since last year?
(Text) :


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The information is not available here but we can get it and provide it for the hon. member, if he wishes it. I think I am right in saying that every county has been covered in Quebec. However, I will find out what we did last year.


Samuel Boulanger: Every county in Quebec has been covered?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, has been completed.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: If I understood the minister correctly, a certificate has been delivered in favour of all the counties in Quebec. I do not recall having seen the name of the Drum-
Supply-Agriculture
mond-Arthabaska riding and I do not think that this district got its certificate concerning tuberculosis and brucellosis.
(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member would not be confusing tuberculosis with brucellosis?


Mr. Brunsden:: He could be doing so.


Samuel Boulanger: No, I know what I am saying.
(Translation):
As far as tuberculosis is concerned, I will admit that an inspection may have been made through the province, but it does not seem to me that all counties have obtained a certificate. However, as regards brucellosis, I think a certain section, the southwestern section of the province of Quebec, has been certified. What I want the minister to do, is to tell us what has been done since last year in order to control brucellosis; what is the situation now?
(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, we have a program on brucellosis which was started, as you know, two years ago. However, I would have to go back into the records and get the list of the counties in which this program is now operating. Is the hon. member talking only about Quebec?


Samuel Boulanger: Yes, Quebec.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have not the information here with me, but I can get it for the hon. member and inform him. (Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: I am delighted to learn what has been done. For the last two years, I have been urging the government to make haste and give out a certificate for the Drummond-Arthabaska county, a noted stock farming region of the province of Quebec from which large numbers of cattle are exported to the United States, so that our farmers will not have to go through the 90-day waiting period before they can export their cattle.
(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Hardly a week passes, Mr. Chairman, that I do not sign applications for several areas to have a brucellosis campaign started. The limit on doing this, of course, is the staff available. I think I am right in saying this, but I am speaking from memory. When an application from an area comes in, we put it on the list of priorities and we do it the minute we get staff. I can examine the records in detail, find out where Drummond-Arthabaska stands and let the hon. member know.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture
15.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $431,910.
Erhart Regier: I should like to ask the minister for some detail as to where the construction of buildings or the acquisition of buildings will take place to the extent of $340,000?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will read this out. Does the hon. member want the amounts as well?


Erhart Regier: Yes.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Saint John, New Brunswick, construction of cattle barn, access land and railway siding, $82,000; St. Stephen, New Brunswick, construction of corral $4,000; North Portal, Saskatchewan, construction of corral, $4,000; Lethbridge, Alberta, administration building $170,000; fire protection system-this is a part of the Lethbridge vote-$80,000 at Lethbridge. The total vote is $340,000.
Items 15 and 16 agreed to.
Livestock division-
17. Operation and maintenance including premiums on purebred sires and contributions for livestock improvement; stockyard supervision and furs, $2,861,681.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, some time ago under this item the members of the House of Commons received a brief from Gerald Rowe, a farmer in the country not far from Ottawa, in which he complained of a conviction recorded against him under the Live Stock Pedigree Act and amendments thereto. This matter concerned the Holstein-Friesian association, the government and this farmer.
I read the information, as I presume other hon. members did, and I am quite sure that most hon. members who took the trouble to read the brief were quite impressed with some of the submissions contained in it.
This may not be important. However, it concerns one farmer whose rights were removed by a summary court of law in relationship to the ability to register pedigree cattle. I think it would not be of much importance in general to raise the matter, except for the fact that the Holstein-Friesian breed of cattle constitutes about half of all the registrations that take place in this country under this act. We now register in the neighbourhood of 80,000 head of purebred Holstein cattle per year, and as an industry the Holstein breed of cattle has grown until we have now reached the position where we are exporting cattle to Argentina and all the South American countries, and overseas.
I think this particular conviction highlighted one of the things-


Frank Charles McGee: Order. I wonder whether the hon. member could help

me clarify in my own mind whether this particular case is properly discussed under this item.
Do I understand that this matter has been considered by the courts and a decision has been reached by them? If so, I wonder whether perhaps this item would not be more properly discussed under the estimates of the Department of Justice.


William Arnold Peters: I think some of the aspects of it could be discussed under the estimates of the Department of Justice, but I believe that the Live Stock Pedigree Act as it is set up has a number of sections that allow for this particular type of conviction because of our thinking of quite a number of years ago. There have been changes in that thinking and in the scientific development that has gone into establishing these breeds. These matters have not been given consideration in this particular case and I think this is the place where it should be discussed.
As I have said, in my opinion this conviction was not justified and I wish to discuss the reasons why I say that, in terms of the technical aspects in relation to the act itself, but not the legal aspect of it.
I am not a lawyer and I am not particularly interested in the legal aspects, but I am interested in the method that we use to determine whether a particular calf is a purebred calf and whether it belongs to a particular cow. In the main, this is what the Live Stock Pedigree Act establishes. It establishes whether a particular animal is qualified for registration as a particular breed under the Live Stock Pedigree Act and the methods by which we establish this and maintain these breeds.


Frank Charles McGee: I should like to thank the hon. member for that comment. However, what concerns me-and I am not a lawyer either-is that if there is some movement afoot to have this question examined in the courts, are we not in danger of getting into a discussion on something that is sub judice?
I would appreciate hearing from hon. members who might perhaps be able to give me guidance in this matter.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am aware of this case, Mr. Chairman. It happened several years ago. The case was brought before the courts, taken through all the due processes of the law.
The question of whether or not the calf belonged to a particular cow is a technical matter. People qualified to determine these matters by means of blood tests ruled that it was not. Even though they could definitely prove that it was not, it could not be proved

that it was. As far as I, as minister, am concerned, I cannot offer anything more in this case. It was before the courts, and we have to leave it to judicial procedures. Therefore I cannot deal with this matter in my estimates.


Frank Charles McGee: This is the matter I am trying to get clarified. Is this matter before the courts in any form at the present time?


William Arnold Peters: No.


Frank Charles McGee: There is apparently a contradiction here.


Erhart Regier: On the point of order that you raised, Mr. Chairman, I understand that this matter is no longer before the courts. The courts have decided the matter, and all the hon. member is attempting to do at this time is argue legislation that is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture.
There is no longer any case before the courts. The hon. member is referring to an event that happened in the past in order to illustrate that there should be amendments to regulations under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture.


Frank Charles McGee: I am
grateful to the hon. member. I perhaps misunderstood the minister but I thought he indicated that the matter was still before the courts.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No, Mr. Chairman; it occurred several years ago.


Frank Charles McGee: I am
sorry.


William Arnold Peters: My reason for raising this matter is that I believe, from my understanding of the legal aspects of the case, the farmer did get a fair hearing. The prosecution put forward a fair case and his lawyer received a fair hearing but my contention is that the evidence put forward at that time and the reasons established in the case were not sufficient to warrant a conviction. The conviction was obtained by the department themselves because they felt there was a need to establish this kind of precedent. To this extent I agree with the department.
We have now got into a field where we are selling cattle to countries such as Argentina for $20,000, $30,000 and $40,000 a head. If we are not in a position to establish a breed, maintain a fair and honest record of that breed and handle artificial insemination, which is a completely new field of very recent origin, we are going to be suspect when we sell our cattle to other countries.
In this relationship we have had in the last few years something that has been very detrimental to this whole process. I am
Supply-Agriculture
referring to something in the Holstein-Friesian breed that is called the red factor. The red factor did enter into this particular case. As everybody knows, a Holstein cow has certain definite characteristics. She must be black and white in colour; she must have five points that are white; her forestockings and the switch of her tail must be white before she can be registered as being of the Holstein-Friesian breed. There are also other considerations that enter into this matter.
In recent times two purebred animals have been producing a red calf which is not regis-terable under this act. This, of course, has become such a big problem in Holland, where the breed developed, that they have now set up a red register; but only very recently in Canada, within the last few months, the Holstein-Friesian association itself, and therefore I presume the Department of Agriculture through its livestock division, recognized this red factor as part of the problem. Today these livestock associations recognize that this red factor is a very real problem and now when they advertise semen they state, where it applies, that a bull carries a red factor and thus people are warned.
You may wonder, Mr. Chairman, why this is of any importance at all. Perhaps I may use an example which happened on the family farm. My brother was very pleased last summer when he was able to obtain semen from one of the best bulls in Canada, a bull worth $45,000 at the time. He bred this bull artificially to one of his cows, a cow which has an excellent record. A bull calf of this stock would normally be worth several thousand dollars, but when this particular calf was born it was a red calf which looked more like an Ayrshire than a Holstein. Anyway, it was worth $22 rather than $1,000 or $2,000 as might have been expected. Neither the government nor the Holstein-Friesian society has given much consideration to this problem until recently but I am pleased to state that the society is now giving some consideration to it and that its advertising now carries notices where necessary stating that a bull or cow is known to carry the red factor. The societies themselves are becoming increasingly aware of the difficulty and one of the units buying a bull at a very large price has stipulated in the contract that if it were proven later that the bull carried a red factor the purchase price would be greatly reduced. While that particular bull still has a favourable background and heritage, the calves produced by that bull are worth very little.
In the case about which I am concerned, the Rowe case, as far as I have been able to find out, Mrs. Rowe-and this is one of these

Supply-Agriculture
sad cases-decided to leave Mr. Rowe but was unable to obtain a divorce, and because she wanted to get even with her husband she went to the head of the livestock division and laid a charge that he was falsely registering certain calves. That is how the investigation began. Checking the documents provided by the department I was unable to find any information of what interviews led to the proceedings or what the contents of those interviews were. But it appears from the information which I asked to be tabled in the house that the lawyer acting for the crown did interview this woman on several occasions. I should have liked to have seen the herd book in this particular case. The herd book is a book kept by a farmer under certain regulations which require him to record the breeding dates together with the names and dates of calves born to particular animals. Farmers also keep a stable book which gives breeding dates and states whether an animal is artificially bred, to whom it was bred, the dates of the first service, the second service and so on. To date I have been unable to find such a stable book. Anyone who has any experience with dairy herds would be able after consulting the herd book and the stable book to reach a conclusion as to whether or not a farmer was keeping adequate records. Up to the present the closest thing I can find from the R.C.M.P. is that they destroyed these along with certain other documents at the end of a given period of time.
The court case itself involved a number of things which I do not think are of very much interest to this committee and which in my opinion should not have been of much interest to the department. There was a great deal of talk about whether this animal was bred six months after she had been bred the first time, about whether this was technically possible. They used such experts as Dr. Gamble and Dr. Humble and several other leading veterinarians from the Ontario Agriculture College, and they came to the conclusion that this animal could have been bred six months after it was already bred and in calf for that length of time, though this was unlikely. I think it is perfectly true that it is very unlikely that you would breed a number of cattle more than once or twice in these circumstances. In this case the farmer claims to have bred her in January and she had a calf nine months later. This calf was registered. She was bred again two months after that and she had a calf, then, nine months following that, and the second calf was registered. Now the department begins an investigation into this particular case. They question not the second calf but the first calf, and this seems to me to be the stupid part of the whole case. If this cow was bred in

January she could have had the calf, as the farmer said, the first time. If she had been bred six months after she had been bred the first time she could not possibly have a six months premature calf and therefore the second calf would not have been possible. It is not physically possible to have a three or four month premature calf in the second instance. But the department has not questioned the right of the registration of this second calf. In reading the evidence and going over it-and there are four or five hours of evidence-I see no possibility of the judge establishing the fact that this cow could have had a second calf if he did not agree with the farmer that she had had the first. The Holstein-Friesian society made a great to-do about the blood testing of cattle, as you know, Mr. Chairman, people have four or five types of blood. I am not too familiar with them but there is type A, type B, type O-there are three or four-


Edwin William Brunsden: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I do not know whether the hon. member was here half an hour ago but it seems to me we have already passed item 14 which has to do with the health of animals and that we are now dealing with the operation of the livestock division. I suggest the hon. member might defer this discussion until next year's estimates.


Frank Charles McGee: The
description of the estimate before me reads as follows:
Operation and maintenance including premiums on purebred sires and contributions for livestock improvement; stockyard supervision and furs.
It would seem to me that the phrase "contributions for livestock improvement" would bring this discussion within the terms of the estimate.


Edwin William Brunsden: A good try anyway.


William Arnold Peters: I do not want to abuse this opportunity to speak and I do not want to go too deeply into this case, because the minister, I am sure, is finished with it. I am of the opinion that the department is not too interested in what happens to this farmer or whether or not he registers his calves. But I am interested in the method used to establish the truth because if we do not give better consideration to this problem than we have in this case we will find ourselves in all kinds of difficulty, because I do not believe there is a superior court in this country which would give a decision which woulc stand up based on the evidence in this case If we cannot establish this, how are we going to establish breeds when we have to use blood types as a method of establishing certain considerations, because we are now breeding

and using bulls which have been dead for many years. We are using bulls which are in countries three, four or five thousand miles away; we are using bulls over which the Canadian government has no control, because this is an international field and these bulls are now in countries beyond our scope.
This is the only case that I know of in the history of the world where there has been this blood typing of animals to establish parentage. We all know of controversies with respect to the blood types of human beings, but I know of none at all in the field of purebred livestock. In this particular instance, where they were using artificial insemination, the department took blood samples from the cow, from the first calf and from the second calf and then established the fact that the first calf was supposed to be sired by a bull that was maintained in the Kemptville artificial breeding unit. They had tested this bull a number of years before and had found 15 factors in its blood. In the period of time that had elapsed they were able to find 80 blood factors in this particular bull. They checked them against the blood factors of the cow and came to the conclusion that the calf was. not the result of this mating.
Mr. Chairman, this would not prove that the cow was not the dam. How is the farmer going to prove that the semen that the artificial insemination unit supplied to the agent came from this particular bull? How is the agent who does the artificial insemination work going to guarantee that it came from this particular bull? All the farmer has to do is to assume that the progeny came from this particular cow, not the bull. I do not see how he can be expected to know which bull produced which semen. Of course, they go on to point out that this agent was carrying Jersey semen, Ayrshire semen and semen from one other Holstein bull at the same time. The department did not ask for a review of the other bulls; they did not do blood testing to try to help the farmer establish his case. What they were interested in doing was getting a conviction. I could read some of the remarks made by the head of this department where both he and the head of the Holstein-Friesian association said, "This is going to be a very difficult case in which to get a conviction; this is quite a rascal we are dealing with and we are going to have quite a time establishing a case." I do not think this is the issue. What we should do is to try and establish a much better method of relating the artificial breeding and the insemination units to the purebred livestock cattle so that the farmers, the breeders and the buyers will know that they are getting what they are paying for, and that Canada is doing whatever she can to establish and 90205-6-223
Supply-Agriculture
maintain this breed that has become our most important purebred type of animal.
As I say, they did not prove this; they did not attempt to. Their specialists said they did not prove it, and yet this junior court decided that the farmer was guilty and should pay and lose his privileges in the association.
A great deal of attention was paid to the testimony of the gentleman from the artificial insemination unit. I have no axe to grind in this case. I do not know the gentleman; I have not met him but, according to the evidence, his education in this field was not too great. When he began his operations it was a new field. He was trained by a man who had done very little of the work himself, but he had done this work for a number of years at the time this case developed. I am of the opinion that something remiss must have been happening in this unit. This gentleman was re-breeding many cattle. He claimed that one of the cattle was in calf for eight months, and that he was breeding those cows not once but on a number of occasions. I think that some consideration on the part of the department should be given to this question of first, second and third services. I have some new evidence which I think should have been brought to the attention of the court.
Here is a man who bred the cow the first time. The cow was Silver Bell Root. She was bred on January 26, 1952. She carries the registration number 168534, and the tag number 5160. This cow was bred on April 23, 1952. I have also a slip here which indicates that a cow bearing this particular number was killed and sold for fox meat in March of that year. In other words, the artificial unit was breeding this cow one month after she had been sold for fox meat. This evidence is available to the department.
What I am saying about these artificial units is proven by evidence I received from a friend of mine who is a veterinarian in the Brantford area. He tells me that they now colour the semen. They put artificial colouring in because there were so many mistakes made over such a long period of time. Because of that, most of the units colour the semen so that there can be no mistake. The farmer, or the man who is doing this work, does not now mix up the semen in the test tube in his refrigerator in his home. The colour will give him some indication of which bull the semen happens to come from; therefore, he is assured that the semen he is using in the service he is giving comes from the bull he thinks it does, and the farmer is given much greater assurance that the calf which is born to the cow was sired by the bull he is paying his money for, to perform the service. If hon. members would

Supply-Agriculture
like to drop into my office at any time I would be glad to show them some pictures taken of these two cows, the mother and the daughter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Arnold Peters: Hon. members laugh but they should give consideration to this. This purebred livestock registration is a relatively new field. When you are selling animals for $40,000 to $50,000 it is no joke, and if the importers knew how damned stupid we sometimes are in our legislation and how loose we are in our way of doing business they would not pay $30,000 or $40,000 for an animal unless they were given an assurance that they are receiving what they are paying for.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member does not know what he is talking about.


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member should get up and say what he knows. I think I know a lot more than he does although I do not know him or where he comes from.
In the main, the farmers used to depend on the Holstein-Friesian association for descriptions. If you check on the back of the registration you will see there is a picture of the cow, there is a picture of the particular animal registered. The farmer draws on all the black and white markings and that is how they were registered for years, and this is still how they register them. There is a similarity in cows as there is in people. There is a similarity between mother and daughter, father and daughter, father and son, and so on. The descendants of human beings show similarities and this is true of animals also.
If hon. members will look over the pictures of these animals, which I would be happy to show them, they will see similarities. In fact, it is surprising how similar they are. The markings on the head of the cows are almost identical. If you look at the markings on the cows you will see a great similarity. It is true that this is no proof. I agree with this, but this is what the Holstein-Friesian people have depended on for years, and they still depend on it. We should not depend on this phony court case. I wonder why the department did not appeal the case? I wonder why they did not take the case to a higher court? Just why they did not I am sure I do not know.
Let hon. members laugh. The government spent a great deal of money on this court case and in my opinion they did not get a conviction that would stand up as a precedent in any other court in the country. The court in question was a small rural court of summary jurisdiction. Most of us have been in such courts. A lot of us have had
to go there because of traffic tickets and we know what kind of justice is dispensed in a great number of them. I have been there and I know what kind of justice a person gets. Maybe other hon. members have been more fortunate.
This is a serious matter, Mr. Chairman, and I should like to keep it that way. We are going to have to decide that we should give these associations all the assistance we can. We want to establish the best breeds possible and give the greatest assurance to buyers from abroad that they are getting what they are paying for. Let us not fool ourselves. We should establish these blood types. If Dr. Humble of the Ontario veterinary college has carried on his experiments to the point where, as he claims, he can ascertain 80 different factors in cattle, then we should see that this is carried on and developed to the point where we can make use of it. Let us develop some cases where we know and can prove that the dam is the dam in question. Then we can play around with the sire. If we question the dam and question the sire and cannot be sure of either the dam or the sire no specialist in this country will ever say that you can tell by blood test what particular cow or bull was the parent of the calf in question. You have to have one known parent.
I have read the evidence and many of the articles of Dr. Humble who is considered to be one of the leading experts not only in Canada but in the world and I have failed to find where they have used known bulls rather than unknown bulls. Maybe it is necessary to establish more than 14 or 15 factors and maybe it is possible that it is only necessary to establish a smaller number.
In this particular case I think that in all fairness a blood sample could have been taken from the second calf and so far as blood factors are concerned they might have found a similarity with the first calf. This would have been at least interesting and in my opinion would have established some similarity between the first calf and the second calf.
Hon. members should read the evidence and the letters exchanged because they will see that the government was pleased to get this conviction. I am sure I do not know why. If a good case had been established that could have been used as a precedent I would have thought they had accomplished something but if they only prosecuted to collect $500 from some poor farmer and to take away from him the privilege of producing purebred cattle then I am ashamed of them. If they took this action for the first reason I think they had an obligation to

bring forward the best people they could on both sides and try to establish the case.
If the Minister of Agriculture wants to do so, this case can still be given consideration. The cow is still living. The bull has been examined by Dr. Humble on two separate occasions. The blood of the second bull in question was tested but that bull is now dead, although it was not dead, as intimated by the government, at the time of the hearing. The bull was still available and was not killed until November of that year. I am quite sure he was blood tested. I am quite sure that all bulls in the artificial insemination units are being tested now. This case can still be reopened because the cow and the two calves are still available on the farm in question. It was not the farmer's obligation to establish a decent case.
I have talked to a number of veterinarians who are quite concerned about what is taking place in the breeding of cattle through artifi-' cial insemination. I am sure all hon. members will be happy to know, if they are not already aware of it, that artificial insemination has been a boon not only to Holstein-Friesian breeders but to breeders of all other types of livestock as well. It means that a farmer for a minimum amount of money can secure the services of the best sire in the field in which he is interested. For $15 or $20 he can secure the services of the best bull in any of the milk breeds, Holstein, Ayrshire or Jersey. Those who are raising the beef breeds can secure the services of bulls for about the same price. This means that the average farmer, even though he is remote from the place where these expensive bulls are located, can secure the services of an animal worth $20,000 to $30,000. This means that the department also has an obligation and responsibility to guarantee that the farmer receives what he pays for.
In this particular case, when the expert said that this calf was not the progeny of this particular mating the government should have been willing to prove that the calf produced from the cow was as a result of using the service of this artificial insemination unit, that the farmer was receiving the service for which he was paying and the protection to which I think he is entitled.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare should also be concerned about this matter because there are great implications so far as humans are concerned in light of the fact that artificial insemination is now being used in that field as well. Every effort should be made-certainly the procedure is going to have to be more exact in the case of humans-to see that there is a method of assuring the farmer that the semen he buys 90205-6-223J
Supply-Agriculture
from the artificial insemination unit is semen from the bull for whose services he is paying.
In the case in question a conviction was obtained simply on the finding that the calf was not the result of this particular mating and the silly business of breeding the cow the second time when she was six months in calf was introduced. As I see it, this was simply a red herring so far as this matter was concerned, and I think the department has been remiss in its duties. I am most concerned about this matter. My family has depended for many years on the breeding of cattle by this means. They have spent a great deal of time at the experimental farm at New Liskeard and have spent a great deal of time and money on their own farm in developing purebred cattle. In many cases we are far removed from the services of the best bulls which are found in southern Ontario. Their services are only available to us through artificial insemination. I think the case I have mentioned tonight is a disgrace to the government. It is a disgrace that they should try to establish it as a precedent in connection with purebred livestock.


Frank Charles McGee: I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I have read a lot about this case and I hope the minister is going to reply to the presentation of the hon. member for Timiskaming.


William Harold Hicks: Mr. Chairman, as a past president of the Holstein association of Canada I feel I should say a word at this time. Through the press I have obtained some information about the case that has been mentioned and discussed for the last half hour. Personally I am absolutely certain that the president and the board of directors of the Holstein association are on the job for the sole purpose of breeding good cattle and keeping them pure. There is the odd case, of course, where a mistake is made but if a mistake is made that is no reason why these animals should be bred again and again. I know of lots of cases where the bull has cost $40,000 and where the cost of service has been $100 for a proven calf. I want to say here in this committee that any group of men who have been breeding Holsteins for the last 75 or 100 years would want to keep the breed pure. The way to do that is to look after the records properly, and that is what the association is doing.


William Arnold Peters: I am pleased to hear-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


William Arnold Peters: Let us not hear these gentlemer. say, "No, no". I am getting fed up with some

Supply-Agriculture
of these western members who are not interested in anything except what concerns the western farmer. They are so ready to pass the other items.


Mr. Graffiey:: You are wasting so much time, though.


William Arnold Peters: I do not care if we spend a week on this item. It is very important to the eastern farmers. I do not care whether or not the hon. member for Brome-Missis-quoi likes it. It does not interest me one iota.


William Heward Grafftey: What does interest us is the clarity of thought so that you do not take so much of the time of the committee.


William Arnold Peters: You have no thought, let alone clarity.


Frank Charles McGee: Order.


William Arnold Peters: I have been pleased to hear the words of the past chairman of the Hol-stein-Friesian association. I am in complete agreement with him. Within the last 40 years, through the efforts of this association, this country has progressed from a position of having no purebred cattle to the point where out of about 130,000 registrations last year the Holstein-Friesian association had about 88,000. I think this is an excellent record. I feel that a good deal of the credit should be given to Mr. Clements and his father because the two of them have alternated in serving as secretary of this association for practically the lifetime of the association. The organization, however, has not been able to keep up with some of the faults that have appeared in it.
The past president of the organization may be interested to know that 16 or 17 registrations of Holstein cattle were discussed in this particular case. He may be interested in reading a transcript of the case, and he would find that the office of the Holstein-Friesian association in Brantford had made minor and major changes in seven or eight of these registrations. This would mean that almost one third of the cards had been changed. The best bookkeeping practices have not been followed. I agree that in many cases these changes have been made necessary because you cannot have two cows known by the same name. If they have the same surname, I suppose you would call it, then you would have to change the prefix.
I have been worried, as a result of reading the correspondence in this case, to find that the secretary of this association is very interested in getting this particular conviction. In my opinion, he was more interested in getting a conviction than in seeing that the case was really established. I do not know

who is the mother or father of this particular little calf. If this were the British parliament I suppose we could get this calf legitimized by the simple process of passing an act as was done in England for years when they wanted to legitimize some member of royalty. There was a particular act passed for this purpose. I do not believe that is our intention here. What we are trying to do is to use this particular case as a warning of the type of thing that should not happen in this country. Our little people should be protected. The farmer should be given all the protection he can be given.
I have seen this farmer's herd of cattle and, although they are not registered now, they looked like very good cows to me. I am told that at the time of the investigation this farmer had only one cow on the premises which was not a purebred animal. It would seem very odd that he would jockey these animals around within the herd when that would not do him any good. I believe this was a particularly bad case. Let us take the example of a farmer who is in the milk producing business. Why would he leave a cow for three years without breeding her, when she should be producing milk the second year? Why would he wait that length of time, unless she was showing exceptional promise and her breeding was exceptionally high? He would have disposed of her before the end of the third year. The department maintained that she did not calve until she was three years old. There is no question raised about the second calf she was supposed to have had. If she had this second calf, the calf would have been premature by four or five months.
People can laugh this off, and the minister can say this is a matter of no importance. I am not sure whether or not the present Minister of Agriculture knows about this particular case. I know the arrogant attitude of the former minister, and I can well imagine that he would not have been interested in one little farmer, particularly in eastern Canada. I do feel the government must be interested in this matter. If we have a bill of rights which means anything, then it should protect all people. I have four or five letters commending the character of this farmer. I have letters from the bank in his area, from the dairies, from the cheese factory and from the farmers in the area. They all state that he is a highly respected man there.
If this farmer believes he did not get justice, then I believe the department should bend over backwards to ascertain whether or not he did and try to clear his name. These animals are valuable. Why should I go out and have them blood tested again, just to

prove whether the department is right or wrong? The farmer thinks he has a case, and he goes to the Department of Justice where they tell him that the time for an appeal has passed but they would be happy to consider a parole of a remission in this case. This gentleman wants to establish his record again. I am not too sure why he is interested to this extent. I do feel he has been very courageous in fighting this case the length of time he has. More important even than the fact he feels he did not get justice in our courts is the fact that the experts in the Department of Agriculture, in my opinion, do not feel they have a case that will stand up in a major court of this country. Frankly, I have checked with the department and they claim they will not use this case as a precedent.


An hon. Member:: They do not give a damn.


William Arnold Peters: Perhaps they do not, I am inclined to believe this is true. If it is true, they are making a hollow mockery out of the work of farmers who are interested in establishing a herd of purebred cattle. If the farmers feel the federal government is not interested or concerned in this matter, then they will be worried. This farmer has received the co-operation of the veterinary college and they are willing to supply information. If you will check the information that was given by those officials you will find that neither one of them gave evidence in this particular case that would be detrimental to the farmer. It would just as easily have established the farmer's case as it would have established the reverse. Weeks and weeks went by and pressure was brought to bear on the magistrate before a decision in this particular case was rendered. I am concerned, because, I have said we have always been interested in the increasing growth and the extension of the breeding records of our various purebred livestock in Canada.
In northern Ontario now we are seeing a great increase in the registrations of cattle both with respect to Holstein-Friesian and in the beef Friesian. This is reflecting now in the markets, in the community sales and the value for the products which the farmers themselves are getting. It is resulting in better milk production for the farmer and in increased sales. Among the farmers themselves we are now finding some with only four or five purebred cows who are willing to pay the premium price that is necessary in order to buy local purebred bulls. This was not true ten or 15 years ago. Very few farmers were interested in increasing the breed of their animals. Through the influence of Holstein-Friesian this has been extended into pigs, sheep, beef cattle and now horses. In our area there is a
Supply-Agriculture
relationship between the artificial inseminating units in the work they do, and this work in the main is of an excellent nature. They are producing and they are giving the service they are supposed to give, but there is a possibility-and it will always remain-of a slip anywhere from the time that semen is collected till it is inserted by the agent in the artificial inseminating unit. It seems to me that the government itself, if it is going to continue to work towards increasing the breed, is going to have a great deal more consideration to the matter and a great deal more assistance from the federal government in this field. Within the next five or ten years the red factor in the Holstein-Friesian breed is going to be a major problem. It is going to be a problem that I am sure is going to cost the farmers thousands and thousands of dollars as it cost my brother this year when he expects a calf worth $1,000, when it is dropped you get a calf that is worth $22.
This is being repeated with this one particular bull. One out of every three calves carried the red factor and were not eligible for registration. The problem is how to eliminate or to eradicate this situation. The answer is not known yet. It certainly has not been tested in hogs where they have developed separate registration for these particular cattle. Any assistance that the federal government can give will be of great help to the farmer. I think that one of the things the minister could do is this. Certainly he is going to have to answer these questions because if he does not do so I will raise them in a legal context next time. I will document them and will go into all the grim and gory details of this particular case. We will go into this matter if the minister cannot give us some assurance that he is interested in this problem.


William Heward Grafftey: Is that a filibuster threat?


William Arnold Peters: I will make it a filibuster or whatever you want to call.


William Heward Grafftey: That is what you can call a filibuster threat.


William Arnold Peters: I am interested in seeing that justice is done. I will be quite happy in obtaining an explanation. If no explanation is forthcoming, then we will take other methods of obtaining one. I am no expert in this field. If I were I would probably not be here.
I can tell you this, Mr. Chairman. I can look around this building and I do not see many who can class themselves as experts on any subject. I have given some consideration to this particular case. I have read the court evidence. I have read the brief. Almost every hon. member has had the opportunity to do this. If they read it and found nothing of a

Supply-Agriculture
questionable nature in it, then they are in conflict with the newspapers that have read it and have found a great deal of conflict in it. They are in conflict with a number of people to whom I have talked privately. I think there is an obligation resting on the minister to give us some assurance that something will be done about this matter, that consideration is being given to this matter that has been raised on blood testing. The Holstein-Friesian association, in an article in their magazine, brags of the fact that they were able to establish this case, that now they had a precedent that was established and would continue for all times. In my opinion there was no precedent; there was a very weak case and at a very low level of court. It seems to me-


Murray Douglas Morton: Order. The Chair has been quite lenient with the hon. member in reference to the courts. I think that he must obey section 152 under which no slighting reference to the courts may be made.


William Arnold Peters: I am surprised that this matter always arises, that even if you prove they are wrong, you have not the right to do so. This may be true. However, I will certainly abide by Your Honour's decision on that matter. I am concerned about this matter. If the minister has not studied the case, I would be happy if he would study it and would give us a reply at a later date. I am quite happy to take his word that he will do this. I feel that it is a rather complicated field, and one in which he would have the advice of people like Dr. Gamble and Dr. Humble, world renowned specialists in this field, that he would have the advantage of the experience they have had. If he gave consideration to this matter or if he were to direct his officials to do so, they might come up with a different conclusion in this particular case; and while it is much more important they might come to a conclusion that would allow a much better method of policing the Live Stock Pedigree Act itself.
As I have said, if we are going to be in the export market, we shall also be in the import market. We shall eventually find that our .artificial inseminating units are buying cattle from Holland, England and other countries, the same as they have bought horses or purebred sires from Belgium and Percherons from other countries and eventually we are going to have to use this blood testing to establish .an international record. They are going to have to have enough known factors. This only proves a negative; it does not prove a positive. However, it proves a negative. If we know definitely and have methods of knowing through control of artificial inseminating units -and we use no control over them now either
from the federal government or elsewhere- once we know this, then we shall be able to question the farmer on the dam of that animal. We shall be able to say that we know the sire was particular animal and that these are the factors in the blood of that sire. But at the present time we are taking the word of four or five different people, including the veterinarian who takes the semen, the man who handles it in the laboratory, and they are all put into the laboratory at the same time and there is a great deal of opportunity for a mix-up there. Then there is the shipping and the handling through the transportation and then again the man who travels through the farming area handling the semen at that end. Until the government is in a position to guarantee the sire, how are we going to breed, for instance, a mare in this country to a purebred Belgian stallion in Belgium if we are not going to be able to prove at a later date that the sire of that mating is from that particular mating if the question arises?
We will not be dealing with small figures in this connection. These purebred animals which are used primarily for breeding purposes cost $20,000 or $30,000. This has become big business and anyone who is buying cattle for breeding purposes must be assured under this act that he is getting what he is paying for.
I should like to have the assurance of the Minister of Agriculture that he will consider this whole problem. We have discussed a number of other problems which in my opinion are not nearly as important as this one. We have an industry that has grown from a handful of purebred animals a year to the situation where we are now registering
130,000	such animals. This is not small business; it is a large industry in eastern Canada and it is one of the few industries in the farming field that is growing rather than going downhill. I think the government has an obligation to see that more teeth are put into this act.
We are already spending a considerable amount of money to maintain this particular division. It is doing a good job in other fields. The need is more obvious in other fields, such as compensation for the slaughtering of cattle affected with particular diseases. Obviously this is a more immediate problem and one that is seen more easily. Work has been done in this field.
We have already complimented the department and this branch of the department on the work they have done in the eradication of some of these diseases. I was pleased to note that my area was one of those that was made an area free of brucellosis. Work has been done in this field, but it seems to me that in the Live Stock Pedigree Act itself the department

was gleefully happy to obtain this foolish conviction. It is a conviction that in my opinion is more detrimental as a precedent, from their point of view, than it is advantageous. While it may have rapped this particular farmer's knuckles, it seems to me it has raised a question throughout the whole industry. I have talked to a number of farmers in the immediate area of this farmer, and they wonder why this was done. They have suggested to me that the reason it was done had no relationship to the case itself.
For this reason I think the department would be well advised to give more consideration to the technical aspects of this case. I think the department would be wise to reread the case. If they have an- expert in the department, I should like him to answer this question. Everybody knows that the gestation period of cows is the same as for human beings, nine months. I should like to know how the department is able to reconcile this fact with the fact of a calf being born within four months after the cow is supposed to have been served the second time and six months after the first service. How does the department justify this in relation to this conviction?
If they can justify it then I think we probably need some new officials and I will be happy, after they have given consideration to this question, to recommend that if it is necessary.


Murray Douglas Morton: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Erhart Regier: No. I hope we will hear an answer from the minister in regard to this matter. I received a letter from Mr. Rowe many months ago. Not being an expert in the field, and knowing that the hon. member for Timiskaming and his father were experts in this field, I referred the problem to my colleague the hon. member for Timiskaming.
I feel that there is a danger of bureaucracy arising in any organization, be it of lawyers, doctors, school teachers, Holstein-Friesian breeders or Yorkshire pig breeders. The moment you form an organization a vested interest is involved, and it is up to the government to ensure that the public interest is protected at all times. I believe that the case the hon. member for Timiskaming has presented is worthy of a reply.
I think you will have noted, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Timiskaming was very careful not to sit in judgment on this particular case. He was only appealing for a fair deal. This has not been assured us by the courts. The government hopes to slide out from under by not replying to the hon. member for Timiskaming. I do not think they
Supply-Agriculture
can get off that easily, and we insist upon asking the government what its intentions are in this regard.
The man who was convicted may well have been guilty, but the many problems which have arisen as a result of this conviction demand that we receive a reply and an assurance that a vested interest is not being established. We have seen vested interests established in so many other fields of Canadian life and I am sure Canadian farmers would hate to think that a vested interest was being established in any one of their particular departments. I believe the minister owes the hon. member for Timiskaming a reply on this particular case.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I have made it very clear that I cannot deal with this particular case because it was before the courts many years ago and was settled. I can say, to make it absolutely clear to the rest of the committee, that under this act we designate to the various breeders associations the right to set the standards and enforce them. If they find people breaking these standards and trying to make false registrations of calves, they come to us and we take the action necessary under the law.
So far as the general question of the scientific aspect of it is concerned, I do not think the Department of Agriculture here in Ottawa has to yield to anyone in its constant search for ways to improve the scientific factors that go into producing pure and true breeds. I am no expert on serology which is simply a big word for the study of blood factors, but I think in their searching for new techniques for finding new ways of identifying breeds, and so on, not only in relation to cattle and horses, but poultry and every other form of livestock under this branch, the record of the department has been very good. I know it will continue to remain so.
As as as this particular case is concerned, it has been before the courts, the courts have ruled on it and I am completely helpless to say any more.


Erhart Regier: In this particular case I would quarrel with the minister and the government, not only this government but perhaps governments of the past. The minister has said that the government has granted the right to certain organizations to set standards and enforce them. To me this is most despicable, because this parliament ought to be supreme and ought not to delegate its authority to any organization.
This is what I regret in the legal profession, the medical profession and even, in this

Supp ly-A griculture
particular case, the Holstein-Friesian association. I think the public interest ought to be protected and that no legislature or parliament ought ever to forget the public interest and give to any particular vested interest the right to legislate and enforce its legislation without an appeal to the law makers of the land.
The minister has said that his department, or the government, has given these organizations the right to set standards and enforce them. I feel this is an abdication of the government's responsibility.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: We enforce them.


Erhart Regier: I may have misquoted the minister and if so I apologize and hope that he will correct me but if ever the House of Commons should delegate to any other body the right to set standards where the public welfare is concerned and also the right to enforce such standards I feel we should be most negligent in our duties. If the minister has any correction to make in that regard I shall be happy to hear him.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member made one serious mistake. If I gave that impression I did not mean it. We-parliament, that is, not the government-delegate to these associations the responsibility for maintaining these standards but the enforcement is the responsibility of the only people who can enforce them, that is, the government of Canada through the law of Canada. If at any time the associations change the regulations they bring in we have to approve them.
We have to have in the working out of democracy some confidence in the professional groups of this country. What the hon. member has said today is an attack on every professional man in Canada and on every professional man and group in the democratic world. It is an attack on school teachers, dentists, lawyers, naturopaths, on any group of people organized in a professional body. Federal and provincial governments give these groups the right to set certain standards- with the approval of the government, it is true-and unless we have confidence in groups of people such as those who form these livestock associations I think the whole democratic process breaks down.
We have seen evidence tonight of this centralizing philosophy, this desire on the part of the new party to order everything under the federal government, to enforce their will upon the provinces, to enforce their will on professional associations such as these. Many of us stand here and have stood here all our lives prepared to defend the belief that parliament should have trust

in various groups of people who have come together freely in Canada to carry out their plans. There has been a clear issue put forward here today and I think the hon. member and his friends will within the next few years regret the type of remarks which have been made in the committee tonight and these violent attacks on professional associations. These breeding associations have done a good job in trying to improve the breeding characteristics of livestock here in Canada.


William Arnold Peters: That is a lot of poppycock we have heard from the minister. I did not say anything was wrong with the association though I believe they have made a number of mistakes. What I am questioning is the action or the attitude of the department itself. I do not think they are competent to give advice in this case and, incidentally, they did not give any advice in this particular case. Dr. Leslie walked around in the background prodding people but he did not get involved, and his technical advice was not used. Advice was given by the experts and those experts were all from the provincial government's veterinary college and it is certain that the federal government cannot hide behind the technical advances made by the Ontario veterinary college and say how wonderful their department is. Those experts are in Ontario; they are outstanding experts in the Ontario veterinary and agriculture college at Guelph. For the department to take credit for all that seems to me to be going very far.
I was impressed by the fact that Dr. Leslie appeared to want a conviction more than the lawyer did. I am afraid we shall have to make this case over again and let hon. members judge for themselves, telling the story as one would present a case. I had hoped the minister would give consideration to what I asked and that was not really a judgment on this particular case but that the department might be willing to go back on this case in relation to the establishment of the parentage of cattle in looking into this blood factor and making it part of the livestock act. This red factor has a great influence on the genetics of all the generations, yet the department has not seen fit to do anything about it in the form of an amendment to the act. It seems to me we are maintaining a large department with about the same record as that which looks after the Combines Investigation Act. We hear a lot of complaints but they have obtained very few convictions and this department is in the same boat. It has a lousy record. Let us not blame the Holstein-Friesian association and let us not be accused of blaming that association. They police it to the extent they are asked to police it but the department has

not put any teeth into the act or bothered to bring it up to date. The act is out of date in my opinion. No doubt it was revised in 1952 along with other acts but it is out of date in relation to the technical knowledge now available in the Ontario veterinary college.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the leader of the house could bring us up to date as to the government's plans for the rest of the week?
Business of the House


Gordon Minto Churchill: We shall carry on tomorrow with the estimates of the Department of Agriculture followed by the estimates of the Post Office Department. Tomorrow night I will announce, if needed, another department to be considered this week if the house makes rapid progress with the agriculture estimates.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is it understood that we go on with the estimates on Wednesday in that case?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, the intention is that on Wednesday we should carry on with the estimates. The same course will be followed on Thursday and Friday.


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