1961-04-12

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-82, to implement a convention between Canada and the United States of America for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on the estates of deceased persons.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Tardif: 1.	Has any directive been issued in any government department encouraging civil servants to tender their resignations before the normal retirement age of 65 years?
2.	If so, what is the purpose of this directive, and under whose authority, and in what department has it been circulated?


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of State):: The
answer to part 1 of this question is no. Part 2 is answered by the answer to part 1.


R.C.A.F. AIRCRAFT PUBLICATIONS, 1958-59
Mr. Hellyer: 1.	Were any aircraft equipment schedules, repair manuals, parts manuals, or other documents, relating to aircraft no longer in the R.C.A.F. serviceable inventory, printed during the fiscal year 1958-59?
2.	If so, what were they, and how many copies of each were printed?
3.	Have any of them been burned since the time of publication?
4.	If so, how many?


Mr. Egan Chambers (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: The answer to this question is as follows:
1 and 2. R.C.A.F. records reveal that no aircraft equipment schedules, repair manuals or parts manuals relating to aircraft no longer in the R.C.A.F. serviceable inventory were printed during the fiscal year 1958-59.
However, it is presumed that the hon. member is referring to the work which began in 1957-58 to organize into a permanent standardized form the originals and/or copies of R.C.A.F. aircraft engineering drawings 90205-6-226
and records accumulated over 25 or more years. This work culminated in the fiscal year 1958-59 in the printing by the Zerox process of 40 different sets of books containing the drawings and descriptive material of 70 aircraft which had been in service with the R.C.A.F.
3	and 4. The original estimated need called for 40 sets of this work, but it was later decided that six sets would meet the requirement, including one for the R.C.A.F. air historian and one for the national air museum. The remaining 34 sets were subsequently shredded and disposed of as paper scrap.

On the orders of the day:


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, supplementary to my starred question No. 241. Will the minister explain to the house the necessity for the R.C.A.F. to prepare, at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars, standard engineering orders for aircraft no longer in service?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made a misstatement in purporting to ask a question. The cost of this operation was not tens of thousands of dollars-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Was it hundreds of thousands?


Douglas Scott Harkness: -nor hundreds of thousands, nor anything else along that line. I think the actual cost was $11,004.43. The purpose of preparing those books was to have in one place for historical and checking purposes the specifications, and so on, of the various types of airplanes which have been in use by the R.C.A.F., and thus relieve the files of a voluminous amount of material which is occupying space which could be put to much better use.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the minister say it was a sort of bureaucratic make-work project?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think purported questions of this kind, which are not questions but interjections which have no real relevance to the matter on which the first question was based, should be ruled out of order.

Starred Questions


Mr. Speaker:: I agree with the point of order; the second question was not supplementary, but rather a comment and not in order.


C.N.R. PROPERTY, LUSTER LAKE, QUE.
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Does the C.N.R. own any land or buildings adjacent to Luster lake, P.Q.?
2.	If so, was any work done on this property in 1960 requiring the use of a bulldozer or employees of the bridge and building department of the C.N.R.?
3.	To what purposes was such work put?
4.	If the C.N.R. does not own any property or buildings on Luster lake, were any C.N.R. workers used on private property at that lake in 1960 for any purposes whatsoever?
5.	If so, on whose property was it?


Hon. George H. Hees (Acting Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the answers to this question are as follows:
1. No.
2 and 3. Not applicable.
4.	Yes. The owner was charged in accordance with standard practice where work is performed for other companies, municipalities or individuals.
5.	Donald Gordon.


C.N.R. MOVEMENT OP BOX CAR STATIONS
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did the C.N.R. move boxcar stations from Hawthorne, Nepean, and Pontiac to Odinback in 1960?
2.	If so, for what purposes were the moves made?


George Harris Hees: 1 and 2. Three portable shelters were moved to Odinback in 1960 for use as station facilities and equipment storage.


STUDY GROUP, MONTREAL HARBOUR FACILITIES
Mr. Fisher: 1.	At the present time, or within the past three months, is or has a committee or board or group been engaged in a study of Montreal harbour and its facilities and any extension of those facilities to include Sorel?
2.	If so, who are the advisers or consultants or committee members?
3.	What are their qualifications, what posts do they now hold, and what remuneration are they to receive?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as the answer to this question is very long and detailed I wonder whether it could be included in the record of Hansard without being read?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that this lengthy answer be incorporated in Hansard without being read?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

[Editor's note: The answer referred to is as follows:1
The national harbours board advises as follows:
1.	The Montreal harbour planning committee is at present engaged in a study of Montreal harbour and its facilities, and its terms of reference do not include Sorel.
2.	The members of this committee are: Paul Kuhring, former chief engineer of the St. Lawrence ship channel branch of the Department of Transport; chairman of the committee; G. H. Kohl, alternate member, St. Lawrence river joint board of engineers, Canadian section; D. F. Purves, chief of development branch, research department, Canadian National Railways; M. Boudreau, assistant chief engineer, St. Lawrence river ship channel branch of the Department of Transport; G. S. Anderson, assistant port manager (administration), Montreal harbour.
3.	Mr. Paul L. Kuhring is a graduate engineer of U. of N.B. (1913); he was employed 34 years with D.O.T. as engineer, assistant chief engineer and chief engineer of the St. Lawrence ship channel branch of D.O.T. until July 16, 1958, when he retired from the public service; now full time chairman of the committee at a salary of $10,140 per annum;
Mr. Geo. H. Kohl is a graduate engineer of McGill University (1910); he was chief engineer of the St. Lawrence river joint board of engineers; is now alternate representative for Canada on this joint board on a per diem allowance when acting as such; is a member of the committee at a per diem allowance of $100 when performing such duties;
Mr. Purves is a graduate in commerce from U.B.C. and holds a master's degree in transportation, industrial engineering and economics (Columbia University); he is chief of the development branch, research department, C.N.R., and does not receive any additional remuneration as a member of the Montreal harbour planning committee;
J. Maurice G. Boudreau is a graduate engineer, University of Montreal (1931), and has been employed with the St. Lawrence ship channel branch of D.O.T. since 1935, of which branch he was promoted as assistant chief engineer in 1958; he is still acting in this capacity and does not receive any additional remuneration as a member of the Montreal harbour planning committee;
G. S. Anderson is a graduate engineer U. of Sask. (1931), has been on the staff of the National harbours board since 1936; he was promoted to assistant port manager (admin).

Montreal harbour, in 1957, and is still employed as such; he does not receive any additional remuneration as a member of the Montreal harbour planning committee.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT DISMISSALS, N.B.
Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Have there been any dismissals in the personnel of the Post Office Department in New Brunswick since July 1957, in group 1 to 30, group 31 to 34, and staff offices, for political reasons?
2.	If so, what are the names of the individuals, and the names of the post offices?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, this question asks whether there have been dismissals of certain personnel of the post office for political reasons.
The answer is as follows:
1.	No; this government does not dismiss employees for political reasons. However, one dismissal in New Brunswick took place during the period mentioned on the grounds of political partisanship and evidence of unsatisfactory management of the office.
2.	The person concerned was Mrs. Margaret Elizabeth MacFarlane, Temperance Vale, New Brunswick.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 97
Mr. Fisher:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Minister of Justice or the officials of the R.C.M.P. and any other persons relating to an incident at Sault Ste. Marie on the night of February 18, 1961, which involved the entry and search of a room rented by a Mr. Joe Syrota.


Hon. E. D. Fullon (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, my preliminary information is that there is correspondence here that can be produced. I am therefore prepared to accept the motion, subject to the understanding that if there is any correspondence of a nature which would ordinarily be regarded as privileged, it will not be produced.
I make this observation because it may be that there is something in the way of an interdepartmental report, which of course would not be produced, but there is other correspondence which can be produced.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the explanation given by the minister is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 98-Mr. Robichaud:
For a sample copy in English and in French of all editions of Employer's Handbook on Insuring
90205-6-2264
Inquiries of the Ministry Fishermen issued by the unemployment insurance commission from 1956 to date.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of fhe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would care to comment on the statement made at his press conference yesterday by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom indicating strong support for an Atlantic free trade area.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, during the course of the discussions that took place between the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and myself, one of the most important subjects discussed was trade, and in particular the United Kingdom's relationship with Europe. Mr. Macmillan explained at length the position of the United Kingdom in regard to trade, and naturally there was an expression of the need for the widest possible expansion of trade and the strengthening of the economic relations among the countries of the Atlantic community. It was recognized that this relationship which is developing in Europe is one that will take a very considerable period of time.
In so far as the United Kingdom's attitude toward the common market is concerned Mr. Macmillan left me with the clear impression that the United Kingdom government intends to make every effort to work out a satisfactory means of participating in the economic organization of Europe without in any way detrimentally affecting Canada's trade. This he envisages as a major step forward which ultimately may lead to a wider development of trade to encompass the Atlantic community.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I wish to ask a supplementary question. Can we take it from the Prime Minister's statement that he has received an assurance from Prime Minister Macmillan that under any new arrangement Canadian export products-and I have in mind particularly Canadian agricultural products-will enjoy the same preferences and advantages in the United Kingdom market that they enjoy at the present time?


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has discussed this matter with me on a number of occasions. It has been discussed as well by members of the cabinet with their corresponding numbers in the United Kingdom, and the desire is to assure that anything that may be done by the

Inquiries of the Ministry United Kingdom shall not detrimentally affect the exports of Canadian agricultural products and the like.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to ask a further supplementary question. Did Prime Minister Macmillan inform the right hon. gentleman that it was Britain's intention to enter the inner six?


John George Diefenbaker: I think any announcement in that regard or any steps taken in that direction would be for the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to make in his own time.



URANIUM


[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 statement reported to have been made by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom at a press conference yesterday, to the effect there was a clear understanding on the issue of the commitment of the United Kingdom to purchase uranium in Canada. Would the Prime Minister tell the house what that clear understanding is?


John George Diefenbaker: I think in view of the attitude taken by the hon. member for Assiniboia I should refrain from making a piecemeal report. When I make a complete statement I shall cover this subject.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I ask this question because this statement was made not in the official discussions between the two governments but was made at a press conference outside of those discussions.


John George Diefenbaker: It represented, as Mr. Macmillan was reported to have said, the purport of the discussions between us. When I make a report this will be one of those things to which I will refer.



PROPOSED U.S. RESTRICTIONS ON TOURIST IMPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: Yesterday the hon. member for Fort William directed a question to my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce concerning the exemption of tourist purchases from tariff duties as between Canada and the United States. As this is a tariff matter it falls under the responsibility of the Minister of Finance. I may say to him that nothing further has occurred since I last answered a question on this matter in the house directed by the hon. member for Nipissing.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Johnson (Chambly-Rouville):: I wish to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Transport in the absence of the minister.
(Translation):
Could the minister inform the house about a press report in this morning's paper to the effect that the Secretary of State of the United States is attempting to obtain the views of the Canadian government regarding the formation of a Canada-U.S. joint committee to consider the feasibility of deepening the Richelieu river?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I shall take this question as notice and bring it to the minister's attention with the request that he answer it tomorrow.
(Text) :


Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister been made aware of a statement by Senator Aiken of Vermont, as reported by United Press International, to the effect that if Canada has misgivings about the Champlain waterway project, which would provide a waterway from New York to the St. Lawrence river and the great lakes, the United States should proceed with the project on its own? Because of the great interest shown both in the United States and in Canada in this project, would the government reconsider the decision that it took in December last to not engage in a joint economic study with the United States in regard to this project?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the particular remarks of the United States senator. I do not think there is anything I can add to what was said in December. If there is any change in that regard the house will, of course, be made aware of it.



METROPOLITAN TORONTO-REPORTED REQUEST FOR SUBWAY LOAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Will the minister advise the house whether the government has yet taken a decision on granting a loan to the Toronto transit commission for the acceleration of the east-west subway in Toronto?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for always addressing this question to me. However, I am just the Minister of Public Works.



SASKATCHEWAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister say whether the government has received Bill No. 56 of the Saskatchewan legislature, which the lieutenant governor refused to sign? Has the governor in council given consideration to this bill, and when will the government have an announcement to make?


John George Diefenbaker: I read in the press that the hon. gentleman has already made a lengthy statement in this connection without full regard for the constitutional procedure which must be followed.
The course taken is that which has usually been followed throughout the years since the days of Sir John A. Macdonald, with the possible exception of 1937, when the lieutenant governor of Alberta reserved assent for the consideration of the Governor General in regard to three pieces of legislation in that province. The reservations by lieutenant governors have been generally accepted as dependent upon a request from the governor in council. There was no discussion in this regard, as I have already pointed out. We had no knowledge of the action to be taken by the lieutenant governor. However, the action was taken, and as yet the reasons which the lieutenant governor is required to transmit to the Governor General for the course he followed have not come to hand. As soon as they do the governor in council will take such action as is deemed proper, with full regard to the fact that this government has consistently taken the attitude that if legislation is within the legislative competence of the provinces, except constitutionally in extraordinary circumstances there should be no interference with provincial jurisdiction.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, in view of the strong statement the Prime Minister has just made do I take it that the government is considering a replacement for the present lieutenant governor of Saskatchewan?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member I think will recognize that it is improper to ask questions that reflect upon the conduct of one of Her Majesty's representatives. I will
Inquiries of the Ministry of course permit the Prime Minister to comment but I wanted to take that preliminary objection. In this house if any reflection upon the conduct of a representative of Her Majesty is desired to be made it must be done by positive motion.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I shall say no more than that even the hon. gentleman should have known that remarks such as he has made are not in keeping with his responsibilities as a member of the House of Commons.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised in regard to my responsibilities as a member of this house, I suggest that I have already fulfilled my responsibilities in making my position clear, and I suggest that the record will show that the Prime Minister by very definite inference has criticized the lieutenant governor of Saskatchewan.


John George Diefenbaker: So there will be no mistake about that, Mr. Speaker, I pointed out that the lieutenant governor had certain responsibilities under the constitution. I also pointed out the manner in which they had been discharged generally since the days of Sir John A. Macdonald. The power is there, and it is not for me to say whether or not at this time the government of Canada is in full accord or in accord at all with the attitude or action taken. Suffice it to say that so long as the lieutenant governor discharges his responsibilities according to his rights, hon. gentlemen should not make statements such as those which so easily flow from the lips of the hon. member for Assiniboia.



OLYMPIC GAMES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold Hicks (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister as yet been advised of the findings of the engineering engaged to study possible sites in Canada for the 1968 winter Olympic games?


Hon. J. W. Monteifh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the engineering consultants were hired by the Canadian Olympic Association with the assistance of a $10,000 grant from my department. I am advised that the report is expected any day by the association, which hopes before too long to come to a decision as to the site that would best support Canada's chance of being selected as the host country.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. E. W. Brunsden (Medicine Hai):: would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister comment on the fact that the preponderant volume of opinion is in favour of the Banff, Alberta, site?


Mr. M. L. McFarlane (Kootenay East):: would like to ask a further supplementary question. Has the government considered making a statement on the extent of the financial support it would be prepared to give toward the development of whatever site is chosen in British Columbia?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, Mr. Speaker. THE CENSUS



INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to direct a question to the genial Minister of Trade and Commerce. It springs from my insatiable curiosity. In view of large scale unemployment, can the minister assure the house that capable unemployed persons have been appointed as census commissioners and that party affiliation was not a factor in their appointment?


George Harris Hees: Since the taking of the census is a very important and exacting operation, it must be carried out extremely carefully and well. It is of the greatest importance that only people who are capable and able to perform this task should be selected. With this in mind, the selections have been made by choosing the very best persons available to carry out that task in each area concerned.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I	ask the
Prime Minister whether he proposes to follow the normal constitutional custom and report to the house as soon as possible on the visit of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and on the subjects discussed between the two governments during that visit?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do so now if the house is agreeable. I did not know whether there would be any desire to have a report. If the house so wishes I shall be glad to give one.


Hazen Robert Argue: On that point, I think the time to do it is when motions are called so there could be comments from each of the parties. I suggest that the Prime Minister might make the statement tomorrow when motions are called.


BARBITURATES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Romuald Bourque (Ouiremonl-St. Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the campaign being waged by newspapers throughout Canada against the distribution of goof balls, will the minister advise the house when the report he has promised us concerning goof balls will be tabled?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I do not think I have ever at any time promised a report. I said I was having an examination made within my department; in fact it involves other departments of government as well. When that is complete I will then be in a position to announce to the house whatever action can be taken.
(Translation):


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Noël Dorion: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont asked me whether I had seen a report published in Le Droit for April 10 and whether I had any comments to make on this rumour, concerning, and I quote from the newspaper:
Considerable lay-offs of civil servants at the government's request.
-to which the news item made reference.
Mr. Speaker, I have made inquiries and I am pleased to inform the hon. member that this is merely a rumour, without any basis in fact.
(Text):


COMBINES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: May I ask
the Minister of Justice whether he is in a position to answer a question which I first asked on February 7 and repeated on March

28. In fairness to the minister I must say he was not in the house at the time I asked the question, but his colleague undertook to bring it to his attention.


Edmund Davie Fulton: will have a look at Hansard for those two days and bring forward an answer as soon as possible.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Since the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo asked me a few moments ago if I would look into the matter of bringing forward an answer to the question which he first asked on February 7 I have checked Hansard. I find his question was, in effect, whether in view of the conviction and imposition of fines as well as imprisonment on United States officials of certain electrical manufacturing companies I would bring the matter to the attention of the officials of the combines branch with instructions that an investigation along similar lines be carried out in Canada.
I apologize to the hon. member for not having answered him directly, but since he asked that question a somewhat similar question was asked by the hon. member for Kootenay West. At that time I made a reply to the effect that it is not necessary for me to bring these matters to the attention of the combines branch because they always have these possibilities before them. I am quite satisfied that it is not necessary for me to alert them to the necessity of being on the lookout for such situations in Canada.


YELLOWKNIFE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and I regret the very short notice I was able to give him. Has the minister received a communication form Mr. D. Dale, secretary of the Yellowknife miners union, protesting the granting of a 10-year power franchise by the municipal government to a private company in Edmonton? Will the minister state what steps are being taken to ensure that the citizens of Yellowknife may continue to enjoy the lower electricity rates provided by the publicly owned Snare river hydro development?


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: No such communication has come to my attention, Mr. Speaker, but I will make inquiries and bring in a reply at a later date.


Hazen Robert Argue: You received it 10 days ago.
12,	196	3579
Inquiries of the Ministry CIVIL DEFENCE


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON CONSTRUCTION OF SHELTER AT CARP, ONT.
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if the Prime Minister would care to comment on a front page story by Norman Campbell in yesterday's Ottawa Citizen that a war shelter is being constructed at Carp. Since this is a rather detailed report I wonder whether members of parliament might be given the same confidence of the government that Mr. Campbell received.
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, the institution in question has been described in the house as an experimental army signals establishment, and that is what it is. I do not believe the members of the government, including the Prime Minister, should be called upon to confirm or deny speculative stories such as the one referred to by the hon. member, of which there have been a large number concerning not only this location but a number of other locations.


Hazen Robert Argue: Since the substitute prime minister has made this very important reply to my question, I wonder if he would give the house an idea as to the 400 persons who have been selected to occupy this shelter.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is, in effect, calling into question the accuracy of the reply which I just made. I think he is completely out of order in doing so. In addition, he has phrased his question in an offensive manner.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, may I raise a point of order. I understood the minister to say that he was neither confirming nor denying the report. Since he lent that amount of credence to the report, I thought I should ask a further question.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I thought I made it clear, Mr. Speaker, that I was neither confirming nor denying this report, and neither have I done so in the past with regard to the various other reports, of which there have been perhaps dozens by this time, along the same lines but having to do with different locations.


PUBLIC BUILDINGS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gaie):: May I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether the Canadian wheat board is proposing, as an urgent project, to make an

Inquiries of the Ministry addition to its office building in Winnipeg, and if so how soon the construction is expected to start.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: I cannot give the exact times, but I believe some time last year a decision was made to construct a new office building for the Canadian wheat board. Last winter the old building next door to the office was torn down. I believe the timetable calls for the new building to be completed in 1961-62. I can ascertain the exact time and give the hon. member an answer later.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the minister could give me the exact time.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would be able to pursue his inquiry at the next stage of these proceedings.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that yesterday I waited patiently to make this inquiry when the minister's estimates were being considered, but we were denied the opportunity. It was for this reason that I asked my question today.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me the question is one which would be more appropriately asked during consideration of the estimates, but the hon. member has given it an air of urgency by asking if it is a relief project.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Charlton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: With regard to the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, which appears on page 3532 of Hansard, the answer is yes; although the crown is not a party to the lawsuit, we understand that Chief Telford Adams' injunction action against Dimensional Investments Limited is still pending in the supreme court of Ontario.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration with respect to this very important matter. Will the minister give us an assurance that the crown will give no title to any part of this property while any litigation is proceeding?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I surely do not have to reassure the house on the matter of the protection of the rights of


the Indians. As long as there is a legal position in their favour, certainly we would not act otherwise.


ARTS. LETTERS AND SCIENCES
[Stage Direction]
"LADY CHATTERLEY's LOVER"-INQUIRY AS TO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice. Since the appeal court in Quebec has decided that Lawrence's novel "Lady Chatterley's Lover" is obscene under the Criminal Code, have instructions gone out to customs or police officials that the book is now so classified for all of Canada?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Speaker, not from my department.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Board of grain commissioners-
29. Administration, $166,215.


The Chairman:: This item will be found on page 7 of the blue book, the details on page 122.


Mr. Regier:: I understand that recent negotiations with the government at Peking for the sale of Canadian grain, especially wheat, have been handicapped by the lack of adequate facilities for loading grain on the west coast. If newspaper reports can be relied upon, I believe even the minister admitted that the sales might have been larger had there been greater facilities for the loading of the ships.
For a considerable number of years now on the west coast we have been handicapped by the lack of adequate facilities for the loading of ships. I believe I am right in saying that Canadian grain producers have received less than they might have received if at all times there had been adequate loading facilities on the west coast. Many a shipment has had to go by way of the St. Lawrence route or maybe even the Hudson bay route which could have been more economically served out of west coast ports. However, because of the inadequacy of our facilities the grain had to be moved to Hudson bay or to the head of the lakes, or even indeed to Halifax or Saint John. The interest being shown in Asia in Canadian grain has aggravated the problem.
I know the minister was out in British Columbia rather recently and he realizes the

conditions that have prevailed. The minister pleaded for more facilities. Like the late Will Rogers, all I know is what I read in the papers, but I understand that the minister appealed to private enterprise to build the additional facilities that are so urgently-needed on the west coast. We have a wonderful harbour there on Burrard inlet, covering North Vancouver, North Burnaby and Port Moody; and there is all kinds of room there for the building of additional terminals and facilities for the loading of ships with Canadian grain. If we look ahead and begin to anticipate the movement that grain is likely to follow in years to come, I think we cannot blind our eyes-


Jacques Flynn: Order. May I ask the hon. member whether he would not consider that his remarks would be more appropriate under items 31 and 32, which are concerned with the operation and maintenance of elevators and the construction and acquisition of lands for that purpose. To my mind the board of grain commissioners has nothing to do with the construction or the availability of storage.


Hazen Robert Argue: They do have something to do with it.


Erhart Regier: -If you will let me have a minute or two, Mr. Chairman, I shall be finished. I intend to be only a limited number of minutes and I should like to conclude my remarks. As I understand it, the board of grain commissioners are very much involved in this matter in that they are responsible for considering the facilities that are available. I realize at once, Mr. Chairman, the correctness of your contention that I might also have raised this matter under item 32.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order that has been raised, may I say this. I think what the hon. member is saying is clearly in order under this item. It may also be in order under item 32. The board of grain commissioners has the power to license, and the power to license is closely associated with the availability of storage space. I myself am going to have some remarks to make on this item in that regard, and I think I can show clearly that the ability to license in many instances can mean the availability of space. I would think this discussion is in order.


Erhart Regier: What I was attempting to say, Mr. Chairman, is that I feel that the minister's appeal when he last was in Vancouver is rather a vain hope indeed, when he appeals to the private grain companies to build terminal facilities in the lower mainland of British Columbia. World movements of grain are very indefinite. The patterns may radically alter. I think it is too much to expect private enterprise to interest itself at this 90205-6-227
Supply-Agriculture
stage when we cannot clearly look into the future, and to risk tens of millions of dollars in building new and adequate terminal facilities in the lower mainland of British Columbia.
I believe this is a case in which the government itself must take whatever risk is involved in building additional facilities. I believe the minister is most unrealistic when he expresses the hope that the private grain trade is going to risk the large amount of capital that is involved in this particular matter. I believe the government ought to recognize that in the next 30, 40, 50 or even 100 years the countries of Asia are going to be the major markets for Canadian grain. Private enterprise are not likely to risk this investment because they might have to operate at a deficit for five, ten or any number of years in the future, and in the national interest the government ought to consider that it is responsible for ensuring that at all times adequate receiving and loading facilities will be available on the west coast.
I recommend to the minister that he give up his vain wish that the private grain trade might build additional terminals on Burrard inlet, and I hope the government will give very serious consideration to building these new terminals. I should especially commend Burrard inlet and the city of Port Moody to the minister, and I would ask that no time be lost in this regard, because from the time of the conception of a terminal until its completion a number of years must necessarily elapse.
I hope the government will make up its mind that Asia offers a terrific potential in the way of markets for Canadian grain and that this grain can be most economically exported from the lower mainland of British Columbia. I suggest it is a vain hope to expect the private grain industry to build the necessary facilities, and I hope the government will realize its responsibility to the economy not only of the grain producers of the prairies but also of the lower mainland of British Columbia. I hope the government will take immediate steps to ensure that additional terminals and loading facilities are built as soon as possible on Burrard inlet, and especially within the limits of the city of Port Moody.


Mr. Payne:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words in connection with this matter of grain storage and the facilities for their shipment from the port of Vancouver. I was rather surprised that this discussion arose at this time rather than under the estimates of the national harbours board, but as you have allowed a discussion on this matter perhaps it would be fitting that I should say a few words at this time.

Supply-Agriculture
I wish to only partially endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. I say "only partially" because the hon. member has taken a situation and is trying to build it up for his own advantage and political use in the future, rather than facing the facts. The facts are that the present Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, by virtue of an aggressive, positive approach to Asian markets, have today brought into sharp focus the need for additional facilities for grain storage and shipping which would not be apparent had not the government, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce created, developed and encouraged these markets.
Having said a few words of appreciation of those who most deserve it, I do wish to endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam in bringing forward the need for a general improvement and increase of grain storage facilities, not only in the port of Vancouver but in other logical situations on the lower mainland of British Columbia.
It is perhaps an odd thing for a member for Coast-Capilano to speak on the agriculture estimates. I can, I think, say that few members which have rural areas have less to do with agriculture directly than I have in my riding. However, when it comes to the question of the port of Vancouver and other outlets on the lower mainland of British Columbia, these are our affairs. I should like to urge upon the minister that consideration be given not only to the establishment of further terminal elevator facilities in the area of the port of Vancouver, but also to the establishment of such facilities in the area of Squamish at the upper end of Howe sound to serve the vast output of grain which now has to pass through the port of Vancouver via the Pacific Great Eastern railroad and on a very detrimental basis to the farmers of the Peace river bloc due to the switching and bridge charges which are incurred at the present time in the area of Burrard inlet and within the jurisdictional area of the port of Vancouver.
I should like to again thank the Minister of Agriculture for his wisdom and courage in drawing together the shipping fraternity of the west coast, representatives of agricultural groups and businessmen generally of the lower mainland of British Columbia. We who live around the port of Vancouver take great pride in that very important facility. We feel that as a national harbour it represents a national trust. We feel strongly that we have a responsibility to the farmers of the

whole of western Canada to see that adequate storage and loading facilities are available at all times.
The Minister of Agriculture has certainly performed a great service not only to the port of Vancouver but to grain shippers throughout western Canada in bringing into being the committee which is now studying this matter. I think perhaps the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam was a little in error in his remarks as I do not think the minister called directly on private enterprise to build terminal grain facilities. The practice in most ports of Canada for many years has been that the national harbours board constructs the facilities. These facilities are in turn leased on a long term basis to the line elevator companies and the various pool and marketing organizations which handle grain in bulk.
I hope and trust that the committee which is now studying terminal grain facility requirements on the west coast will come forward with basic, sound and positive recommendations. This would certainly marry in with the current study, which I believe has been reported to the Minister of Transport, on the development of port facilities in the general area of Burrard inlet.
In concluding my remarks I should like to again point out the great advantage which would be gained by the grain shippers in the Peace river bloc through the establishment of terminal facilities at the head of Howe sound along the Pacific Great Eastern railroad, thus relieving these grain growers of the inordinately high switching charges they now face in moving grain from Squamish to the port of Vancouver and around its complete perimeter.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, the question that has been raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, which is now receiving some support from the hon. member for Coast-Capilano-


William Hector Payne: I have put forward this suggestion for three years.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is an exceedingly important one and action should be taken immediately to deal with it. For many years we have been told by government spokesmen that the reason farm markets have been low or inadequate was because of the lack of overseas markets, that nothing could be done about this or, alternatively, that the government was doing everything possible to achieve larger sales abroad. The fact of the matter is that markets can be obtained, but shipping facilities, storage facilities and harbour facilities are inadequate. I think that in addition to the minister's trip to Vancouver and British Columbia, for which we thank

him-we are pleased he made it-he should see that definite action is taken to increase storage and handling facilities.
The hon. member for Coast-Capilano says it is worth while raising the subject but that this is not the item on which to discuss it. I am not particularly concerned about the procedural wrangle. I think this is a proper place to discuss this matter because in my judgment storage facilities and terminal facilities would be forthcoming if there were a well-established policy on the part of the board of grain commissioners to license such additional storage.
I think the government of Canada has the funds necessary to provide additional terminal facilities at Vancouver and Prince Rupert as well as to improve the facilities along the St. Lawrence. The St. Lawrence seaway needs a lot of improvement; it has been a fairly drastic failure as far as the achievement of the forecasts made for it are concerned. The government surely has money for this job. But I tell the Minister of Agriculture that if the government is short of money all it needs to do is to make an announcement that additional terminal facilities are required, that the board of grain commissioners is prepared to license them, that markets are improving in respect of sales going through the Pacific ports, and then the producers themselves would put up the money. The grain producers on the prairies have already built the major facilities in the west. The Alberta wheat pool, the Saskatchewan wheat pool, the Manitoba wheat pool and the united grain growers have already done most of this job and if there is a question of a shortage of facilities, as the minister claims there is, and as other hon. members have stated to be the case, if the government does not wish to take the initiative and if the deficit is so great that no more money can be found, then give the grain producers and their organizations a chance and they will build the facilities so that these important markets for Canadian grain may be obtained.
On this item I should like to ask the minister whether there is any possibility of a change of policy on his part and on the part of the board of grain commissioners with regard to the licensing of off-site storage. Five or six years ago the late Right Hon. C. D. Howe together with the board of grain commissioners decided to license certain offsite storage which was not in the hands of the elevator companies. This storage was often owned by community organizations which had storage facilities built in the form of quonset huts, the type of building which could be converted into a skating rink, a 90205-6-227*
Supply-Agriculture
curling rink or a community centre, if, some day, it was no longer needed for storage purposes.
Those of us in this group supported that policy. We pointed out that as long as the farmers had to pay the storage and as long as the people of Canada had to pay the storage to a substantial degree through the federal treasury it was far better to bring into being community facilities which would assist communities than to line the already gold-plated pockets of the elevator companies of this country. Nothing, to my mind, is as nauseating and repugnant as to hear private grain companies extol the private enterprise system knowing full well that under the present congested conditions there is little competition and that all they have to do is sit at ease, cash the storage cheques and make a very lucrative profit without having to show initiative in obtaining purchases of grain in a competitive situation.


William Hector Payne: Would the hon. member permit a question? I was wondering whether the hon. member for Assiniboia would like to tell the committee how many elevator installations on the west coast and elsewhere in Canada have been built by these cooperative bodies and how many have been built by the people of Canada to be handed over on lease by the national harbours board to be operated by co-operatives or grain companies.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister can answer that question. He has his experts in front of him.


William Hector Payne: You don't know whether your statements are correct.


Hazen Robert Argue: I happen to be a member of a number of these organizations and I happen to know that they own facilities, and that I, along with tens of thousands of other producers, own them; and we in the Saskatchewan wheat pool, which is the largest producer owned grain marketing organization in the world, are prepared to build more facilities if the government of which the hon. member is such a proud supporter is not able to do so. But the hon. member can do no better than to interrupt from his seat. My friend the hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam suggested that at Vancouver the Alberta wheat pool has built one terminal; there are two public terminals, and one of those is leased.


William Hector Payne: That one is the only one.


Hazen Robert Argue: I thought the hon. member was in favour of increased facilities.


William Hector Payne: I am.

Supply-Agriculture


Hazen Robert Argue: Then, when I start telling him how the increase can be brought about all he can do is to condemn the suggestions.


William Hector Payne: The co-operatives are doing a very poor job.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the contrary the farm organizations are doing a tremendous job. They are the only people who are doing the job and they will not look very kindly on the hon. member or on any of his friends who are associated with him when he sets himself up to criticize the farm organizations after they have done such a marvellous job in this field. The complaint he has made is that the government has not done enough. Now he complains when we say that if the government wants to sit on its fanny the farmers themselves are prepared to do something if they are told it is the policy of the board of grain commissioners and the government to license these facilities and if the statement is made that those facilities are needed and will be used.
I was talking about off-site storage facilities on the prairies and I was expressing the hope that the government would revert to a policy which I think was an excellent one, worthy of being implemented again. In the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba there is a great need for storage facilities at this time and I suggest to the minister that the board of grain commissioners should license such off-site storage immediately. I think the farmers of Manitoba should make a loud protest at the great discrimination which is being shown them under the present marketing system as far as their marketings are concerned. I am wondering whether the inability or the refusal of the government to take steps to give the farmers of Manitoba anywhere near the kind of marketing shake which is being received by the farmers of Alberta is because large parts of Manitoba are a deficit grain producing area and the government wants to keep the grain producers of Manitoba in the clutches of the feed mills where they now rest. I suggest that in Manitoba there is a need for off-site storage so that farmers can get out a larger quantity of grain.
In Manitoba as of April 3, 131 marketing points were on a one-bushel quota. Manitoba's crop year is two-thirds over, and out of the prospects of marketing-I would hope at least seven bushels-they have only one bushel marketed. The minister says everything is fine and the government is taking every possible step to market the farmers' grain but the Manitoba farmers are getting a dirty deal. They have 149 marketing points with a two-bushel quota.

When considering Saskatchewan's marketing position we find that the picture is a little brighter but not much. It is still dark and gloomy. I would like to have the maps that are in the possession of the minister showing the quotas at the various marketing points. I would venture to guess that the farmers in his constituency are among the worst off in his regard. I would venture to guess that the farmers in my own riding have received the same kind of shabby treatment as those farmers in the minister's riding. Out of a total of 1,077 marketing points in Saskatchewan no less than 499, as of April 3, were on a two-bushel quota. I know from practical experience that all of the two-bushel quota has been delivered, or the points would be increased. The majority of farmers in Saskatchewan, according to the statistics, have not had the opportunity of selling to date even a full two-bushel quota. I think this is a horrible situation. I think that in this situation the board of grain commissioners and the government should consider emergency action which would allow the farmers in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and wherever else discrimination may exist, as in Alberta -there the picture is much brighter-to get the same kind of treatment as the farmers receive in more favourable positions.
We heard last fall about the terrible grain handlers' strike in Vancouver. The minister's main comment in this regard was, why doesn't Hazen Argue settle it? The minister did not do much to settle it. It is a very strange thing that although this strike-it was a very serious thing which I hope will not happen again-took place at Vancouver, the Alberta farmers were far better off than Manitoba farmers where there was no interference in marketing grain to the east. I do not think there can be any co-relation between a strike and the movement of grain. I cannot see any connection at all, and this would almost prove that the Manitoba farmers should have been doing the same thing to get themselves in the horrible position of the Alberta farmers who have done so well relatively in the marketing of their grain.
I would make the suggestion that off-site storage should once again be considered and provided. I am aware of a situation existing in a little village in Saskatchewan called Drinkwater. A few years ago the residents of Drinkwater built a quonset-type hut that serves as a rink and holds about 80,000 bushels of wheat. They had it licensed by the board of grain commissioners, and that is why it is in order for me to discuss it under this item. This community association, which owns the rink, receives storage payments. They have been doing well. That little

town is starting to build some community facilities. On Easter Monday night they had an opening function in the Drinkwater community hall which was built in part under the government winter works program. Let us give the government credit for that; $4,000 was provincial and federal government money representing work and wages. The rest of the cost was money derived from the late C. D. Howe's very short-lived program allowing off-site storage.
The people of Drinkwater own the quon-set hut, which is full of wheat, and are receiving revenue from the storage of the wheat. The wheat remains in good condition and will not rot as a lot of wheat used to in the old annexes that the elevator companies owned. These people now have a community hall and are very proud of it. The next community facility they are going to build is a curling rink. They thought they were building a curling rink when they put up this quonset hut, of which 1 speak, but they promptly filled it with wheat. They are now going to build a curling rink to be paid for out of revenue from the storage of wheat in the quonset hut.
I would suggest that it is much better to give this revenue to similar community associations rather than to the famous Canadian grain company, the Patterson company. I do not think we need increase the profits to the Patterson Grain Company, the McCabe Elevator Company, the Federal Grain Company or the National Grain Company, or even to the Ogilvie Flour Mills Company, because the late C. D. Howe sold that a few years ago. I think it is far better that the profits from the storage of grain, wherever possible, should go to benefit the local community instead of going to line the pockets of the already well-heeled elevator companies in this country.
I suggest as well that this would be a very good program and is a necessary one at this time. It would be an emergency program- I would hope of a more than temporary nature-to deal with this very serious situation regarding grain delivery quotas. At the majority of points in western Canada even today the quotas are one and two bushels per acre. I suggest that the board of grain commissioners, carrying out a policy that I hope will be enunciated by the minister, will license local storage off-site in the villages and on farms. I do not see why the elevator companies should have all the storage while the farmer who has to store the grain receives nothing for doing so. I would suggest offsite storage should be allowed in villages and on farms up to a delivery quota of eight bushels per specified acre. If this were done the farmers throughout the prairie provinces
Supp ly-A griculture
would have the same opportunity of receiving revenue from grain storage and would not have to face the discrimination that flows from the geography of the prairie provinces and from the fact that some of the producers are fortunate enough to live near to Vancouver while some are unfortunate, in a marketing sense, in living closer to the great lakes' terminal facilities.
I would like to see the minister and the government take steps to increase the flow of grain not only through western ports but through eastern ports, and I suggest in all seriousness that the board of grain commissioners should consider off-site storage, to be owned by communities and by farmers, and that this off-site storage should be allowed up to a quota of eight bushels per acre.
Some years ago we had a very long and bitter debate in this house on the question of cash advances for farm stored grain. As I remember we were debating bank loans at the time, and the attitude of the C.C.F. group at that time was that the bank loan legislation was inadequate and should therefore be opposed. This was debated day after day for a week. We continued to oppose the bank loan legislation even though the then leader of the opposition, the Hon. George Drew, had said that it was better than nothing and that his party would vote for it. After the week of debate the official opposition of that day, the Progressive Conservative party, changed its position and joined us in opposing, condemning and voting against- you might even say filibustering, although that is a bad word-the bank loan legislation. We made the bank loan legislation so repugnant to Canadian farmers and generated such a demand for cash advances, interest-free, that this government, when it achieved office, had no alternative but to bring in that kind of legislation, for which we give it credit. I am suggesting that we must have a campaign for off-site storage providing a guaranteed delivery or sale, I suggest up to eight bushels per specified acre. The minister may say that this is too high, but the principle should be established that where marketing facilities have not been available for a standard quota agreed to and announced in advance, that facilities will be provided and licensed by the board of grain commissioners to provide for the sale of grain on this basis. The grain can be purchased in the farmer's bin. The grain elevator agent can go out and look at the bin, measure it, test the grain, dock it and estimate the number of bushels. He will be exceedingly accurate because the agents are used to this and they are able to do that kind of thing.
I suggest that, having licensed the facilities, the Canadian wheat board could issue a cash

Supp ly-A griculture
ticket to the farmer for his grain up to the eight-bushel quota. This kind of legislation is necessary if the western grain producer is to get a fair deal. This must be part of the Magna Carta of the grain producers. I am suggesting that, under this item, the minister should tell us that the board of grain commissioners and the government are prepared to consider the licensing of off-site storage so that the farmers whom X represent will be able to deliver the good quality grain they have on their farms. I feel very strongly about this. I feel it is abhorrent that farmers in one part of the country should face financial hardship through no fault of their own because they are unable to deliver the good quality grain that they have on their farms owing to the inability of our grain handling and marketing facilities to take care of quotas on a more equitable and uniform basis.
No doubt the discussion of this item will take some time. I should like the minister to reply to this suggestion as soon as he can. In any event, before this item passes I hope the minister will be able to inform the committee that the government will once again consider off-site storage and will assure Western producers of being able to market their current crop, or a minimum quantity of grain, and that quotas will be equalized in the three prairie provinces and in the Peace river bloc of British Columbia.


Mr. Baldwin:: Will the hon. member permit a question? As I understand it, he is advocating a system whereby farmers would be paid storage on farm stored grain. I ask him this question not only as the hon. member for Assiniboia but as a member of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, which he said he was. Can he tell me whether this policy is one which meets with the approval of the wheat pools?


Hazen Robert Argue: I am not certain that the wheat pool has made a statement on this matter in recent times; I am not certain whether the wheat pool has in fact advocated this policy. I have advocated it for many years. The farmers' unions have definitely advocated it for many years. If my hon. friend will take my assurance-he may not wish to-I assure him that if a vote were held among the wheat pool membership I would be very surprised if it did not get at least 99 per cent approval.


Mr. McIntosh:: I would suggest that for the last 15 or 20 minutes the hon. member for Assiniboia has been off base, out of order and all wet in practically everything he said.


Hazen Robert Argue: Discuss this with the farmers.


John (Jack) McIntosh: That is fine; I will discuss it with the farmers. The hon. member has brought into the picture today, much against your wishes and your direction last night, sir, the questions of quotas, storage, cash advances and everything else, which have absolutely nothing to do with this item we are discussing today and which we as government members will not do. We refuse to take advantage of you, sir, in this way. I think last night the hon. member for Medicine Hat laid it squarely on the line in so far as the hon. member for Assiniboia is concerned. He produced the act and read out the duties and responsibilities of the board of grain commissioners, and it was well understood by the hon. member for Assiniboia what those duties were. But still he took advantage of you, Mr. Chairman, today, after the discussion last night, to make this all wet speech.
Generally speaking I think we can say that the board of grain commissioners is the agency responsible for the maintenance of quality standards for Canadian wheat and for ensuring that the interests of the farmers are protected in all aspects of grain handling. Not only is that their responsibility but one of the functions of the board is to see that the farmer gets a proper grade for his grain. I ask the minister what steps he has taken to refute the statement or to procure the evidence referred to by the national farm union in their brief on grain sales to feed mills. I hold in my hand a clipping from the Swift Current Sun, dated January 25, 1961. This is taken from the union brief. They say under the heading "Trading Regulations":
There is "evidence that grading regulations and the protection which the farmer has known in the past through the board of grain commissioners is completely absent."
I believe the minister knows as well as I do, and as well as do the national farm union and the hon. member for Assiniboia, that the national farm union is deliberately misleading the farmers by such a statement, just as the hon. member for Assiniboia does time and time again. No change was made in the regulations of the board of grain commissioners at that time.
The officials of the national farm union know as well as I do that the farmer who wishes can at any time submit a sample of his grain to the commission independent of any elevator company, pool of anything else, and get a grade that is standard that will be accepted by any line company or any pool. This statement by an organization such as the national farm union, or by the leader of the C.C.F. group in this house has perturbed me time and time again because it

is an absolute falsehood and they know it.
I wonder what the minister has done about such a statement?


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I have ever listened to a speech in this house that had a greater disregard for the facts than the one delivered by the leader of the C.C.F. today. I think he has been very unfair to the Minister of Agriculture, to those on the treasury benches and to the former minister of trade and commerce, all of whom have done a wonderful job in the marketing of the grain of the Canadian farmers.


Hazen Robert Argue: Why has the hon. member always voted against the suggestion?


Edward Nasserden: With regard to the matter of quotas in the province of Saskatchewan, I think the hon. member might have brought out different figures and put them on the record. I see by the figures of April 10 that 614 points are on three or four-bushel quotas as against 463 on two-bushel quotas. I believe he said that the majority of farmers were on two-bushel quotas.


Hazen Robert Argue: That was on April 3.


Edward Nasserden: It would appear to me that the statement was not factual.


Hazen Robert Argue: On a point of order, I was quoting from the board of grain commissioners quota distribution of April 3. Perhaps my hon. friend has a later issue. He may have improved facilities, as the bureau of statistics sometimes has, but these are the latest statistics that have come to my attention.


Edward Nasserden: I am quoting from the same statement that the hon. member quoted from except that mine is dated April 10.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask the hon. member what he is quoting from? His pages are in colours different from mine. Maybe it is the same statement; maybe it is the minister's statement.


Edward Nasserden: It is the Canadian wheat board statement on the distribution.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think the hon. member has the minister's private statement.


Edward Nasserden: I do not intend to enter into a criss-cross discussion with the hon. member for Assiniboia, but I should like to say that the board of grain commissioners for Canada have done a wonderful job over the period of years. They have been instrumental in building Canadian grades to a standard which has made it possible for the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Canadian wheat board to take our grain into
Supply-Agriculture
any market in the world with the knowledge that our grades will be accepted. When we consider the conditions that prevailed last fall, we must realize that there was a great quantity of damp and wet grain in western Canada. We must realize, too, the importance of maintaining the quality of our product in world markets. Under those circumstances, we were able to move more grain than anyone in the House of Commons expected at that particular time, and more grain than had been moved by the former administration under similar circumstances. This was accomplished with a minimum of discomfort to the average farmer on the prairies.
It is all very well for the hon. member for Assiniboia to get up today and point to a situation under which the producers in Alberta are in a little better position than those in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. This situation really means that the sales policy of this government has resulted in moving a greater quantity of grain to the markets of Asia than had been moved heretofore. In this connection, I should like to pay tribute to the Minister of Agriculture as well as the former minister of trade and commerce.
When we come to the matter of facilities out on the Pacific coast, I should like to say that facilities cost money, whether they are located on the Pacific coast, on the prairies, at Fort William or the port of Churchill. Every cent that goes into those facilities ultimately comes out of the pockets of the farmers of western Canada. This government, from the very beginning, has sought to move grain and to utilize the facilities that are in existence. This has been one of the objectives toward which farmers and farm organizations have worked over a long period of years. I could quote statements by such men as the president of the farmers' union of Saskatchewan and other leaders of farm organizations which point to the need to move grain rather than to store it in off-site storage as the hon. member for Assiniboia has advocated.


Hazen Robert Argue: I just want the farmers to be paid, that is all.


Edward Nasserden: Off-site storage has proved to be one of the costliest items to the farmers of western Canada.
The other matter to which I should like to refer is the opening of navigation at the head of the lakes. I understand this will take place in a couple of weeks, and freight cars have been ordered to western Canada so that the movement of grain from Saskatchewan and Manitoba will soon begin.
In so far as the storage of grain on farms is concerned, I do not believe I can recall the Saskatchewan wheat pool ever going on

Supply-Agriculture
record as being in favour of paying farmers for grain stored on their farms. The cost of this procedure would have to come out of the final payment made to these farm people. I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Assiniboia taking that particular line.


Hazen Robert Argue: Half of it comes out of the national treasury, did you know that?


Edward Nasserden: When we look at the overall situation and what has been accomplished during the last three years, I think it can be said that this government has done more to expedite the movement of grain than was done at any time before. The markets that have been captured in Asia and in other places in the world have been simply wonderful, and this has given great encouragement to the western wheat producers.
I should like to make a few comments about the feed mill situation if I may. This situation was mentioned briefly yesterday and has been mentioned a number of times during the debate on the agriculture estimates by those in opposition. A statement has been made that, on some occasions, grain was selling for 50 cents a bushel less than it used to be sold before our legislation was introduced. This statement is not factual. Everyone in western Canada knows that grain moved at these prices and lower before the legislation was introduced. The result of this legislation has been to bring before the public the price paid for grain moving to the feed mills.
I do not pretend that I am satisfied with every aspect of this policy. Perhaps there are dangers in it that may show up as time goes by. I am satisfied, though, that when the Prime Minister of this country gives his assurance that the marketing system of the Canadian wheat board would be protected and when the Minister of Agriculture backs up that assertion, even the hon. members of the opposition should be prepared to accept that statement.


Mr. Peters:: We are not all that innocent.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is just another one of John's promises. They do not mean a thing.


Edward Nasserden: On this occasion-


Mr. Spencer:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. While the hon. member for Assiniboia had the floor he complained about hon. members speaking from their seats. I should like to hear what the hon. member who now has the floor has to say, and I cannot do that if the hon. member for Assiniboia is constantly interrupting from his seat.


Edward Nasserden: I was just about to conclude, Mr. Chairman. I should like to say that when the vote was taken on the point 
of order last night I could not object because the hon. member for Assiniboia has taken every opportunity to say anything he would have to say about the movement of grain. He was merely repeating what he had said, and much of that was not in the best interests of those engaged in the agriculture industry.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I find myself in a very dubious position in view of the fact that yesterday there was a procedural ruling by the Chair that discussion should be on the vote before the committee. I do not believe there are many hon. members in the committee or many people out across the country who will be very proud of what has taken place in the committee last evening and again today.


William Arnold Peters: You are just holding up your
estimates.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The vote of the majority of the house confirmed the ruling of the chairman that he had to enforce the rules laid down in standing orders. I feel it is a very serious situation, therefore, when a member of the house, who has been here for many years, takes advantage of the fact that the board of grain commissioners does publish statistics on the grain trade in order to reintroduce each one of the subjects he wished to discuss under the wheat board item.


Hazen Robert Argue: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Cardiff:: You should listen once in a while and not talk so much, then you will know more.


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member knows so little that it is obvious why he does not talk very much.
The minister has made a reflection on the decision of the house last night, Mr. Chairman, and has said it was inappropriate for me to quote from the statistics issued by the board of grain commissioners. I would suggest that the point of order that was raised last night was settled last night. I would suggest that Your Honour allowed me to make my remarks this afternoon and there was no suggestion from any hon. member that I was out of order nor was there any suggestion from the Chair that I was out of order.
I therefore suggest that the Minister of Agriculture has no right to pretend that the remarks I made some time ago this afternoon were out of order and thereby to reflect on the conduct of the chairman himself during the time I was making my speech. I suggest that I was very much in order, that the chairman allowed me to make my remarks and that the

minister himself now is casting a serious reflection not only on me but on the chairman and the chairman's conduct of the procedure of this committee. He has no right to reflect on something that took place some time ago in this chamber.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I must say that the hon. member cannot interpret the words of the minister as being a reflection on the Chair. I think the minister is entitled to discuss the conduct of the hon. member from Assiniboia.


Hazen Robert Argue: No, he is not.


Jacques Flynn: Certainly he can comment on the method of speaking of the hon. member from Assiniboia. I may say in passing that the Chair cannot expect to have the rules applied correctly if there is no co-operation from the members of the committee.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, because I want to complete what I have to say. I am not as experienced a member of the House of Commons as is the hon. member for Assiniboia. I simply said this afternoon that he took advantage of his experience by relating every second paragraph to the words "board of grain commissioners" in order to discuss everything but the board of grain commissioners and thereby he was able to get under the ruling of the Chair last night, namely that we could discuss only the board of grain commissioners.
I want to say that I do not intend to answer any of these questions or statements dealing with the Canadian wheat board or any of the subjects related to the Canadian wheat board. This is the ninth day on which I have had my estimates before the committee. I had seven days on item No. 1. The hon. member for Assiniboia spoke on item No. 1. He referred to the wheat board. He referred to all of these matters. Then he came into the chamber last night and asked for special permission to go back, in effect, to item No. 1. The house made its ruling after a very unpleasant debate. I want to abide by that ruling. However, there are certain things I have to say to the hon. member for Assiniboia. I will leave those to the end of my remarks and they will not be pleasant to hear.
Some questions that he asked have a bearing on the board of grain commissioners. First of all he asked a question about the storage capacity and he made quite a point about the visible supply going up and asked whether the wheat board was plugging up the elevators. I am not going to go into all the storage capacity that has been built at the head of the lakes, the new storage capacity at
Supply-Agriculture
Baie Comeau or the building of increased storage both on the west coast and in the St. Lawrence area. However, I would suggest that if the hon. member would read the statement I have made on storage construction, he will easily see why we have a greater visible supply this year than we had last year.
The hon. member also asked the question whether the board of grain commissioners had any control or direction over the allocation of box cars. He must know that this is not so. He brought in this reference to the ex-chairman of the board of grain commissioners who was at one time appointed as transport controller. When he was transport controller he had some say in the allocation of box cars. Since that time, however, there has been a royal commission on this subject which issued its report. If the hon. member will refresh his memory and go back to two years ago on July 18 in Hansard he will find that the previous minister of trade and commerce outlined that royal commission report and gave the directions in the form of a letter to the chief of the Canadian wheat board as to the allocation of box cars. If he reads it through he will find that the first instruction was that primary consideration must be given to the movement of the kinds of grain and the grades of grain required to meet sales commitments and to facilitate their selling operations. Then it goes on as follows:
(2) Subject to (1) above and as far as current circumstances and reasonable equality in delivery opportunity permits, it should be your objective to provide:
(a)	that producers should have the opportunity of delivering their grain to the elevator or elevators which they wish to patronize; and
(b)	that elevator companies which act as your agents should have reasonable opportunity of competing with one another in the handling of producers' grain.
In effect, Mr. Chairman, the allocation of box cars today is done primarily by the Canadian wheat board to the elevator company in proportion to their getting grain from the producers and then the elevator company-that is the pools and the private grain trade-allocate their elevators to their own elevators as they wish.
Another point raised by the hon. member today-or rather it was yesterday-had to do with the number of overages and grain complaints. This is a legitimate question to ask under this item. If the hon. member will look up the reports of the board of grain commissioners for Canada for the year 1960 at page 10 he will find the number of complaints through the year. The complaint points total 11 as compared with 19 in the previous year. It tells what happened to those complaints. Then under the heading

Supply-Agriculture
oi "Prosecutions", it gives the story of prosecutions. Then there is the heading "Shortages and Overages" and you have the elevator given in the detail and what was done. I think that answer can be found by the ordinary process of opening up the report and reading page 10.


Hazen Robert Argue: When was the report tabled?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yesterday.


Hazen Robert Argue: It was not delivered to my office. I guess they had no copies.


An hon. Member:: Can you not read?


Hazen Robert Argue: I sent to the library and I could not find any.


Mr. Pigeon:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member does not stand up.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, that I would answer only those things that I think legitimately come under this item. However, I have one thing that I must say and it is this. With agriculture in the position that it is in today and with the efforts that have to be made by governments at all levels, and by organizations and individuals to help agriculture move up in the economic scheme of things, it ill behooves us here in the House of Commons to try to destroy some of the things which are good and which we all support. Yet we have this situation developing here.
I think everyone here knows what I am referring to. Yesterday, one of the hon. members from this side of the chamber, speaking out of order, raised a question and it was not dealt with at that time. I am referring of course, to the feed mill issue. I knew how deeply our western Conservatives felt about this issue because it was dealt with in the standing committee on agriculture and colonization last year. The recommendation was unanimous that we should try out for a year more flexible methods of handling feed grain.


Hazen Robert Argue: By those members who were there.


An hon. Member:: Why were you not there?


Hazen Robert Argue: I had other engagements.


Edwin William Brunsden: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I ask whether we must continually be subjected to this procedure of the hon. member speaking from his seat? The dignity of parliament should be preserved.


Jacques Flynn: The Minister of Agriculture has the floor.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: These interruptions make it easier for me to say what I am going to say. I am going to give some

advice to the hon. member for Assiniboia. I have done it previously but he did not listen. I am going to give him some advice again. Over the years there has been a great deal of debate in western Canada as to what should be done about agriculture, and one of the loudest spokesmen on behalf of his own opinions was the hon. member for Assiniboia. As he went up and down the country, we did not take him too seriously because to us he was just one of Peck's bad boys. Now he has been in the house for a considerable number of years and he is like a boy who has never grown up. No longer is he just Peck's bad boy. It looks very much as though he has become the "ass" in Assiniboia. In fact, after the type of thing we saw here last night I am going to be very blunt. The hon. member is trying to move up from the league of being Peck's bad boy and from the "ass" in Assiniboia to one of Hoffa's little hoodlums. We have seen this disrupting type of activity in some of the labour meetings across this country. It means that many of the ordinary labour people hope that this type of person does not have any say in running our country in the future.
In the hon. member's battle with the premier of Saskatchewan for the leadership of this new party, one of the reasons why the backroom boys of the labour party-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I am afraid the minister is now going a little outside the subject before the committee.


Hazen Robert Argue: Let him go on.


William Arnold Peters: Why does he not answer the questions he is supposed to answer?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister should be allowed to expose the attitude which he takes. After all, I have been here a lot longer than the minister. I think my conduct in the house has been in keeping with the rules. I have not had to heap personal abuse on cabinet ministers in order to make my points. I shall have an opportunity to take this scurrilous attack upon me to the electors of the Assiniboia constituency, which the minister has slurred by his sly remarks.
Of course, the minister has no answer to the proposition I have made, that he should provide payments to farmers on an eight bushel quota. Instead he uses this well-known McCarthy tactic. He uses the Senator McCarthy tactic which was developed so well in the United States, of smear when you have no argument.
I say that this smearing, ill-founded attack upon me by the minister is very ill becoming. I am certain it will not be considered in good taste by the minister's colleagues. It

is beneath the dignity of parliament and the dignity of the minister. But I say to him that the people he represents and the people I represent can give the answer to these kind of McCarthy tactics that have been dragged into this chamber by a minister of the crown.
Mr. Chairman, to get back to some of the remarks that I have been making, which I think the grain producers of the west will support-and I am prepared to meet the Minister of Agriculture on any public platform in western Canada-


An hon. Member:: Meet him right here.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am meeting him right here. The chairman had to call the minister to order and set him back on his haunches because the chairman knew these smearing tactics were out of order. But I challenge the Minister of Agriculture to meet me on a public platform anywhere in western Canada and to repeat the McCarthy tactics he has been using in this committee. I think I licked him well in public debate on one former occasion, and I would take a chance on doing it again. He can defend his policy if he will, and he can defend these kind of tactics if he will. The hon. member for Rosthern-


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, you have ruled me out of order in making any personal remarks about the hon. member, and he is now doing the same thing to me. I wonder whether I could ask for the same ruling to apply to the hon. member.


Jacques Flynn: I think it is about time we came back to the item under discussion. I trust that from now on the comments will be more relevant.


Hazen Robert Argue: I will abide by the request of the Minister of Agriculture, who has now come very subtly to the Chair crying for protection because he cannot take the same kind of attack as he carried on against me.


Jacques Flynn: Order. Will the hon. member please co-operate with the Chair. I have just indicated to the hon. member that the Chair expects hon. members to be relevant in their remarks under this item.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I was dealing with the remarks of the hon. member for Rosthern, who has shown himself on occasion in this house-


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I rise again because I held the floor but was interrupted on a point of order. Does that mean I lose the floor?


Jacques Flynn: I thought the hon. minister had yielded the floor at that point.


Hazen Robert Argue: So did I.
Supp ly-A gricuXture


Jacques Flynn: If the minister wishes to continue his remarks I think I should recognize him. I thought he had completed his remarks.


Hazen Robert Argue: I took the floor because I thought the Minister of Agriculture had concluded his remarks. However, if you, Mr. Chairman, rule that the minister has the floor I will of course abide by your ruling; but the minister fell back-


Jacques Flynn: Order. If the minister
yielded the floor because he was under the impression that the hon. member for Assini-boia was rising on a point of order, I think it would be only fair to give the floor again to the minister in order that he may complete his remarks. I think that procedure would be most orderly.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is very difficult for one with just an ordinary voice to compete. I will abide by your ruling and stay on the question of the board of grain commissioners.
The board of grain commissioners has been brought under the Department of Agriculture because it is so closely associated with the handling of grain in western Canada. When the Canadian wheat board was put under the Department of Agriculture it was done for the good, solid reason of trying to put under the Department of Agriculture not only the scientific and production efforts of the government but also the marketing efforts of the government concerned with grain.
The board of grain commissioners is part of the marketing efforts of the government. It is the board's responsibility to maintain, not only the standards of grain sold at every grade but also the standards of handling the grain in the elevator and to see that the farmer's interests are protected in connection with the grading of wheat and every other type of grain operation in the country elevator system.
The reputation of the board of grain commissioners has developed over the years so that today we can go into any market in the world and say we have certain grades to sell and that grade will be accepted as the standard that will be delivered.
This problem of maintaining the standard is not easily held. The question of grading grain is something that has to be seen in order to be understood. I should like to invite every hon. member of the committee, from all parties, to make an effort some time this year to visit the operations of the board of grain commissioners in Winnipeg and see the methods they use in arriving at and maintaining grades at a constant level.
This would enable the rural members particularly to explain to their constituents not

Supp ly-Agriculture
only the protection which is afforded by maintaining these standards but also the high level of excellence which Canadian wheat has reached and which enables the Canadian wheat board to sell it abroad.
The second point I wish to make is that the board of grain commissioners have an important function in the movement of grain out of the country. When I looked into the situation concerning the movement of grain out of west coast ports I found that one of the important operations that went on there was the grading of grain as it went into the ships. I was told we could not increase the movement of grain through the terminal elevators into the ships because the board of grain commissioners had to carry out a certain amount of grading in connection with every bushel put into these ships.
We discussed this matter with the board of grain commissioners and worked out a system whereby if they wanted to load at night or after dark, certain types of daylight lamps could be used in order to maintain the very high standards necessary to guarantee the calibre of our grain to any of our customers. I am glad to have this opportunity to point out this one technical aspect of the work of the board of grain commissioners.
I cannot answer the question of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek. I have read the criticism of the national farmers' union, but I cannot answer the hon. member's question because to date I have done nothing to challenge this statement. I have made inquiries about it. Naturally, no evidence has been submitted to me. I have not seen any evidence in this regard, and I should like to say at this time that if that evidence is submitted to me, and what the hon. member said is correct, I will be glad to look into this matter personally and see that something is done about it. If there is not, I would expect some sort of remedial action on the part of those who made the criticism.


John (Jack) McIntosh: There cannot be any evidence. That is the point I was trying to make.


William Arnold Peters: I am surprised at what the minister had to say but after a while we shall probably lose that sense of surprise and be accustomed to what we hear. I have a comment to make on a matter which was raised earlier. I may be out of order, but the minister has commented on it. I have a statement here by the national farmers' union in which they made a presentation to the Canadian wheat board dated February 1, 1961 and in

this document they point out that the feed mill price as compared with the wheat board-


Mr. Jorgenson:: The hon. member says this was a presentation to the Canadian wheat board. Surely it must be obvious even to him that this is a matter which comes under wheat board jurisdiction.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order it has been said this afternoon I have stated in the past that the feed mill price was 50 cents less than the wheat board's price. This is in answer to an accusation which was made in the committee this afternoon.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: The hon. member knew full well he was out of order, too.


Hazen Robert Argue: We did not make the statement. It was one of your Tory members.


John (Jack) McIntosh: On the point of order, the only part of the brief I wished to deal with was that in which reference was made to the grain commission. The statement is made in that brief that it had disrupted the grading of grain at the feed mills. I, too, should like to have got into the discussion about the wheat board in the same way as did the hon. member for Assiniboia, but in this particular case I bowed to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and referred only to the board of grain commissioners and the charge by the national farmers' union that it had disrupted the grading of grain. That is absolutely ridiculous. It had nothing to do with the grading of grain and they know it and so does the hon. member for Assiniboia.


Jacques Flynn: I must say to the hon. member for Timiskaming that if the part he wants to quote from the document he has does not refer to the board of grain commissioners he will be out of order even though his remarks were intended to be in reply to another hon. member, if the other member was out of order. The hon. member for Timiskaming knows very well that many remarks made this afternoon have been out of order. That is no reason, as I indicated last night, to continue to discuss points which are not relevant.


William Arnold Peters: I am not as familiar with the activities of the wheat board and the board of grain commissioners as are some other members.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: That does not stop you from talking about them.


William Arnold Peters: I told some of these self-styled
agricultural experts yesterday that I saw very few real experts here, and I have not

changed my mind since. Certainly the minister has not given me any reason to change my mind or even to think that he is being advised by experts in this field.
In checking over the publications of the grain commissioners I find there is little with which they do not deal. There are two or three pages of items here and I imagine I could cover almost anything. The subjects cover grain supplies, the crop year, the disposition of marketings, country elevator shipments, terminal handling, eastern elevators, exports, domestic use, licensing and so on. There are a couple of pages of them. We are sometimes out of order, but it seems to me that the field is so wide and that the grain commissioners have done so little, or become so badly confused with the wheat board over the years that there is some similarity between the fields that are to be discussed. If we refer only to the publications we can relate them in that manner, if we wish. I only wanted to draw attention to the correction because I, probably, was the one who raised it a number of weeks ago. I am the one who incorporated the statement that the difference was 50 cents and now that we have the brief I think it can go on to the record.
I wish now to raise another matter and ask the minister why it is that the bread we have in Canada is so poor when we have available to us the best wheat in the world?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Arnold Peters: Oh, this does come under the grain commissioners. I have a whole sheet of documents produced by the board of grain commissioners published in October, 1960, in particular a booklet entitled "Canadian Wheat". It discusses just the subject I have raised. There are several things I should like to ask the minister and one of them refers to descriptions of wheat. Here they equate Canadian wheat with weak wheat and I am curious to know what weak wheat is and what is the relationship between Canadian wheat and weak wheat.


An hon. Member:: You have a weak mind.


William Arnold Peters: I am speaking to a number of people with weak minds and perhaps I shall have to hammer in what I am saying with a tack. The kind of wheat moved for the domestic production of bread presents a growing problem. Everyone knows that we have on the shelves of our stores two or three grades of bread, one kind of bread being produced at a fairly low price in competition with bread of a better grade. Then there is a third type of bread-


Jacques Flynn: Order. The hon. member has indicated that we have the best grain
Supply-Agriculture
here in Canada so there cannot be any responsibility placed on the board of grain commissioners with regard to the quality of the bread.


William Arnold Peters: In my submission that is not altogether true because they refer in this particular bulletin put out by the board of grain commissioners to flour quality and to dough properties. They describe the tests to which the commissioners have subjected the bread, and the grading of the flour used in making bread, and they reached the conclusion that the scales to be used for the measurement of quality should be as follows: No. 1- I am reading from the document-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Jacques Flynn: I must tell the hon. member again that I feel his remarks are out of order even if the document from which he is quoting has been published by the grain commissioners. That is no reason why everything in that book should be relevant. The only matters which are relevant are those which come under the jurisdiction of the board as indicated in section 9 of the Canada Grain Act. Were it otherwise, the hon. member will realize, he could go anywhere by discussing any word printed in the report of the commission.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Could I help the hon. member by suggesting that on this subject I agree with him. I love good bread. But, actually, the responsibility for the quality of bread lies with the Department of Health and Welfare, not the board of grain commissioners.
The other question the hon. member asked is in order. He asked what is weak wheat. I believe it is low protein wheat.


William Arnold Peters: I submit that the question of the quality of bread does relate directly to the domestic production of wheat. Certainly, the board of grain commissioners has set up standards for grain. They have graded it No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, No. 4 and so on, for the domestic production of bread and it is my opinion that if they take the trouble to send out these bulletins regarding the methods of their inspection they must have given some consideration to this matter. I am not referring to the fact that bread being produced in some of the commercial establishments might contain formaldehyde to keep it from going stale. This would of course come under the health department. 1 am referring to the fact that it may be a result of the method of our domestic grain production, and I would humbly submit that I am in order in discussing that to this extent.

Supply-Agriculture


Jacques Flynn: I have indicated my view and I do not leel that I should change it. The hon. gentleman has changed his attitude in suggesting that it may be because the grade of grain is not as good as he thought before.


William Arnold Peters: I would not like to leave that as the conclusion. I have not as yet ascertained why the bread is not as good as it is supposed to be.
I would like to refer to another matter which concerns the people in my area and has been controversial for some time. I refer to the matter of screenings and this, of course, comes within the jurisdiction of the board of grain commissioners. Regulation No. 7 of that board gives the grades of screenings and indicates the composition of screenings. This regulation indicates that screenings must contain over 3 per cent and up to 5 per cent dust, chaff and wheat seeds. The complaint I have received is that individuals purchasing screenings for feed find that the major part of the cereal contained in the screenings is not dust or wheat but is buckwheat. There is a further regulation limiting the amount of buckwheat that screenings can contain in order to be in that classification. I wonder if the grading of these screenings can be made more effective or if there is a factual inspection taking place by the grain commissioners in the field in which they have control before they reach the feed companies who sell to the farmer. I would like to ask the minister if the screenings are inspected by the grain commissioner after they leave the jurisdiction of the pool elevators or grain companies. I would suggest that if the screenings are purchased in bulk the responsibility for the grade stamped on the bags would be that of the department, but in many instances would be some distance removed from the active control of the grain commissioner.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In answer to the hon. member's question I might say that under the regulations it is very clear what the percentages in the mixture can be, but so far as the board of grain commissioners is concerned, it is merely responsible for guaranteeing that the grade stamped on the sack is the same as that which is contained inside. I might say that if screenings are misrepresented we can take action under the Feeding Stuffs Act but, as I have said, the board of grain commisioners, under its regulations, is only responsible for guaranteeing that the screenings are actually as stamped on the sack.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

32. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $3,000.
Hazen Robert Argue: I am not certain that I am in order in respect of what I am going to say but I would like the minister to comment regarding this item. I understand this item has reference to the proposal to build an agricultural administration building situated at the experimental farm. There has been a good deal of discussion in the house regarding the government's policy in respect of construction of buildings on the experimental farm and I think it has been accepted-at least it was by the minister's predecessor and by former ministers of the Department of Agriculture, particularly the Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner-that the central experimental farm should not be encroached upon by the construction of buildings because of the fact that it is considered to be a valuable piece of property with historical records built up over many decades. It was felt that any reversion or change of this land to some other use would destroy the continuity of these records, and that the experimental farm should remain intact at its present location.
I think the present minister has been modifying the policy as set out by his predecessor. He appears to be on record as in favour of the construction of an administrative building at the location of the central experimental farm but I would express the hope that such a building will not be constructed at that location, and that the farm situated at this very strategic and valuable location will not be sacrificed to commercial interests, so that the valuable records will be maintained.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This vote
refers to the terminal elevators owned by the board of grain commissioners at Prince Rupert, Edmonton, Moose Jaw, Saskatoon and so on, and has nothing to do with the building of an agricultural administrative building at all.


William Arnold Peters: Could I ask the minister if there is any intention this year of extending the facilities of the elevator at Prince Rupert?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There is nothing included in this vote in that regard. This has regard to necessary repairs to existing equipment.


William Arnold Peters: The minister will recall that the hon. member for Skeena has raised this question on several occasions this year and has pointed out that the problem existing on the west coast could be greatly relieved if the facilities at Prince Rupert-I understand that is the shipping point closest to the

Orient-were increased, and considerable benefit would accrue to western shipping facilities.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There was a previous vote carried for expansion to docks and wharves so as to take full advantage of the capacities at Prince Rupert. We will be using the Prince Rupert facilities to full capacity this calendar year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Land rehabilitation, irrigation and water storage projects-
Irrigation and water storage projects in the western provinces including the South Saskatchewan river project; the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act program; land protection, reclamation and development-
33. Administration, operation and maintenance, $7,843,075.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This item has reference to the administration of land rehabilitation, irrigation and water storage projects. In this connection I would like to ask the minister a question but will preface it with a little information. In British Columbia only 3 per cent of the total area is suitable for agricultural purposes. Last year there was $125 million worth of agricultural products imported. That includes a great volume of importation from the United States.
The fruit and vegetable growers in the interior of British Columbia are very concerned over the possibility that the storage of water in the Arrow lakes, as a result of the building of the high Arrow dam, will make it possible to irrigate hundreds of thousands of acres in the United States at low cost. They have expressed their fears to the minister of agriculture in Victoria, and he recognizes the danger. He is reported as promising the legislature that when he attends the dominion-provincial agricultural conference he will ask the federal government to consider raising the tariffs on fruit and vegetables to protect Canadian farm producers against the damage that will be occasioned by storage of water behind the high Arrow dam. Has the minister had any communication with the minister of agriculture in British Columbia in this connection? This is of great concern to the producers in the Okanagan and in the Kootenays.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I cannot recall any letter, but I am informed there will be a meeting between the federal government and the various provincial governments later on this month on agricultural services and maybe the minister of agriculture for British Columbia refers to that meeting.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to say I think it is a most absurd situation for Canadians to be
Supply-Agriculture
providing the money to flood out thousands of acres of good land in British Columbia when we have a market in British Columbia, and then find it necessary to impose a tariff against United States fruits and vegetables which will raise the living costs of all consumers. I do hope that the minister will give this question some consideration when it is brought to the attention of the dominion-provincial agricultural conference because it is of great concern to producers. This water will be used to irrigate thousands of acres in the United States. Here is a suggestion by the minister of agriculture in British Columbia-I am a free trader in principle- that we should raise the tariff, and in so doing increase the cost of living of all Canadians, to pay for the damage occasioned by the action of the federal and provincial governments.
(Translation):


Mr. Deschatelets:: Mr. Chairman, this item refers to the draining and development of lands. It would have been more appropriate perhaps that I speak on item 5, but I believe that my remarks are relevant to the item under discussion. At all events, I shall be brief.
This problem causes concern to millions of Canadians who suffer in many areas of our country from the curse of mosquitoes and black flies.
I should like to know, since we are dealing with land development, what is being done at present to control this scourge. We are appropriating today a great deal of money for access roads to forests for picnic grounds and for the development of tourist facilities, but during a great part of the summer, millions of Canadians are unable to fully enjoy our lakes and forests, precisely because they are infested with black flies and mosquitoes.
There is also an economic aspect related to this question. It will be remembered that an important film-producing company came to the Laurentians a few years ago to shoot a film and lost money on account of these very mosquitoes because the shooting could not be done according to schedule. When they left, the company officials stated that they would know better next time.
This is not only a question of the welfare of Canadians; we must also consider this economic aspect, which has its importance. I understand that certain marshes, certain waters, have begun to be disinfected with chemical compounds these last few years. I think it is being done around the city of Ottawa.

Supply-Agriculture
I would therefore like to know from the Minister of Agriculture-
(Text):


Jacques Flynn: Order. I have strong doubts about the relevancy of the comments of the hon. member not only to the item under consideration but to the Department of Agriculture. Unless the minister says it comes within his responsibility I am afraid I will have to intervene.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, this is a matter which I am sure concerns the Department of Agriculture.
At any rate, I now close my remarks by asking the minister whether this year we are spending or expect to spend any money on the treatment of swamps and lakes to prevent the swarming of mosquitoes, not only to attract a growing number of tourists but for the welfare of all Canadians who wish to enjoy our beautiful scenery.
I would like to have the minister say a few words on that subject.
(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think your suspicions were correct, Mr. Chairman. This particular vote deals with the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. I have inquired from my advisers and they do not know of any spraying operations with respect to sloughs or water courses out there to exterminate mosquitoes. Sometimes they may light bonfires and create a lot of smoke to drive down wind, and I can imagine that may be done under this act in some of the pastures at night, but I would not know for certain.
I am sorry about the hon. member's position on this point because he knows of my interest in it; he knows it is the type of thing I have been thinking about under the so-called A.R.D.A. program, but it does not come under these votes at the present time.


Edwin William Brunsden: I should like to say a few words on item 33. Those of us who live in the prairie region of western Canada, who, by reason of the Easter recess had opportunity to pay one of our very infrequent trips to our own areas, came back to Ottawa with some grim forebodings.


Chesley William Carter: I did not think the hon. member would admit it, though.


Edwin William Brunsden: I am not speaking politically. Let me say that if these hon. gentlemen in the opposition would occasionally, even very occasionally, shelve their politics and deal with the actualities of the problems in Canada, this house would gain in dignity

and they would render a great service to their own constituencies and to the country at large.
We came back to Ottawa with some forebodings. Those forebodings were engendered by the spectre of drought in western Canada. Up to about four years ago we had 10 years of better than average precipitation. We had no real water worries and yet for the last four years, in each year there has been less and less precipitation, and we find ourselves this spring in a position with no reserves of moisture and a very dark outlook with respect to the forthcoming crop, and, what may prove even worse a real problem with respect to grass.
As you well know, sir, we live in what has been described as the Palliser triangle. More than 100 years ago Palliser recommended that this particular area should never see the plow. Unfortunately, in the enthusiasm of settlement, it saw a good many plows and we cultivated areas which should have remained under grass. There is promise under this government's legislation of placing those areas back under grass. I for one heartily commend the minister in his endeavour to develop a long range program which will bring back to western Canada its own natural advantages. At the moment the great question in the minds of those of us who come from my area is this: Are we going back to the dustbowl conditions of the 30's? Are we going back to the policy-and I am not criticizing that policy-where, under government supervision, we were forced to sell our cattle for what we could get? In the 30's, the price was three cents a pound. We sold thousands of head in order to save them from starvation.
Since the war years we have built a tremendous cattle industry in western Canada. Let me say that this industry has been the bulwark of agriculture in much of western Canada. We talk a lot about wheat but cattle have been the prop under which agriculture has rested in western Canada, especially in so far as the semi-arid regions are concerned. I, for one, am greatly concerned as to what may happen to this industry if dustbowl conditions return and we have insufficient grass and water to carry our cattle through this season.
Let me say very briefly that our water supply is generated on the eastern slopes of the Rockies. The snowfall in recent years in that area has been very light, and it was very light again this year. Our rivers and streams are very low, and there is no indication of improvement unless there are heavy rains within the next two months. After that, it may be too late.

This is all a prelude, Mr. Chairman, to urging upon the minister the necessity for an immediate, dynamic program of water conservation. Again I congratulate him for what he has done. He has been in consultation with men resident in my area and in other adjacent areas. He has met many of the officers of the Western Canada Reclamation Association who long have been and are seized with the importance of this problem. I am quite sure he will make it a point to accept their advice and be guided, at least to a large extent, by their opinions.
This item also deals with further work on the South Saskatchewan river development. I have spoken on this subject before. It is a three-way development. It promises power, it promises a domestic water supply for the cities and towns, and it promises irrigation. Now, we in Alberta are not jealous of Saskatchewan in so far as the South Saskatchewan dam is concerned. However, we do urge that in the dispersal of federal funds, further consideration be given to the already existing irrigation districts in Alberta. My reason for advancing this suggestion is that most of these districts were developed by private corporations. My own district, the eastern irrigation district, was developed by the Canadian Pacific, as were others. The Canadian Pacific found it expensive to maintain. Finally, they went to the farmers in the district and said, "This load is too heavy for us; you take it over and we will give it to you. We will also give you $300,000 as an operating fund and you carry on from there." I am very proud of the manner in which our men have continued that operation. I have had the privilege of managing the district for a few years. Certainly, the farmers have made good.
A stage has been reached in this irrigation project where the main structure, the Bassano dam, is now beginning to go. This is one of the best dams in the world, but it is now 50 years old. There are many other structures, such as the aqueduct at Brooks-which many hon. members may have seen from the train- which is beginning to go. The people of the district and the province of Alberta have not the financial capacity to replace these structures. Last year the minister was very generous in connection with the construction of one project in which we were very interested. The government was very generous. Let me record the thanks to him of the people concerned for that help. Let me say to him that if we are to preserve our existing irrigation districts, we shall require further help. I ask him to see that we get it.


Chesley William Carter: I merely wanted to ask the minister if bog clearing is covered by this
Supply-Agriculture
land rehabilitation program. There is a considerable amount of bog clearing carried out in my riding, and this land has been successfully turned into grassland. I should like to know whether or not it would be possible to have financial assistance given under this item to this bog clearing program?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, strange as it may seem, this vote does contain a small item for a special grant to Newfoundland which covers the subject raised by the hon. member.
I wonder whether, in the absence of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, one of the members of the opposition would convey to him the answer to a question he asked the other day during the consideration of item 1? He asked for a report on the progress of the Fairford works in Manitoba. These works are part and parcel of the overall drainage program of the Manitoba government. The Department of Agriculture, through the agency of the P.F.R.A., has entered into a joint agreement to pay half the costs of the Fairford works as its part of the total drainage scheme. The hon. member asked for a report on the progress of the work. I am told that as of March 14 the control works, which are the main part of the project, were 90 per cent complete. The expected date of completion of the control works is April 15, 1961. The downstream excavation part, which is a follow-up to make certain that the control works effluent gets away easily, will be postponed to this fall. The expected date of completion of the downstream excavation now is December 15, 1961.
I think the bon. member will be interested in knowing, since he originally came from that area, that these works will increase the flow out of lake Manitoba by five times the flow provided by nature.


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: This item, which includes land rehabilitation works and water storage projects, is of vital importance to the area which I represent. My constituency includes one of the fertile valleys of southern Manitoba, rich in soil but short on water supplies. I hope that this program of building small dams under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act will be continued. I should like to have the assurance of the minister that there will be no cut-back in this particular program at this time.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I should like to discuss very briefly-


George Robson Muir: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, but I should like the minister to reassure the committee that there will be no cutback in the program of building agriculture dams and irrigation projects under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.

Supply-Agriculture


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, the exact opposite is the case. I cannot say there have been new records created but in the calendar year 1960 over 4,000 farm dug-outs were completed. We expect to equal that number or exceed it this year. We are working more in co-operation with the provinces, on a 50-50 basis. Incidentally, rehabilitation never ends in any part of Canada and this statement applies particularly to the prairies.
(Translation):


Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton). Can he tell us how much has been spent so far on the construction of the dam on the South Saskatchewan? Can he also tell us what will be the total cost of this project, and give us some indication of the date of completion of this project? (Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will read the figures: 1958-59, $1,200,000; 1959-60, $5,700,000; 1960-61,	$11 million; 1961-62, estimated,
$13,750,000. The grand total is $31,050,000 if my arithmetic is correct. The expected time of completion of the dam, if everything goes well, is the end of the calendar year 1965. The total estimated cost of the dam is $96 million.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could tell us whether plans are being made to reclaim the land along the Saskatchewan river. It is said that the dam will restore to agriculture 500,000 acres of land in the province, and I should like to know if something is being done to develop this land.
(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Under the
agreement signed between the federal government and the provincial government of Saskatchewan, the province is obligated by the time of the completion of the physical work of the dam to have provided 50,000 acres for irrigation. The province of Saskatchewan is busy now making these arrangements to make a minimum amount of irrigated land available for farming at the first year the dam is completed.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I wish to discuss very briefly the problem of community pastures which comes under this agency known as P.F.R.A. First I wish to register a strong objection to the increase in fees for cattle entry into these pastures. I have written to the minister and have discussed this matter with him. I took his information back to my constituency during the Easter recess and I find that some of the information I received from him is not correct. This is not the first time that it seems

to me the policy of P.F.R.A. down in Ottawa differed from the policy implemented by the officials on the ground. The minister knows of several occasions to which I refer.
The minister's answer to me on the raising of the fees was that these community pastures had to pay their way. I do not think there would be any objection to that. However, in one community pasture in which I have a great interest I have been informed that last year there was a net profit of some $19,000. It would seem to me unreasonable that those people should be penalized because other pastures were not operated in as efficient a manner. I would suggest to the minister that possibly he should look into the problem of pasture management before he increases these fees. Where one pasture may make a net profit of $19,000, it would seem to me there was mismanagement in some of the others.
As to another pasture with which I had dealings during the Easter recess, I gave those concerned the minister's explanation and asked them whether they went into the operating account or the operating expenses of the pasture. They said yes, that they had gone into it with the officials of the P.F.R.A. and there was one item, namely the construction of a house amounting to some $4,000, which was in the operating expenses. They knew-as well as the minister knows and as well as the official knew- that the building of a house is not an operating expense but is a capital expenditure and that it should be treated as such. If that is the way in which these books are kept, I am concerned. I understand that the answer received from the official of the P.F.R.A. as to why that item was put in there was this. The officials said it was as a result of faulty bookkeeping of the federal government. Is that the type of people we have representing this department out on the prairies?
Another phase of the community pasture which I should like to bring to the attention of the minister at the present time is that of regrassing. According to the minister's policy down here and according to the letters which I have received from him this regrassing program apparently is supposed to be a continuing operation. The officials on the ground out there disagree with him. They say that the regrassing program has been abandoned, that it is out. Who am I to believe?
I would suggest that this P.F.R.A. agency, like some of the other agencies under this department, are not sure of their policy. 1 would suggest that we should start right from the top. -To prove what I mean by saying they are not sure, may I say this. We have a great deal of discussion on the wheat board which is an agency of this

department. In 1959 in the standing committee on agriculture we asked the chairman of the Canadian wheat board what the policy was with regard to permit books. After many lengthy questions and supposed answers he said this, and I will read from the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee at page 236. First of all I will read the previous question:


John (Jack) McIntosh: I want a definite statement from the wheat board as to who is or who is not entitled to a permit book. You say if he is producing grain and can prove that he owns his own land, then he is entitled to a permit book.


Mr. McNamara:: I do not think Mr. Riddel said exactly that. If he owns his own land, is binning the grain he produced off that land, separately, and is merchandising it in his own name.


John (Jack) McIntosh: What do you mean by merchandising in his own name?


William Craig McNamara: Selling to an elevator company.
That was the policy of the wheat board. Everybody in western Canada knows that you cannot sell to an elevator company unless you have a permit book. Where is the policy in that matter?
I say the same situation exists under the P.F.R.A. I say that they have not a policy. Since this South Saskatchewan dam has been worked on, I contend that the P.F.R.A. administration have spent most of their time on that dam and have forgotten the rest of their program out there. I think it is time that the minister revamped that whole agency out there. I think that he should take another look at this question of community pastures, the mismanagement in these community pastures and the increase in the fees to these community pastures. I might say that since we came into power these fees have been increased 100 per cent and I say that, politically speaking, I do not like it.


Jacques Flynn: Shall vote 33 carry?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think I
should like to have a chance to answer some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek. I think the hon. member should be congratulated on showing such an active interest in his constituency. However, I have to tell hon. members occasionally that the operations of the department cover more than one constituency.
I should like to speak about the question of fees to the pastures. No person would like more than myself to keep these fees down. On the representations of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek and other western farmers I looked at the proposed increase of fees when I took over the portfolio and I looked at the estimates. These fees were reduced. Originally they were three cents on each head. The fee was raised to
Supply-Agriculture
four cents under the proposed plan. I had it re-examined and had every figure cut out that was not part and parcel of the operation. The very best that I could do was three and a half cents.
Where the hon. member goes wrong is that he takes an individual pasture which shows a profit and tries to say that the fee should be at cost for that pasture. Actually we have to look at all community pastures as a group. I know this. If I am going to get double the amount of pasture built in western Canada in the next two or three years, as I hope to do, when I go before treasury board I want the figures to prove that community pastures are paying their own way. This amount of three and a half cents per head for cattle, which are the main users of the pasture, is the minimum to which I can get the fee down. If it shows a profit, I will certainly cut it down again. I say that the hon. members has made progress in his representations to me. He obtained a 50 per cent reduction in the increase, at least. Let us try it for a year and see how it works out.
As to the question of the house, may I say that a house should certainly not be in any operating item. If it was a mistake, I hope it will not happen again. I must take responsibility if it does happen. I will accept that responsibility as minister if mistakes are made and will take the necessary action to see that they do not happen again.
On the question of regrassing, may I say that the situation is similar to that with regard to the payment of fees. Generally speaking, the policy of the department in the community pastures is to maintain a continuing policy of regrassing. We have to work on the advice of experts who go in and look at individual pastures. In some cases they occasionally recommend that the pastures be left in native grasses and not reseeded, or left in the same type of grasses which are growing.
Every year there is a vote for regrassing, and generally speaking this policy is followed. However, if the experts recommend that on certain pastures there should be no reseeding, it is not proceeded with. I think that on the whole this is a sound way of handling it.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, the minister said that the hon. member, meaning myself, went wrong. I think I should have an opportunity to refute that statement. I submit that I did not go wrong. I think the minister is the one who has gone wrong in this connection, because he said there should be an over-all policy for all pastures and they should be treated the same.

Supp ly-A griculture
I suggest that you cannot treat a pasture in an irrigated area in the same way that you treat a pasture in a dry farm area. They must be treated differently. I could say more on this subject if required.
The minister has said that he takes his advice from experts. The minister and his officials take the advice of experts if they want to. In regard to community pastures the advice of Mr. Baden Campbell of the Swift Current experimental farm was to regrass a certain pasture to which he referred. The officials of the Department of Agriculture said no, and they did not take his advice at that time. However, they took his advice in connection with extending the admittance period from April 1 to May 1. They had advice from the experimental farm but they used it just when they wanted to.
The minister and his officials sit here and are not aware of conditions in this respect. I suggest that some of the officials should go out on the ground and see things as we members see them, and then they would understand our problem.


Mr. Regnier:: I should just like to commend the minister and the department for the active manner in which water storage projects have been constructed. In my riding we expect this vote to cover two major projects on the La Salle river, namely at Starbuck and at the town of La Salle. These projects are continuing in co-operation with the province of Manitoba and the farmers all along the La Salle river will benefit .greatly. I wish to express my satisfaction with the manner in which the department is handling this matter.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, some time ago I raised the matter that other parts of Canada would like to take advantage of programs such as community pastures and benefits which are received from prairie farm assistance.
The minister said recently that you have to do the same thing for one as you do for another. I wonder what the policy is in connection with extending this type of development of community pastures and other assistance into other parts of Canada, to allow these farmers to take advantage of these benefits.
In my particular area community pastures would be a real asset. It is an area in which the federal government, either through grants of land from the municipalities or in any other way designated by the minister, could establish a community pasture program similar to that enjoyed by western farmers. We have the land available and the assembling of it would not be too difficult. I see no reason why we in northern Ontario should

not take advantage of community pastures, which is one of the benefits enjoyed by western farmers.
The western farmers have had experience in this regard. There are probably differences of opinion regarding specific pastures, but I think hon. members would be quite happy to extend this particular section of the act to cover farmers in areas similar to my own in order that they may benefit from the act.
Unfortunately many of the things under this item apply only to the prairies, and many of the farmers in other parts of Canada are not aware of the fact that community pastures and other benefits have been established. I am quite sure they would also like to be in a position to take advantage of the benefits that would accrue from the extension of this assistance, and I refer in particular to community pastures.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have just a short answer, Mr. Chairman. I hope the hon. member will support me on the A.R.D.A. program. This is one type of agreement which we hope to make with provinces other than Manitoba and Saskatchewan, which are covered by community pastures at the present time.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. I have been approached by some people concerned with well drilling operations in Saskatchewan and I wonder whether the minister would give consideration to providing some assistance to deep well construction projects.
At the present time there is assistance in some provinces for dug-outs which are successful in holding water. In other cases deep wells have to be dug. I wonder whether some assistance could be given along this line.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This matter has been before the government on several occasions during the past 20 years. The position at the present time is that we know so little about water tables that we are embarking upon a rather hazardous type of venture. Ever since the farmers opened up the prairies at the turn of the century it has been appreciated how much the law of luck concerning water supply enters into digging wells. Therefore the department has been a little hesitant about going into this type of operation.
1 would inform the hon. member that in the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys a program was started two years ago to carry out studies of ground water tables and water supplies in western Canada. I cannot say how far that work has gone or how much ground has been covered, but I

think we will know a great deal more about digging wells after that work has been completed by this department.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, there are one or two brief items I should like to raise at this time. One has to do with certain conditions on the South Saskatchewan river project.
I should first of all like to raise the question of wage rates being paid along the project. In particular I should like to raise the question of the wage rates being paid to carpenters, because I have received a quite substantial communication on this matter.
I am informed that some time late last fall the carpenters' rate was boosted from $1.80 to $1.95 per hour and that this went some distance towards meeting the criticism that wages being paid on the South Saskatchewan river project generally were not in keeping with those being paid for comparable work in such places as Saskatoon, Moose Jaw, Swift Current, Prince Albert, the Squaw rapids project, and so on.
However, it has been pointed out in the correspondence that has been brought to my attention that in spite of this increase there is still a substantial difference between the wages paid to carpenters on the project and wages in these various localities. I am informed that at Saskatoon and Moose Jaw the wage is $2.25 an hour; at Swift Current it is $2.05 an hour; at Prince Albert it is $2.05 an hour and at Squaw rapids it is $2.05 an hour.
It is pointed out that the Squaw rapids project is about the same distance from Prince Albert as the Saskatchewan river project is from the city of Swift Current, and that the rate paid in the city of Swift Current is ten cents an hour higher than the rate paid on the dam. I am also informed that the rate paid is 30 cents an hour below the closest centres, namely Moose Jaw and Saskatoon. I would ask the minister, if he has any information to give on this point, to inform the committee whether the Department of Labour has laid down any rule or given the minister any advice which might lead to an improvement in the rates paid to carpenters on the project so that wages may he brought more closely into line with wages paid to carpenters in the various centres to which I have referred.
I have also received some correspondence, as have other members-I believe the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar raised this matter in the house at one time-having to do with health conditions at the South Saskatchewan river project. It has been pointed out in the correspondence which has been
Supp ly-A gr iculture
sent to me that health conditions on the project leave a great deal to be desired. The position has been referred to the Department of National Health and Welfare which undoubtedly has an interest in this field, but since these conditions prevail in camps operated by companies which have contracts for the construction of this project I should think the Minister of Agriculture is actually the man who would have the greater influence and that in the future he could exercise some authority to see that camp conditions are improved. It has been pointed out that the employees pay $2.50 a day for room and board, or $75 per month, and that for this sum they should be entitled to expect a reasonable standard of food and shelter. The letter which has come to me was sent out under the signature of Joseph A. Thain, international representative of the union of operating engineers and it calls for a full investigation into such matters as the condition of the bunk houses and bedding, the immediate removal of the Ingram camp, there being no water in that area; insufficient seating accommodation, no cloak room at the entrance to dining room, inadequate food service, cold food, the insufficiency of the cooking area, the very low standard of meals, the breakdown in the water and lighting systems and the lack of facilities for those who carry lunch, as a result of which they are obliged to eat in washrooms.
Since such conditions are abhorrent, and I am sure the minister would be most anxious to improve them, I should like to know what progress has been made in redressing these grievances and whether there has been any supervision undertaken by the Department of Agriculture or by the Department of National Health and Welfare. As I say, I think the Minister of Agriculture is in a place of authority to see that these conditions are improved. Perhaps he would tell the committee what precautions are being taken to make sure that healthy conditions are maintained for the men in the camps in the years ahead.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I wish to thank the hon. member for having brought this matter to the attention of the committee because it gives us in the department a chance to state what has been done. To deal, first with the question of health conditions, complaints did come in to us and these were transferred to the Department of National Health and Welfare. An inspector did find, tn particular, one subcontractor at whose camp conditions were very much like those which the hon. member described. We understand that this situation was corrected and the inspectors of the Department of National

Supply-Agriculture
Health and Welfare are now making periodic inspections. I think that, generally speaking, the main contractors do provide a high level of health conditions for their workers. The odd subcontractor might, as in this case, not have provided them. Now that the inspectors are going around regularly I think conditions will improve.
With regard to wages, there was considerable quarrelling going on in the first year or so with regard to the differential between the wage rates in Saskatoon and elsewhere. An adjustment was made not very long ago and since that time, as I understand, no complaints have been sent to us in Ottawa on this question of wage rate differentials. I may say in passing that the technique used on any of these projects is to establish a wage rate for the area; you do not take the wage rate in Swift Current, or Regina or Saskatoon as the basis. The impact effect is always changing, of course, and the figures are revised from time to time. As I understand it now, using the name of the person to whom the hon. member has referred, there have been no serious complaints for some time and I gather that the situation is fairly satisfactory.


Mr. Rapp:: I should like to express thanks to the Minister of Agriculture for having given orders through the P.F.R.A. to build an irrigation and water storage project for the Muenster college in Muenster, Saskatchewan. Muenster college is owned and operated by the St. Benedict order. We were finally able to see this irrigation work undertaken last year. It was very important because the Muenster college operates a big farm and has many livestock on the farm. During dry years they are very short of water and the project is of great benefit to this college.


Mr. Cooper:: I should like to comment on water projects as they affect the constituency of Rosetown-Biggar in central Saskatchewan. First, the policy of water conservation with dugouts and dams has made a big improvement in Saskatchewan. As a young man I went west. I started farming in 1919 at 19 years of age. The first two crops were failures. We had the best of land, but drought caused two crop failures in succession. I did not get out of debt until 1923 and we had a few wet years.
We have wonderful land. A lot of it should not have been broken up, I admit. We have a long growing season and freedom from frost. But our worry was drought. Starting farming at the age I did, the thought uppermost in my mind was water conservation. When you see the fields all flooded in spring you cannot help regretting that the water will all run off into the river and eventually into lake Winnipeg. This conservation program of dams

and dugouts has improved our pasture land for stock and irrigation projects.
Speaking of the Saskatchewan river dam, I was down there last week. In fact, they wrote to me regarding conditions at that time. First, I visited the P.F.R.A. camp. If there is in Ottawa or elsewhere a cleaner and better place to eat than the P.F.R.A. camp I should like to see it. I had many meals there. The floors are polished every day. The P.F.R.A. staff are living two men to a room, some of them with bath and toilet facilities. I went from there to the Kewitt, Johnson and Poole camp. That is where I had my dinner that day. The kitchen and dining rooms were clean. There was a choice of T-bone steak with mushrooms or hamburger steaks with onions. They invited me in to see their bedrooms. The bedrooms were clean. I would not mind sleeping in any room that I went through that day.
I went through Pigott's contruction camp on the other side of the river and have had meals there. I do a lot of visiting in that area and accept meals whenever I can. The meals I received at the Pigott camp on the west side of the river were very wholesome. I was informed that the only thing the men were required to do was keep their rooms clean. I was asked to look at the rooms to see whether they were dirty, and must say that some did have dirt on the floors but others were cleaned up and had pin-up girls on the walls and I thought were very nice places to stay.
There was some complaint about a year ago in regard to wages paid at these camps. I made an investigation in this regard and found that labourers building the camps were paid at the rate of $1.25 per hour. Individuals working on bridge construction as labourers received $1.45 per hour, and steam engineers firing the boilers received $1.90 an hour. At Smith Brothers-Wilson Camp carpenters were receiving $1.90 per hour plus $100 per month maintenance allowance while away from home. There were 15 farm boys from the town of Hawarden working there receiving $1.75 an hour driving nails. They were not required to handle a saw because everything was pre-cut before it arrived at the job. I may say that the officers of the Kewitt, Johnson and Poole camp received a letter of apology from Mr. Joe Thain after this investigation.
I do not want to prolong this discussion and feel I have explained as much as I can at this time. This work is progressing favourably. There were 500 men employed over the winter and it is expected that from 1,500 to
2,000	will be employed during the coming summer. Winter work on the diversion tunnels continued all winter. I went into

the first tunnel and found that the 25-foot hole has been extended 600 feet with the ring beams and cement. As I say, the work is progressing rapidly and on schedule, and it is expected that the job will be completed in 1965.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
35. Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act including authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the share of the province of Nova Scotia of the cost of the Annapolis river Aboiteau-Causeway project, $1,034,873.
Mr. Creaghan:: In regard to this vote I might say that slightly in excess of $1 million will be spent in eastern New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. The maritime marshland rehabilitation federal agency is designed to provide assistance to these three provinces for the development of tidal marshlands. The estimate this year is about $600,000 less than last year, and this reduction is primarily brought about because of the fact that the Tantramar river dam is just about completed. This dam is located entirely in my riding and is one of the first major projects approved by the federal government in Westmorland since my election to parliament. This dam was first requested in 1949 and an order in council in 1950 authorized a Toronto firm to do the survey.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the present Minister of National Defence for his wonderful co-operation in 1958, 1959 and 1960 and the present Minister of Agriculture for his continued co-operation. The staff of M.M.R.A. consists of well-trained engineers and experts in causeway construction. As a result of their experience and training the province of New Brunswick, in March 1960, requested the federal government to permit the use of their facilities and experts to design a causeway known as the Peticodiac river causeway. The federal engineers working on this program submitted an interim report which was made public during the month of November last at which time it was indicated that a final report on feasibility would be completed by March 31, 1961.
During the Easter recess I made inquiries at Amherst, Nova Scotia, and was advised that the final report was posted on Friday last to the Department of Public Works at Fredericton, New Brunswick, and to the appropriate officials in Ottawa. I would appreciate if the minister would indicate at this time if he has received a report regarding this study known as the Petitcodiac river causeway.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In answer to the hon. member's question, I might say that
Supp ly-A griculture
the report has been studied by the department and I believe a letter is now in the mail submitting that report to the New Brunswick provincial government.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special-
36. Prairie Farm Assistance Act-administration, $690,483.
(Translation):
Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, in connection with this item 36, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, arising out of a statement he made recently to the effect that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act would be extended to the whole of Canada. Would he like to comment on that?
(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The Prairie Farm Assistance Act applies only to the prairie areas. The statement I made some months ago was that the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act should be applied to Canada as a whole because it is concerned with the rehabilitation of water and soil resources. I feel a similar type of act should be provided for the whole of Canada.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I would like to suggest to the minister that the regulations of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act should be considered at the present time because they have not been revised since 1958. I would suggest that payment should now be made on an individual basis rather than on a block basis. I feel some consideration should be given to the areas where ranching is carried out regarding fodder being considered as equivalent to grain because there is a certain amount of bad feeling in areas where ranching and farming is done side by side.
The situation now is such that a farming area adjoining ranch land is not entitled to payment but the rancher who does not sell his grain but cuts it for fodder to feed cattle receives revenue from the sale of the cattle and also payments under prairie farm assistance. I think those ranchers themselves feel that this is unfair and that if this situation were rectified the feeling which now exists in these areas would be eliminated.


Erhart Regier: I would like to ask the minister in respect of this vote how many and what are the areas where contribution is paid but where no advantage has been taken of the benefits under this scheme.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There are about
7,000	townships in western Canada which are covered by the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. There are a few townships which have never received any payments under this act. I think most of them are in Manitoba though there

Supp ly-A gr {culture
may be one or two in Saskatchewan. The parliamentary secretary informs me that Ked River has a few townships which have never had a payment.


Erhart Regier: I notice the minister said there are a few townships of the 7,000 which have never received any benefits. Can he give us any specific figures of how many townships have never yet qualified for any benefits?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I asked this question of the head of P.F.A.A. a week or 10 days ago and his answer was, "Just a few". I think by "a few" he would mean probably less than a dozen of the 7,000. I can get a breakdown of them if the hon. member would give us time to go through all the figures and round them up. It will take some time to check over how many times they received assistance. It would be much easier to give the numbers that have received it many times because we have that tabulation now.


Erhart Regier: I believe the minister is a little optimistic or maybe pessimistic, depending on how you look at it. He says there are only a few which have never been eligible to claim any benefits. Has any consideration ever been given to exempting areas of the prairies from paying their levy because, owing to the elements of nature, they ought not to be included since they are not in any risk area whatsoever?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I can only inform the hon. member that ever since the scheme started the people who have not received as much money out of the scheme as they put in have complained continually, but they have not been allowed to withdraw.


Hazen Robert Argue: They never wanted to.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, I am afraid they have asked on many occasions to get out or to have the payments increased or something along that line. I think the hon. member will find that many have asked to be let out but they have not been allowed to get out because it is a rule that is applied to all farmers, and they stick to it.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I think the Prairie Farm Assistance Act has been one of the best acts on the statute books of this country. It is something that should be maintained and improved. I agree with the remarks made a few moments ago by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek who pointed out that payments should be made on an individual basis. Some of us, including the Prime Minister himself, over many years have been campaigning for this kind of change in the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. We think other changes should be

made, especially in the maximum payments for various categories of yield. The payments that may be obtained under the act at the present time are too low and bear no reasonable relationship whatsoever to the cost of production. The government should consider a substantial increase in the payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. With crop production costs as they are at the present time, I think a very powerful argument could be made for doubling the payments under this act. That would be a very-I do not like to use this word-"conservative" payment; it would be a very low payment and in no way adequate to meet the farmers' cost of production. Of course, it would be a very substantial improvement over the payments which are being made today.
The government has another scheme which is closely related to this scheme, namely the crop insurance provision. We have had some very critical things to say about the crop insurance scheme. In so far as Saskatchewan is concerned it just is not worth while. Forty thousand farmers were circulated and 200 signed up for the insurance. It is agreed that it is merely an experimental method of gathering some information on the operations of a crop insurance scheme. The federal payment into the scheme is 20 per cent of the likely or the projected future premiums and half of the administration costs. This is a very tiny part of what might be a liability for the provinces in time of widespread crop failure.
It used to be that crop failure resulted almost exclusively from drought. In spite of the fact that the west is dry today I think drought is much less a menace now than it was 10 years or 20 years ago. Farmers use better production methods; they have better equipment. They are able to handle their soil in a much better way. Many of them operate on a 50 per cent summer fallow basis, so that the risk of drought is very much less today, even with a given quantity of rainfall, than it was some years ago.
Can the minister tell the committee how many farmers have been taken out of prairie farm assistance because of the operation of crop insurance? In other words, how many farmers are under the crop insurance scheme in Manitoba and therefore outside the Prairie Farm Assistance Act? How many in Saskatchewan are likely to be outside the scheme? My information is there are a couple of hundred. What is happening to the crop insurance program in Alberta?


Edwin William Brunsden: Will the hon. member permit a question? He suggests that there should be an increase in the payment under P.F.A.A. Bearing in mind the fact that the contribution from the farmer by way of deduction

of 1 per cent is something less than 50 per cent of the outgo, would he suggest that the levy itself should be increased?


Hazen Robert Argue: I will answer tomorrow; it is now six o'clock.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I wonder
whether we could ask the committee to give consideration to sitting a few moments longer since this is the last vote.


Hazen Robert Argue: No, six o'clock.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Mcllraiih:: I wonder whether the house leader will indicate the business for the days ahead?


Mr. Churchill:: We have to make a slight change in what I announced last night, Mr. Business of the House
Speaker. We will finish agriculture tomorrow, which I presume will not take more than another 10 or 15 minutes, and then go on with the estimates of the post office.
Last night I announced that they would be followed by the estimates of the Department of Public Works, but owing to certain unavoidable matters and absences that will be caused on both sides of the house we have agreed to switch to the Department of Fisheries when the post office has been completed. So that there will be no misunderstanding and as an instance of good co-operation, because of other absences on Friday which affect the estimates of the Department of Fisheries, we have agreed that, despite the progress we may make with the estimates of that department, we will nevertheless keep item No. 1 open for further consideration on some future occasion.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
90205-6-228
[Stage Direction]
Question

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

Mr. Howard: 1.	Have any of the alleged illegal entrants of Chinese origin been offered any amnesty or been provided with any facilities for regularizing their entry to Canada, and, if so, how many such entrants have been affected?
2.	Has the government, or any minister thereof, waived any provisions of the law in so far as the alleged illegal entrants are concerned, and, if so. which particular provisions have been so waived, in how many instances, and by authority of which particular provisions of which statute or regulation?
3.	Have any prosecutions been entered into with respect to the said illegal entry, and, if so, what charges were laid in each case, and what has been the disposition thereof?
Answer by: Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minisier
of Citizenship and Immigration):
1.	The announcement made in the House of Commons on June 9, 1960, stated that "it is not the intention in connection with the current investigation to prosecute or deport from the country any Chinese presently in Canada, who have not themselves engaged in assisting other Chinese apart from their own relatives, to enter Canada illegally".
The announcement affects equally, on the basis of the terms and conditions set out therein, all illegal Chinese entrants to Canada who were in Canada at the time the announcement was made. It is not possible to state the total number involved, since the full number of those who have themselves entered illegally and of those who have helped their own relatives to enter is not yet known.
Facilities have been provided in each of the main immigration offices across Canada to assist individuals who wish to make a full disclosure of the circumstances of their illegal entry into Canada or of the help they have given to other illegal entrants. Special staff members have been trained and assigned for this purpose. Where it is satisfactorily established that full and complete disclosure has been made, each case is then studied to determine what further steps are required to regularize the status of the individual in Canada. In some cases correction of certain information on departmental records may be all that is required. In other cases where an individual has entered under a false identity,
or through use of a Canadian passport obtained by fraud, it may be necessary to recommend that permanent landing be granted by order in council under the individual's true identity. In other cases the individual may have acquired Canadian citizenship under a false identity, and this may have to be corrected.
2.	No provisions of the Immigration Act have been waived. Section 26 of the act provides that the director of immigration shall order an "inquiry" to be held, which may lead to a deportation order being issued, in cases where he has received a written report under section 19, and "where he considers that an inquiry is warranted". Since the announcement in the House of Commons on June 9, 1960, the director has exercised his discretion under section 26, and has not ordered an inquiry to be held in cases which appear to fall within the scope of the announcement.
3.	No prosecutions have been entered with respect to illegal entry, except in cases falling outside the scope of the announcement made in the House of Commons on June 9, 1960.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Board of grain commissioners-
(Canada Grain Act) -
29.	Administration, $166,215.
30.	Inspection and weighing of grain, and related services, $4,721,225.
Canadian government elevators-
31.	Operation and maintenance including authority to purchase screenings, $1,595,740.
32.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $3,000.
Land rehabilitation, irrigation and water storage projects-
Irrigation and water storage projects in the western provinces including the South Saskatchewan river project; the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act program; land protection, reclamation and development-
33.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $7,843,075.
34.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $18,322,297.
35.	Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act including authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the share of the province of Nova Scotia of the cost of the Annapolis river Aboiteau-Causeway project, $1,034,873.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 13, 1961