1961-04-11

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the government to send the report of the royal commission on transportation, which was tabled yesterday, to a committee of this house where spokesmen for the provinces and competing transportation systems could be heard.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I know of no case in which a royal commission report has been so submitted, certainly not during the time I have been in the House of Commons. I am not at all impressed by this suggestion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a supplementary question. Would the Prime Minister tell the house whether steps are contemplated to bring the proposed subsidies recommended in this report into effect before May 15, and if so what procedure is to be followed to this end?


John George Diefenbaker: The major recommendations of the royal commission report are receiving the consideration of the government. When a determination has been made as to the course which the government suggests should be followed, the house will be made aware of it.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: May I ask
a supplementary question at this time. Could the Prime Minister tell the house whether legislation will be introduced prior to the end of this month, when the ceiling on freight rates is automatically suspended, or is the government considering an extension of the freeze on freight rates pending further action by the government?


John George Diefenbaker: I am sure the hon. gentleman will have heard the answer I gave the Leader of the Opposition. If I must repeat it, however, I would say that when the government has decided on the course to be followed, based on the recommendations of the report or otherwise, that decision will be brought to the attention of the house at the earliest possible date.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if the Prime Minister would inform the house whether the government has taken any steps to bring together the parties to the railway dispute in the hope that a railway strike can be avoided. Is the government prepared to make any recommendation to provide the employees with the benefits of the previous conciliation board report?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in so far as
the first question is concerned, the government did bring the parties together. In so far as the second question is concerned, I think I can add nothing more to what was said at the time the debate took place in the house wtih reference to this problem.


Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Ottawa West):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, and ask him whether the statement of policy made by him on November 30 last, as it appears at page 347 of Hansard, is still the policy of the government. It reads as follows:
To require the Canadian taxpayer to subsidize the operating costs of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company would be setting a most dangerous and costly precedent.
My question is this. Is that still the statement of policy of the government?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have not issued any statement contrary to what I said at that time.
(Translation):



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschatelets (Maisonneuve-Rose-mont):: I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State. Is the Secretary of State aware of an article published in the newspaper Le Droit on April 10, concerning a rumour that a great number of civil servants will be laid off at the request of the government? If so, would he care to comment on that article?


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of Stale):: regret, Mr. Speaker, but the article mentioned by my excellent colleague has not been brought to my attention. However, I take note of the reference of the hon. member and tomorrow, if I am able to do so, I will give him an answer.
3530	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
(Text):



PROPOSED U.S. RESTRICTION ON TOURIST IMPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. My question stems from the concern of many Canadians whose business depends more or less on purchases by United States tourists. Can the minister indicate to the house whether the government or his department is going to seek or negotiate a trade understanding with the United States which would allow U.S. tourists to purchase goods to over the value of $100 to take back with them, an exemption which has been decreased to $100 from $500?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that I could not make out the question that was asked by the hon. member. I will read it in Hansard tomorrow morning and will answer it on the orders of the day tomorrow.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he can bring us up to date on any communications or negotiations with the British authorities relating to the uranium drama that was interrupted when we broke up two weeks ago.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to report.



RED CHINA-INQUIRY AS TO NEGOTIATIONS FOR SALE OF WHEAT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I wonder if the minister would care to comment on a recent press report that officials of the Canadian wheat board are in Hong Kong negotiating the sale of a possible $200 million worth of Canadian wheat to China. Can the minister say whether any credit provisions are involved in these negotiations?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Before the recess I answered a question asked in this house by the Leader of the Opposition in connection with this matter. In my reply I said it was not in the public interest to disclose information as to any of the negotiations which are now in process with the countries with which we are dealing. 

All I did say in relation to the discussions at Hong Kong was that we did have a mission there. I would like to leave it at that point.


Hazen Robert Argue: Would the minister like to say whether the chairman of the wheat board is still in Hong Kong, or whether he has returned to Canada?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: As of some time this morning he was still in Hong Kong.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Jean Casselman (Grenville-Dundas):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Did the Department of Public Works ever request that a charge be laid against Peter Hargreaves for damages to the flag pole in front of the supreme court building?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. lady for asking the question. The answer is no. I find that the Department of Public Works did not request that any charge should be laid against Peter Hargreaves, and as a matter of fact I find on investigation that no charge has been laid by any authority.
Restitution in full for the damage done to the flag pole in the amount of $135.75 was made this morning by a cheque payable to the Receiver General of Canada from the law firm of Beament, Fyfe and Company. Since restitution has been made in full for the damage to public property, and since the only possible complainant in this matter could be the Department of Public Works, I wish to state that the whole incident can be considered closed. In this statement, Mr. Speaker, I have the concurrence of the Acting Minister of Justice, who expresses the same view.


Mr. Benidickson:: It looks as though the press gallery were wrong.


George James McIlraith: I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether I correctly infer from his statement that the statement of the R.C.M.P. appearing in the papers yesterday was misleading.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, I have not read any statement of the R.C.M.P. I am responsible only for the Department of Public Works.



II. 1961 SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES INQUIRY AS TO PERSONS ASKED TO LEAVE CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General and Acting Minister of Justice. Can the minister say whether any person or persons have been asked to leave Canada since October, 1957 as a result of alleged espionage activity?


Hon. W. J. Browne (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, although the hon. member was good enough to give notice of his question, I believe this is the sort of question that is usually placed on the order paper. I wish he would do that.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Walter Pitman (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. On March 20 the problem of the slaughter of harp seals was brought to the attention of the Minister of Fisheries. Could the minister indicate whether his department has made any investigation into the situation, and if so could he inform the house of any action taken by his department.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question.
A rather involved reply is required, and I will be happy to give a more comprehensive reply when my estimates are being considered by the house. However, with the permission of the house I should like to say in reply that harp seals are a species of seal that spend most of their lives in international waters off the west coast of Greenland and, in migration, between this area and the east coast of Canada, where the young are born on the ice floes off Newfoundland, in the gulf of the St. Lawrence and off the east coast of Canada at about this time of year.
The Department of Fisheries took estimates of the populations of these seals, for conservation purposes, by aerial survey in 1950, 1951, 1955, 1959 and 1960. Another survey will be taken in the next few weeks, in the latter part of April and the early part of May, so that a more accurate and detailed estimate of the population of this seal species can be arrived at.
A meeting was held in Halifax on December 8, 1960, at which the scientists and
Inquiries of the Ministry departmental officials outlined to representatives of the Canadian industry the scientific data available and the conservation measures required to ensure a maximum annual sustainable yield. The industry recognized the need for additional regulations but expressed the hope that these could be brought into effect gradually in order not to cripple their operations.
A regulation. was passed requiring all Canadian sealing vessels to be licensed beginning in the 1961 season. Notes were sent to the governments of Norway, Denmark and France requesting that they confirm their earlier agreements regarding opening dates for sealing operations and that they give consideration to a proposed closing date of April 30. Norway considered this date too restrictive and suggested May 5 for the current season. Canada agreed to the Norwegian proposal for 1961 only.
I might add that this item is on the agenda for the next meeting of ICNAF, the international commission for the northwest Atlantic fisheries. I should also add that it has been observed this year for the first time that a Russian vessel has been sealing in the international waters off the east coast of Canada. Communications have been sent to the government of the U.S.S.R. requesting that they require their nationals to adhere to the general regulations.



SINCLAIR REPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. F. Matihews (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries in connection with the Sinclair report, which deals with a study made of the licences of commercial fishermen in the British Columbia salmon and halibut fisheries.
My question is as follows. Has the report been circulated to the fisheries organizations in British Columbia, and does the government intend to get the views of the fisheries organizations and any other interested parties before considering what action may be taken on the report?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. The report to which the hon. member refers has been distributed, and the various fisheries organizations in British Columbia have been asked to submit their comments on it in writing before May 31. They have also been asked to submit at the same time any other views or proposals which they may have on the general problem.

Inquiries of the Ministry
I should also like to state that I would be interested in receiving comments and views on this report and on the general problem from any other organizations, such as sports fishing associations or other public bodies, and the general public who may have an interest in the matter.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Yesterday the hon. member for Gloucester asked whether instructions have been issued by the unemployment insurance commission to all post offices throughout the country to discontinue the issuance of unemployment insurance stamps for casual employees. The hon. member's question continued:
If so, on what date were such instructions issued and does this mean that U.I.C. form 419-C has now been discontinued?
The unemployment insurance commission advise me that instructions were issued by the Post Office Department at the request of the unemployment insurance commission to discontinue the sale of unemployment insurance stamps except to employers registered with the commission. The post office instructions were issued on March 24, 1961, effective March 27, 1961. The use of form U.I.C. 419-C has been discontinued.


Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Is the
minister aware that such a decision will involve extra expense to provinces and municipalities which are being called upon to pay 50 per cent of social assistance costs in order to take care of those who are being denied unemployment insurance benefits?



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr, John Charlton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Yesterday the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate asked whether Dimensional Investments Limited has yet made the payment which is already in default in connection with Indian land at Sarnia. My answer then was:
I think I mentioned previously in answer to a question on this subject that the firm had 30 days grace in which to make the payment. That time has not yet elapsed.
In answer to a supplementary question by the hon. member asking whether the payment has yet been made, I undertook to obtain this information. Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gate):: Can the parliamentary secretary inquire whether there are still proceedings in the courts with respect to this matter, and inform the house at a later date?


Mr. Charlton:: I will endeavour to get that information.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister had an opportunity to determine whether or not an order has been issued prohibiting air intercept activity by NORAD planes against aircraft of the United States strategic air command?
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National
Defence): I think the hon. member is referring to an order issued, according to press reports, by the United States air force not to carry on any further intercept practices with the particular type of fighter which was involved in the accident with a B-52 a few days ago.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Could the minister say
whether it was a general NORAD order; and if so, does it apply to Canadian squadrons attached to NORAD?


Mr. Harkness:: I have no knowledge of it being a NORAD order.



MANITOBA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wish to ask the minister of northern affairs whether any progress has been made recently in the continuing negotiations with the government of Manitoba with respect to flood control on the Red river, and if it is expected that these negotiations will be concluded shortly.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations are currently under way. As to the time of their conclusion, I might say we will be able to announce that when they are completed.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Would the minister care to comment on a report appearing in Le Devoir of April 3 to the effect that a manual in use in Eskimo schools in the Ungava region of northern Quebec contains a statement that the union jack is Canada's flag, along with eight pages describing the union jack in some detail? Does this mean that in the view of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources the union jack is Canada's national flag?


Mr. Speaker:: The latter part of the hon. member's question seems to be leading, and suggests rather than asks for information. In regard to the earlier part of the question, I think it would be appropriate to place it on the order paper, because it is a matter of continuing interest.


Hazen Robert Argue: Regarding the point of order you have raised, Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand the article, and I think it is exceedingly important that manuals used in Eskimo schools should be accurate in every particular, and that they ought to-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I quite agree that this is an important question but it is one for which the answer could be more properly sought on the order paper, as it is not a matter of immediate urgency but of continuing interest.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I suggest this is of national importance and urgency, and that there should be no misleading information about a suggested Canadian flag.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has already made that argument. I have given my decision and I hope he will observe it.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether he thinks it possible to expedite the order for return passed by the house in February with respect to correspondence regarding the Prince Edward Island causeway, so it would be available to us before we consider the minister's estimates.
Supply-Agriculture


David James Walker: I would like to thank the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate for giving me notice, and I will certainly give serious consideration to his suggestion.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that we have to dispose of the baby budget before we commence consideration of the budget for 1961, will the Minister of National Revenue accept a reminder that we have an order for return passed by the house with respect to orders in council under section 38 of the Customs Act as revised in 1958?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I think that order is in course of preparation and is perhaps completed. At any rate it will be tabled in the immediate future.

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



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
17. Operation and maintenance including premiums on purebred sires and contributions for livestock improvement; stockyard supervision and furs, $2,861,681.
Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, it will be recalled that when this item was before the committee last evening I showed some concern regarding the procedures now being used under the Live Stock Pedigree Act to establish the registration of certain breeds of cows. It was my hope that without having to deal with the problem further the minister would give the committee the assurance that he would consider this case again, the only case of major importance that the government has ever used to establish a precedent under the Live Stock Pedigree Act by means of blood typing. I had hoped that the minister would consider the many new developments that have taken place as a result of the scientific advances in blood typing and allied fields, and that he would look into the problem that has been caused by the use of artificial insemination, particularly with respect to this type of case.
During the intervening hours the minister may have had an opportunity of looking into this matter. It is a long, technical, legal case, and I had hoped that he would give it consideration without my having to take the time to deal with it further. However, the minister has said that the case is settled as far as he is concerned and that he is not particularly interested in the developments that have taken place in the years following 1952, when this case was brought to the attention of the department. Therefore I

Supp ly-A gricuUure
believe it is necessary for me to outline what this case was about and the developments that have taken place since which give rise to the claim by the farmer in question and other farmers in the area that a review of the case should be made, particularly in the light of the new information that is available and which has been presented in the form of a brief to the Minister of Justice and in modified form to all members of the House of Commons so they may peruse it at their leisure.
This case simply started from a domestic quarrel. The earliest information I have goes back to May, 1952. I have here a copy of a family court order which reads in part as follows:
Enclosed please find copy of interim order 1048 against the above named man. which was confirmed by Judge Allan J. Fraser, on April 29, 1952, for the sum of $20 per month for one child. Case dismissed so far as Mrs. Howe is concerned.
The family court case concerned Gerald Rowe. I am informed that shortly after the disposition of the case the wife, who had failed to obtain redress and had been informed by her husband that she was not going to be given a divorce, made a statement to one of the officials of the department in which she charged a number of things. An investigation was then commenced by the Holstein-Friesian association and a further check was made by a field man under the direction of Dr. F. J. Leslie, the chief registration officer.
The support case was in May, 1952. In December of 1952 a report was received by Dr. Leslie, the chief registration officer, and in the report there is reference to the number of cattle and some apparent infractions of the Holstein-Friesian registration regulations. The report reads in part as follows:
I would refer you to the sentence beginning on line 20, page 2, "At the time the inventory was taken it was noted from Rowe's stable breeding book that 25 heifer and no bull calves were born in 1952." In the light of information received from Mr. Smith-
I believe Mr. Smith is a field man for the Holstein-Friesian association.
-this sentence should read, "At the time the inventory was taken it was noted from Rowe's stable breeding book that 32 heifer calves were born in the calendar year 1952, of which 27 have been registered."
There seems to be a great deal of difference between the first and second sentences. The first sentence was based on what the wife had said, namely that 28 calves were born and that they were all heifer calves. When the field man inspected the herd book at the farm and made an inventory he found this was not the case. The government was now involved, and in my opinion could see possibilities in

this case. There is reference to several other cases, and as to one of them it is said that page 3.A.4 should be disregarded in its entirety.
The next step in the case in question was the laying of charges under section 17 of the Live Stock Pedigree Act. Subsection 1 of section 17 reads in part as follows:
(1) Every person who
(a) Knowingly signs or presents, or causes or procures to be signed or presented, to the reporting officer of an association or to the person in charge of the Canadian national live stock records, any declaration or any application for registration or any transfer of ownership respecting any animal, containing any material false statement or representation-
In other words, for this section of the act to apply the crown must prove that the man knowingly signed a false declaration or knowingly made or caused to be made a false declaration. Incidentally, in this case there were five or six charges laid, only one of which was proceeded with, that involving one calf known as Mary Bess Supreme. This calf was born on May 8, 1951. The dam was reported by the farmer to be Lady Bess Rena Echo. The sire was reported to be Penvale Supreme. The registration numbers of the dam and sire were also given.
The calf in question was vaccinated under the federal-provincial brucellosis control program on January 26, 1952. Less than a year after the birth of this calf another calf was born on this farm, on March 8, 1952. That calf was known as Joyce Rag Apple Pet Echo. The sire was Bond Haven Rag Apple Marksman and the dam was Lady Bess Rena Echo. This calf was inoculated under the brucellosis control program on January 31, 1953.
The investigation took place in 1952, as a result of which charges were laid. The court case was heard in L'Orignal commencing on October 23 and continuing to November 18. The charge proceeded with was that Mr. Rowe knowingly signed an application for registration with the recording officer of the Holstein-Friesian association of Canada respecting Mary Bess Supreme, a female calf, containing a material false statement relating to the birth of the said Mary Bess Supreme, contrary to section 17(1) which I just quoted.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the evidence adduced by the government in pressing this charge was to the effect that this farmer had claimed the cow was serviced first on July 31, 1950. It was claimed by the artificial insemination unit, or their agents, that she received a second service on January 4, 1951. The farmer claimed the birth of the first calf took place on May 8, 1951. He also claimed and had registered for over a year and a half, when this case was heard, a second calf

from the same cow born on March 8, 1952. It seems to me that it would be quite a simple matter for the government to press charges in this case and conduct a blood test on both calves, because I assume they already have on record the blood type of the bull used in the first service. The government claimed it was impossible to get blood from the second bull because that bull was dead.
It seems to me that anyone who understands anything about cattle knows that the gestation period is nine months.


An hon. Member:: You told us all that last night.


William Arnold Peters: Yes, but perhaps many members were not here last night. Perhaps some hon. members knew this before, but certainly the officials of the court did not know it. If this cow had a calf from the first service the calf would have been born approximately on May 8, as indicated by the farmer on the registration certificate. If the cow had been bred a second time and the gestation period had started on January 4, 1951, then she could not possibly, by any stretch of the imagination, have had a second calf on March 8, 1952, because that calf would have been at least four or five months premature. If the cow, as the farmer claimed, was bred on July 31, 1950 and had a calf on May 8,
1951,	there would have been the normal barren period of two months when the calf was very young. The cow would have been bred again around July, 1951, and this breeding would have resulted in the second calf being born as the farmer claimed on March 8,
1952.
A great deal of talk took place during this court case. The evidence is very extensive and covers four very large volumes. I suggest the transcript is not very good reading, because it involves technicalities which I believe had no bearing on the case and certainly have no bearing on the case I wish to make here. However, if anyone is interested he could read it.
Now, Mr. Chairman, under the Live Stock Pedigree Act the crown should have sought to prove that the first calf, Mary Bess Supreme, was registered as being born on May 8, 1951; that the name of the dam and sire respectively were given as Lady Bess Rena Echo and Penvale Supreme; that this information was false and that Mary Bess Supreme was not the progeny of such a dam and sire and also that the cow, Lady Bess Rena Echo, did not give birth at all, thereby rendering the said farmer guilty of supplying a false registration.
This case, if it had been accepted on its merits, would have established the legality of blood testing as a recognized method of
Supp ly-A gricvXture
establishing the parentage of animals. However, Mr. Chairman, the court case got so many things mixed up in it, such as whether cows can or cannot be bred during the gestation period, whether or not the semen was from this particular bull, that I believe the two agencies with which the farmer dealt should be supervised by the federal government. The first agency was the artificial insemination unit which maintains the bulls for service, and the second would be the people who are doing the work and handling the semen. They must be under federal control in order that the federal government may be in a better position to establish that the semen used is from a particular bull.
I believe the government should recognize the fact that the second calf, the birth of which has never been questioned, could not possibly have been born on the date suggested if there had not been the first calf. This first calf could not have been born from the second service, yet the government did not question the existence of the second calf. They accept this as a legitimate birth from the parents claimed by the farmer, yet the government questions the first birth. This course results, logically, in making the second calf premature by three or four months. I do not know how stupid some of the officials of the department are, but they must be very silly to adopt this technical position and expect to get anywhere with it.
In so far as blood testing is concerned, I may say this is a very interesting field. It is a field in which officials of the government and private research organizations have done a great deal more in the development of blood factors relating to animals than has been done in this field in relation to humans. They are to be commended for this. I do not believe there is any official or any veterinarian who will disagree with me when I make the statement that it is impossible to prove the parentage of a calf if there are two unknowns. If the bull is definitely not known, the parentage can be proven if the factors appear which establish the dam. Then only the sire would be in question. If the factors relating to the sire indicate that he could have been the sire of this particular progeny, then you would have reason to believe that the mating of these two animals could have produced this particular product. If, on the other hand, the cow is not known, by a reverse method and by a negative approach you could prove it was possible that this calf could have been the result of this mating or you could prove that this calf could not possibly have been the result of this mating.
In this case, Mr. Chairman, the farmer said the calf belonged to the dam but made no

Supp ly-A griculture
claim that the calf belonged to the sire, because he was not in any position to know whether that sire had, in fact, produced the semen which the artificial insemination unit sent to him. He was in the position, therefore, of knowing only one of the parents. The department seems to have taken the attitude that if the artificial insemination unit said this particular semen came from this bull, then that was a known quantity and, therefore, this negative approach could be applied; it could be proven that this calf was not the result of that particular mating.
Now I should like to read some statements made by some people because they are very important. I have a letter written to Mr. Rowe from R. J. Humble, D.V.M., department of pathology and bacteriology. He is probably the foremost veterinarian in this field in Canada and has done a great deal of research. This is what he says:
In regard to your inquiry concerning whether it is possible to prove parentage in cattle, the information you received from the United States is entirely correct on this point. As I have explained in previous letters, we cannot prove parentage. All that it is possible to do with this test is to show that certain animals could not possibly be the parents. Thus by the process of elimination we can usually eliminate all the bulls in a given group as not being the sire which will then quite often, but not always, leave one bull which could well be the sire, since he would possess the necessary factors, but we cannot prove that he is the sire.
However, if it is possible to eliminate all of the bulls in a given group but one, then it might be reasonable to assume that the one remaining bull might be the sire if there was any chance that his semen could have been used to impregnate the cow.
This certainly does not indicate the falsity of the farmer's statement that this cow is the dam in question, if we do not know the particular bull-and at this particular insemination unit at the time they were using four or five bulls-without doing what Dr. Humble suggests should be done, namely eliminating all other bulls not only in this breed but other breeds. It should be noted in this case that the collection of semen that was made on that particular day in question was from two Holstein bulls. Only one of them was ever discussed and, so far as I know, no one in the court ever asked if the blood testing had been done on the second bull. Obviously it would not have been too hard to have mixed up the semen at the source, and if this had happened this would have been the answer to this particular case.
There are other people who have said that this cannot be proven. This is again from Dr. Humble:
You may be aware that the parentage test done here at the college does not prove parentage by positive identification but by a test of exclusion. That is, certain facts in each case must be known:

let us suppose that the problem is a question of determining which of two bulls is the sire of a calf. The facts of the case must prove that only the two bulls could possibly have bred the cow. Then by the parentage test, it may be possible to show that one of the bulls could not possibly have been the sire. Since there are only two bulls involved and the test has shown that it was impossible for one bull to be the sire, then by the process of elimination it would leave the other bull as being the sire provided it could be proved by other means that only the two bulls were involved. If three bulls were involved, then in order to solve the case, it would be necessary to eliminate two of the bulls and leave the third as the likely sire.
I think this is correct, Mr. Chairman. If it is correct, why did Dr. Leslie not blood test the second bull in the artificial insemination unit on that date? He did not do it for the simple reason that he was not interested in establishing an honest case. He was interested only in getting a conviction on information that was given to him from another source that had absolutely nothing to do with either the Holstein-Friesian Association or the Department of Agriculture. This is why it was not done. This is why Dr. Humble in his evidence proved as well that this case was not an honestly established case, that there was reasonable doubt and that as well he could have established the other side; and it was only by the application of the information he gave the lawyers in the manner in which they used it that they were able to prove that what they did, when it would have been just as easy to prove the opposite.
The University of Wisconsin also had something to say on that matter. In a letter from the department of genetics Mr. M. R. Irwin states as follows:
In order to make any appraisal whatever of the identity of a calf as belonging to particular parents it would be necessary to have samples of blood of the calf, of the dam and of the sire. Without having samples of all three it would be impossible to state that the calf could not have come from a particular mating. The evidence from the blood tests will tell only that a calf can be excluded as belonging to the particular parents, whereas if the blood type of the calf is such that it could have come from the proposed parents, there are other individuals also which could have been the parents of this calf. In other words, it is not possible to prove parents by the blood test, only to make an exclusion.
There are other sources of information that would indicate that this was so. For this reason I think the government or the department, if they wish to establish an honest case and at least convince me and I think a number of the other members who are concerned about the breeding of cattle, are going to have to exercise much better control over these two aspects that fall within the jurisdiction of the department. I refer to the artificial insemination units and the

testing of cattle where there is a dispute and this is used as a factor in the establishment of cases under this particular section of the livestock registration act. I wrote to a veterinarian whom I know and he had this to say about this particular case-


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


Mr. Milligan:: I should like to make a few remarks in connection with this case. I have known Mr. Rowe and of this case for some three years, and I am sure there are other members of this House of Commons as well whom he has contacted in connection with this conviction. I have read the evidence. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Timiskaming for the detail he has gone into in connection with this case. I think this is one case in which a man has not had justice. He has spent a great deal of money. He has worried himself sick over this particular case. I am sure he must be innocent or he would not be doing it. He also retained a lawyer and paid his $100 fee for an appeal in this case. His lawyer allowed the 30-day time limit to run out, and Mr. Rowe has never had any support from anyone anywhere in order to allow him to bring this matter to a new trial. Why it was done in that way I do not know. We do know, as the hon. member for Timiskaming has said, that there are family troubles there that are serious and that they are having a severe effect on this man's whole life and his farming operations.
A great many people may feel that this is a case that does not amount to too much. However, those of us who are producing purebred livestock know this is a serious situation. If this man is innocent he should have an opportunity of another trial and getting this thing straightened out.
Then again, this case might be used as a test case against some of us who are producing purebred livestock. I am sure that in the evidence I have read there is not enough to justify a conviction against this man. I would hope the minister would see his way clear to do something in order that this man might have another opportunity to present his case, to have another trial and to see what the outcome would be. In the interests of livestock producers across Canada I am sure it would be to their benefit and also to that of Mr. Rowe.


Jacques Flynn: Shall vote 17 carry.


William Arnold Peters: I am certainly pleased to know that one of the other dairy producers is interested in this case. I have received a great deal of mail from farmers who are interested. I think we can indicate that there is enough
Supply-Agriculture
of a question being raised for something to be done. I am quite happy to bring this information to the attention of the general public, because I think only in that way will it result in the department taking the legislation and bringing it up to date, which will result in justice in this case and the establishing of a proper use of blood testing to establish cases.
I pointed out a few minutes ago something that is referred to on pages 34 and 35 of volume 2 of the evidence in this case- (Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention whatsoever of preventing my hon. friend, the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), from discussing the case he has been talking about since yesterday. In fact, he has been allowed a great deal of latitude in doing so. I wonder, however, whether the standing orders allow a member to discuss evidence submitted before a court when a judgment has been passed.
Not so long ago I raised a grievance myself in this house and, at that time, Mr. Speaker prevented me from going on when he suggested my grievance had been before the courts and that judgments of the superior court and the court of appeal had been passed. In short, since the courts had given their verdict, Mr. Speaker decided that I could not proceed with my argument. Now, since yesterday, the member for Timiskaming has been arguing about the evidence given. He even said that a certain witness did not testify with all due care.
I wonder whether this debate is in order. I do not wish to prevent any member from making his point, but since we have been hearing about this since yesterday, I wonder if this discussion is not out of order.
(Text):


William Arnold Peters: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to make a legal case. I am not fighting that aspect of the matter. I am suggesting that the item we are now discussing involves the improvement of livestock through breeding records and the various protections that are given by this act. I am attempting to indicate that a change is needed in this act to take into consideration artificial insemination, which was not a factor a few years ago when the act was put into effect.
Second, I am trying to influence the minister and stir up public opinion for the establishment of blood typing in a more positive way under this particular act. The only reason we are referring to this particular case is that it is the only one in connection with which the department has ever made any extensive study. As far as I know this is the

Supply-Agriculture
only case where these matters have been discussed at great length in Canada and I would appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, to allow me to make this point.
I will stay away from the court case itself, except to quote extracts that strengthen or support the argument which I am attempting to make for changing this particular act.


Jacques Flynn: I would agree that if the hon. member intends only to attempt to correct the act concerned under this item, he would be in order. However, I must say that at times he came very close to criticizing the courts. I must remind the hon. member, and also the hon. member who preceded him, that all references to judges and courts of justice and to persons of high official station, in the nature of personal attack and censure, have always been considered unparliamentary. Therefore any discussion of the manner in which the trial of this particular case was conducted may in some respects be a criticism of the court or the judge and would be out of order.
I trust that the hon. member will use the example of this case only as a reason for correcting the act and not for criticizing the court or any justice.


William Arnold Peters: I was pointing out that on pages 34 and 35 of volume 2 of the evidence in this case Dr. Smiley says that he drew semen from Penvale Supreme on July 30, 1950, which was a Sunday. On that day semen was also drawn from another bull, Elle Cross Snowflake Triune. On page 36 the doctor goes on to mention the process by which this semen was drawn off, and left open and again it was respecfully submitted that this was a further occasion when the semen could have become mixed.
I was suggesting that if the department in this particular case had thought the matter out more carefully than they did, they would have been fair to the farmer by testing all the bulls that were involved. The department should have tested all the bulls that could have been involved in a very simple mix-up, because semen was drawn from two bulls on that particular day. I think the department had an obligation to do this and not only to obtain a conviction, because I do not think it should be the prime interest of the department to obtain a conviction. In all fairness they should have given the benefit of the doubt to the farmer, to the extent of at least testing the second bull that was being used in the unit.
If the department had done that they would possibly, by the exclusion method, have established that this second bull might have been the sire of this particular progeny. If this had happened-and it may well have happened-

there would have been a different result in this case. In any case, the farmer should never have been asked to prove the sire of this particular calf when he had used artificial insemination. When the farmer receives the service slip from the artificial insemination unit he has to take what is on that slip as being the source of the semen, and he has to accept the name appearing on that slip as the name of the bull which sired the calf he registered with the association. He has to do this because he has no way of telling where that semen came from or what bull it was. He obviously has to take the word of the artificial insemination unit in this connection,
When the doctor, during this case, proved that the mating of the dam and the sire in question could not have resulted in the birth of this particular calf, in my opinion all this meant was that one of the parents named in connection with that calf was not the proper one. I should think there would be as much question about the sire as there was about the dam, particularly when a mix-up can occur much more easily in that field than in any other.
I recently received a letter from a friend of mine who is a veterinarian. He had this to say:
In regards to the Rowe brief, it certainly looks as if he got the dirty end of the stick. Most insemination units now colour their semen so that these mistakes can't happen. If I were the judge and was confronted with such evidence and knowing how some of these technicians work, I would throw the case out.
In my opinion the cow could have definitely been pregnant and come into heat and be bred by a technician again. Only a great deal of training and experience enables you to tell if a cow is pregnant at five months with certainty. It is possible, although difficult, to pass an insemination tube through a gravid (pregnant) cervix without causing an abortion.
Human error could have caused a mix-up in the semen at any point along the line from collection to insertion.
The parental blood test is pretty accurate even with the 15 factors, let alone the 40, but if the semen was mixed this wouldn't apply.
Tlie fact that units colour their semen now indicates that there have been some admitted mistakes in the past. I personally know of some cases where the semen has been mixed not only by the technician but by the collector.
I hope this helps a bit. C. A. V. Barker of the college is world known on insemination work and evidently his testimony wasn't even considered, which alone would justify reopening of the case.
This veterinarian owns a large hospital; he is a technician and a highly qualified veterinarian. He points out that artificial insemination units now colour the semen that they use.
I could go on and point out that in this particular case we have further evidence in connection with certain cows on this particular farm. There are affidavits from five people. One declares that three Hereford calves were born of purebred Holstein cows

and were sold to Arthur E. Lalonde. There is a declaration from Arthur E. Lalonde stating that three Hereford calves were purchased from Gerald Rowe in the first week of December, 1953, and they were sucking Holstein cows at that time. There is also the declaration of Raymond Lalonde which corroborates the evidence of Arthur E. Lalonde. Then there is the declaration of Robert Lalonde, who is no relation to the other Lalonde, that a Hereford calf was born to a Holstein cow. There is also the declaration of Orville Rowe verifying what Robert Lalonde declared and adding that they were the same cows as were sold to Arthur E. Lalonde.
These things happen. They have happened in this case. I indicated last night that this artificial insemination unit and their technician bred a cow that had been dead a month, as a second service. The technicians are not all exact. This man points out that sometimes his wife looked after the slips and sometimes he did. Sometimes he did them that day and sometimes he did them other days. This case could not have resulted in the statement which appeared in the Holstein-Friesian paper, as follows:
For the first time in Canada and possibly in any country, result of a blood typing to prove parentage of an animal has been submitted to court and accepted as evidence. In this case it was accepted as proof that the heifer, Mary Bess Supreme, could not be the daughter of the cow, Lady Bess Rena Echo and the sire, Penvale Supreme, as claimed by Mr. Rowe.
In delivering his judgment, Magistrate Lalonde stated the prosecution had proved by two different methods, practically and scientifically, that the parentage of Mary Bess Supreme, as stated in the application for registration, was false.
That is not correct. This statement which appeared in the Holstein-Friesian magazine it not correct. They did not prove this. They could not prove this. It is an impossibility to prove it when there is too long notice. Dr. Humble has admitted that it cannot be proved. Only an exclusion can prove that certain bulls could not have been the parents of cattle. They could not prove in this case that certain bulls were not the sires, and the Holstein-Friesian association is stating something which is not true.
I have nothing but respect for the interests, the aims and the aspirations of the Holstein-Friesian association, but I am very surprised at some of the bookkeeping they do. I should like to refer to one instance, because the Holstein-Friesian association comes directly under this department. If there is any infraction the department has the right to take it over and administer it. This case was decided in February, 1954. In February, 1955 Mr. Rowe received this letter:
You are aware in accordance with our letter to you under date of June 2, 1954, that at a meeting
Supply-Agriculture
of the executive committee of the association, held in Toronto on May 26, 1954, you were expelled from membership in the association and your certificate of membership was cancelled.
The letter goes on to say just what is involved. That was on February 21, 1955, and it resulted from his expulsion on May 26, 1954. But on July 17, 1954 the association sent him a card over the signature of the secretary in which they said his dues were not paid. So he sent them a money order, and that money order was received on July 27, 1954. It was accepted by Mr. Clemons, the secretary of the Holstein-Friesian association, without a protest. In July, 1955 a second notice was sent, saying again that his dues were due and asking him to send in the money to become a member again. After that second letter had gone out they sent him a notice acknowledging receipt of his money order, and when the post office checked on it they found it was received by the same person and cashed by the same person with no protest. They also sent the same gentleman forms to fill in to have his cattle graded as an official member of that association. Yet in their letter they go on to say:
If you persist in spreading false information among the breeders and members of the association, claiming that you are still a member or that you have been reinstated, we shall have no alternative but to give further publicity in the Holstein-Friesian Journal to the fact that you have not been reinstated and that you are not a member of this association.
I trust you will see the good sense of avoiding this action by making no further unwarranted claims.
He paid his dues, and he received a receipt for those dues. Again, the second year, he paid his dues, and I suggest he was a member in good standing at the time this letter was written to him. The receipts here can be filed with the minister if he wishes so he may see that these statements are correct,
All I am saying is that the association, as well as everybody else, can make mistakes, and it seems to me that the farmer has a rough enough time in this country in up-breeding his stock and trying to better conditions for himself and for the industry generally without the department working against him. In my opinion this department should be working for the farmer rather than against him. I am happy to think that most departments of government, and certainly most of the divisions of the Department of Agriculture, are working for the benefit of the farmer. Sometimes they are slow, but usually they work for his benefit. However, in checking over this information as a result of the inquiries which have been made I find that all we have done is to assume that the farmer is guilty and that everybody else has been right.

Supply

Agriculture
I am suggesting that this case should be reviewed by the department itself in the light of further developments in scientific knowledge which have taken place. We should remember that back in 1952 artificial insemination was not used as widely as it is today, and in view of the many mistakes which have been made-the hundreds of mistakes which have been made-and the fact that semen from bulls is now being coloured in order to prevent mistakes which everybody admits have been made, is it not the fair thing to give this farmer a second chance and at least go back and check the second bull which was being used in the unit and check the second calf involved in this case? Both calf and cow are alive; in this respect we are no further away from the case than we were then. I think the department has an obligation to do this for its own satisfaction.
I should also like to suggest to the department that they take cognizance of some of the mistakes which have been made by the artificial insemination units by insuring that more training is given to some of the officials in the early stages. A better type of training should be given to some of the people who are doing this work at the present time. They have done this work on occasions without any training at all. Certainly this technician had less than no training, because he was trained by a man who had never done the work himself. Though he may have improved over the years his bookkeeping is still as sloppy, according to the last report, as it was in the case in question.
I think the department has an obligation to interest itself in this particular field. It might not be as important as western agriculture or some of the things which concern western producers but it seems to me the farmers in eastern Ontario are going to be watching very carefully to see whether the government is taking any interest in this. They will not be too impressed by the minister standing up and talking about the New party and what it stands for. Frankly, cows are not interested in the Conservative party; they are not interested in the New Party or in any other party. They, and the producers of these cattle, are interested in getting the best guarantee they can that the semen which they buy for the cattle they are producing comes from the bulls that they expect it is coming from. It is only on rare occasions that farmers meet with any question regarding a cow not being the mother of a calf, and certainly in this case when there are similarities in the markings of the cow and calf very little question can be raised.
Last night many hon. members laughed as though they did not believe there was any

importance attached to these similarities, and suggested that we remove such references from the back of the Holstein-Friesian registration cards. I suggest that they appear there for the purpose not only of identifying the cow but to establish similarities in certain lines. While it is true that a white cow bred to a black bull may not produce a calf the colour of the mother or the father, it is likely there will be a predominant colour of either the dam or sire in the calf. This is an important enough matter that the breeders of particular types of cattle have used it for purposes of identification over a great number of years. Unless the government is now suggesting a new method of identifying this particular type of cattle I think consideration should be given to the similarity in markings in this particular case.
I will not take advantage of the opportunity, which I think I have and would be justified in using, to conduct a filibuster on this matter. I will leave the decision to the Department of Agriculture, and if it corrects this situation I will have a great deal more respect for it than if the officials sit back and say to themselves that the case is closed and legally cannot be reopened; there is a conviction, and whether it is good or poor, let it remain.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
19.	Grants to agricultural fairs, exhibitions and museums in accordance with regulations of the governor in council; payments pursuant to agreements in force on March 31, 1961, with exhibitions covering the construction of buildings and other major undertakings; and a grant of $50,000 to the royal agricultural winter fair, Toronto, and freight assistance on livestock shipments for exhibition thereat, $967,600.
Mr. Carter:: I would like to ask the minister in regard to these grants whether he has a provincial breakdown, and whether any grants are made in Newfoundland.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am informed that we have an agreement with the government of Newfoundland and do not pay grants to particular fairs, but make an overall grant each year to the government of Newfoundland.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
20.	Special grant to royal agricultural winter fair, Toronto, $450,000.
Mr. Hales:: I would like to take this opportunity of expressing the appreciation of the members of the royal winter fair board of directors and other interested people for this special grant of $450,000. This is one more evidence of the great interest this party has in agriculture, and I am sure this grant will go a long way towards the improvement of this great show.

I understand that at the closing of the last royal winter fair, work was commenced to remodel the buildings, and that when the new fair opens this fall it will be possible to house within the new building the cattle of the New Queen's class. I understand there will be a new building to take care of swine and a building for sheep. These additions will be a great asset to this fine winter show in Canada. I repeat, that those individuals interested in agriculture will appreciate very much the efforts of the minister in this regard.


Mr. McFarlane:: Mr. Chairman, referring again to item 19 I would like to bring the minister's attention to the fact that at the present time grants are made to fairs of fairly good size. I would just like to mention section 5(b) of the regulations, where it says that an application must be accompanied by a statement certified by a responsible officer of the fair showing details of the prize money paid by the fair in respect of specific exhibits in each of the three preceding years, showing that in each year the prize money paid amounted to not less than $5,000. In my own area we are endeavouring, and have been for the past several years, to encourage the establishment of agricultural fairs and exhibitions, and I refer specifically to the East Kootenay agriculture and industrial exhibition which is held in the lake Windermere valley.
I suggest that some consideration should be given to these regulations so that assistance can be made available to smaller exhibitions such as the one I have just mentioned. The larger exhibitions and fairs have various means of raising money and are in a position to post $5,000 in prize money, but unfortunately the smaller organizations cannot do so. The organization to which I have referred, operating in the Windermere valley, has a hard time financing its operations and could use any assistance the department might offer. I have raised this matter on two previous occasions, but so far have had no response. I hope some consideration will be given to this suggestion.


Mr. Roberge:: Last year in this committee I spoke in regard to an annual event which takes place in my riding having to do with the promotion of maple products, called the maple festival. This festival was organized two years ago and attracted approximately
4,000	people at that time. Last year there were approximately 10,000 people in attendance, and it is expected that this year somewhere in the neighbourhood of 15,000 to 20,000 people will visit this annual festival. This organization was designed to promote the sales of maple products in the province of Quebec and throughout the country. It was encour-90205-6-224
Supp ly-A griculture
aging last year to note that some people from the United States were interested in maple products and attended that festival. I think as a result of the work done by this organization maple products are better known today than in the past.
I suggest to the minister that a grant be made to this organization, if possible, which would be of considerable financial assistance in the holding of this annual event. This festival is taking place this year from April 30 to May 6.
(Translation):


Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture to explain the increase of $440,000 in the amount he is asking, under item 20, for the year 1962.
(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The agreement with the royal winter fair has been in effect for some years. There has been an amount in the estimates each year for this grant, which has not been taken advantage of. Last year the grant was dropped to a nominal $10,000. This year the fair officials informed me that they were prepared to go ahead. When we get a statement from them as to the actual amount being spent we will pay one-third of the cost, our estimate is $450,000 for our share of this year's expenditure.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: The Minister of Agriculture has not seen fit to reply to the question of the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge), about the request for a subsidy on maple products.
I support the request of the member for Megantic and would ask the minister to indicate whether he thinks a reasonable amount might be granted for the holding of an exhibition in the eastern townships. The idea is to promote the sale of a national product, coming as it does from a tree whose leaf we hope will some day grace our distinctive national flag.
(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman,
periodically we get requests from members for grants to exhibitions or fairs in their ridings. There is a regular procedure to be followed with regard to bringing these matters forward and having them assessed in the light of the regulations in order to see what can be done. I suggest that the hon. member for Megantic submit his application in the same way as anybody else.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
21.	Special grant to Pacific National Exhibition, Vancouver, $200,000.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture
Mr. Drysdale:: Mr. Chairman, I want to make one or two very brief comments about the Pacific national exhibition. First of all, may I say that in my opinion the directors have been doing an excellent job as far as British Columbia is concerned and have attracted to the exhibition a tremendous number of people from coast to coast. I am particularly interested in this item, as are the citizens of Vancouver, because at present there is a certain amount of difficulty as to the type of building and the potential location. I notice that these grants generally apply to buildings located on exhibition grounds. Could the minister outline very briefly the terms of this special grant and tell us whether or not it is possible to establish exhibition grounds in central Vancouver as well as at the Pacific national exhibition park? Is it possible for an exhibition building to be located in central Vancouver which might be used for agricultural purposes and other purposes as well?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The question raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond has been before me for the last few months. The conditions of this grant to the exhibition in Vancouver were that the building would be used for agricultural purposes but there would be no objection to it being used for other purposes if the main purpose was agriculture. I cannot make any statement as to the question of location. If it was going to be used for agricultural purposes I think the department would rule that it should be located on the exhibition grounds and not downtown in Vancouver. I wonder whether we could reserve this item until the end of my estimates?


Jacques Flynn: Shall this item stand?


John Andrew W. Drysdale: The minister wants to have the item reserved until the end of his estimates and I would ask that during the intervening time he direct his mind to the point I mentioned, the question of exhibition grounds. As far as I can ascertain, there is nothing in the act or regulations defining exhibition grounds. Let us say that a location was picked in downtown Vancouver and designated as exhibition grounds and a building was erected primarily for agricultural purposes but for other purposes as well which are of considerable interest to the people of Vancouver. I would ask the minister to consider whether or not that is a possibility. It would then be a building on exhibition grounds, and I do not believe the minister has resolved the problem by stating that the building can only be on exhibition grounds.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: All I can say
is that such a serious matter would have to be given the most careful consideration. These special grants are given to exhibitions for national agricultural reasons and when any digression from the general terms of reference is suggested it has to be given very careful consideration.


Jacques Flynn: Shall the item carry?


Mr. Regier:: I understood that the item was to stand.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I asked whether it could stand.


Jacques Flynn: Shall vote 21 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.
22.	Grants to agricultural organizations as detailed in the estimates, $260,250.


Chesley William Carter: In the details on page 116 I notice that approximately half of this allocation is for 4-H clubs and the 4-H council. I want to commend the minister for the support he is giving this movement and at the same time I wish to pay tribute to the good work that the 4-H clubs are doing in my own province and I am sure all across Canada. Can the minister tell the committee how many 4-H clubs are in existence at the present time?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have the information in my briefing book and I can get it for the hon. member.


Chesley William Carter: It is not that urgent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
23.	To authorize, notwithstanding sections 33 and 35 of the Financial Administration Act, the issue by the Minister of Agriculture, in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council, of premium warrants for high grade hog carcasses, and to authorize the charging to this vote of the value of premium warrants at the time they are issued and the value of any unredeemed premium warrants issued in previous fiscal years, notwithstanding that the total value of all premium warrants to be charged may exceed the estimated cost of the program which is, $6,865,000.
(Translation):
Samuel Boulanger: Under item 23, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of certain statements he made in recent speeches, he will raise the quota of hogs eligible under the Agricultural Prices Stabilization Act. May I also ask him whether he has a statement to make on the raising of the number of dozens of eggs on which the government will pay subsidies under the Agricultural Prices Stabilization Act, something he has mentioned in a number of instances in those speeches?

(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This item has to do only with the paying of premiums on hogs. It has nothing to do with quotas and the stabilization act.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: I realize that this applies to the payment of the premium. However, if I may be allowed to wander slightly from this item, I was just asking whether he had any statement to make. I am convinced that the farmers would be interested in knowing whether the number of hogs and the number of dozens of eggs will be raised during the next session.
(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: When we were discussing this matter last evening I made a statement with regard to hogs and eggs. In specific answer to the question asked by the hon. member, I should like to point out that during this calendar year the present hog price support and the present limit of 100 hogs are in effect but I hope that during the year I can resolve some of the difficulties I see and come up with a formula that will do a little better job in achieving what we have in mind. I should like to point out that, having regard to the way the trade operates, the difficulties in dealing with this matter are very great.


Clarence Adam Milligan: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say something with respect to what the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska has said. I do not quite agree that we should increase the number of hogs. I think that the floor price should be increased to a more reasonable level because in my opinion $22.65 does not bear a reasonable comparison with the cost of production of hogs, particularly in Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes. When we limit the number of hogs on which deficiency payments can be drawn I think the price should be at level that will return to the producer at least his cost of production plus a reasonable profit. I think that is necessary if we are going to have any stability in the hog industry. If a limit of 100 hogs is going to get us into a surplus position, then in my opinion we should reduce it to a figure where we are going to keep production in line instead of increasing the limit.
I should like to say a word in connection with the increase in the premium on grade A hogs. I am quite pleased to see that the minister did increase it to $3. I am disappointed, however, that there has not been a greater increase. I think we should be capable of a little more foresight in our attempts to encourage producers across Canada to produce quality products. It is about five years 90205-6-224i
Supply-Agriculture
ago since I took part in a federation of agriculture meeting in Calgary at which the premium on grade A hogs was discussed. Views were expressed both pro and con, but the majority of the members felt the premium should be increased to $4 per hog. In view of the fact the majority in favour of this course was small, the resolution was never presented to the Department of Agriculture with the result that the advantage of this move has been lost for a number of years.
It must be quite apparent to everyone who looks at the results achieved by the $2 premium that we have increased the number of grade A hogs by only a little over 32 per cent. This is rather ridiculous when compared with the 80 per cent of grade A hogs being produced in Prince Edward Island, Denmark and Holland. We should be using our best efforts to find markets for livestock products in Britain instead of trying to find markets for grain. I never could understand why we sell our western feed grains to Holland and Denmark where they are fed to hogs, the production of which is subsidized by the government and which hogs eventually compete with our hogs in the British market. I believe the Danish product has captured the British market only by reason of the quality of that product. I know I was there a few years ago and a chap was showing me a handful of western barley which he was feeding to hogs which were sold on the British market. At the same time this chap was selling his own barley to the brewery.
It seems to me we have to produce a better quality product than we are at the present time if we are going to get a share of the export market. There is no reason why we cannot produce as good a product as is produced in Denmark or Holland and capture a share of that export market. I feel one factor is that it is more profitable to produce a grade B hog than it is to produce a grade A hog. I expect that I am no better feeder than a lot of people, but I have no trouble in producing 70 per cent to 75 per cent grade A hogs. When you realize that only about 32 per cent of the hogs produced across Canada are grade A, it is time to take a look at this situation to ascertain what we can do to encourage a better quality product which would enable us to cope with export demands.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to endorse the remarks just made by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Milligan), requesting that the price of pork and the quality bonus be raised.
The points made by the member for Prince Edward-Lennox are well taken and show that

Supply-Agriculture
he is an experienced farmer besides being informed on markets and farm administration. (Text) :


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
25. Freight assistance on western feed grains,
[Stage Direction]
(Translation):
Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out to the Minister of Agriculture an irregularity existing in the Saguenay-Lake St. John area with regard to the movement of feed grain from western Canada.
I have here a table supplied by the board of transport commissioners for Canada. I note that for a distance of 228 miles, for instance, or the distance between Quebec and Chicoutimi, the subsidy is 43 cents. For a slightly longer distance, that is 262 miles, from Quebec to Amqui, the subsidy is 68 cents. In the case of Jonquiere, for a distance of 218 miles-which is comparable to Mont Joli located 217 miles from Quebec and where the subsidies are 68 cents in summer and 67 cents in winter-the subsidy is only 43 cents. Chambord, in the Roberval riding, with a distance of 176 miles, receives a 43 cent subsidy, while St. Fabien, with a distance of 179 miles, or 3 miles more, gets 68 cents in summer and 67 cents in winter. And what about St. Arsene, in the Roberval riding-this will be one of the last examples I shall give-for a distance of 199 miles, the subsidy is also 43 cents, while at Bic, for a distance of 189 miles, it is 68 cents in summer and 67 cents in winter.
I could give many more examples, but I do not want to bore the committee with this detailed information. I am asking the minister however-he does not have to answer me today-to have this matter looked into and to try to take appropriate action so that farmers of the four counties in my area will not be discriminated against, compared to other farmers in my province.
(Text):


Clarence Adam Milligan: I should like to say a word in connection with this particular item. During the past few years there has been some criticism in Ontario about the continuation of freight assistance on western feed grains. I would hope that the minister can make this a permanent policy because I think it is good legislation. I would not say it is a subsidy to eastern farmers because I have never felt that way about it. I think those of us who are feeding livestock realize that if the freight subsidy were added on to the price of the grain we buy it would be impossible to feed western grain.

In addition, I think this is a subsidy to the western farmer and I am very glad he gets that much extra for the grain he is producing. I believe the subsidy is a protection to our Ontario wheat and corn growers because I think it results in an increased price for the grain that is sold here in Canada. In any event, this is going to the farmer so I hope this subsidy will be continued.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to say a word on this item. I disagree very strongly with the remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat, and who reached a very strange economic conclusion to the effect that the subsidy on feed grains used in eastern Canada goes into the pockets of the people who produce the grain in western Canada. I think my position on this question over the years has been a bit more realistic than that taken by the hon. member, namely, that anything that is done to wipe out part of the freight costs of moving commodities from the prairies to eastern Canada cannot help but be of benefit to both the producer and the consumer.
I was surprised to read that there was some opposition in eastern Canada, or in Ontario, to the continuation of the freight assistance on western feed grains. I hope the minister can assure the committee that not only is the policy to be followed for the present year, but that it is the intention of the government to continue this policy I should like to see this policy placed in legislative form instead of being left in the uncertain form of an item that is placed in the estimates from time to time. There is no doubt about it that this is a subsidy which assists in the moving of feed grains to eastern feeders and results in a price lower than they would otherwise have to pay for the grain they receive.
I would suggest that this is a policy that is in the national interest and is one that should be continued. It brings about a more equal price as between the prices paid to producers and the prices that have to be paid by the livestock feeders in eastern Canada. This policy is the very opposite of the misdirected policy having to do with the removal of coarse grains or feed grains going to feed mills from the wheat board regulations. That was a bad move; it is a move that is unsupported in the prairies because it runs counter to the general principle of this particular measure which is to bring about a greater similarity in the prices received by the western grain producers and those that are paid by the feeders across this country.
I would ask from the minister some comments as to whether or not it is the intention of his department and the government

to continue the freight assistance policy which has now been in effect for many years.


Murray Lincoln McFarlane: I should like to bring my age old problem to the attention of the minister. I refer to the freight assistance problem. First, I should like to quote from the Canadian Wheat Board Act, section 2 (1) (c) which reads as follows:
(c) "designated area" means that area comprised by the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and those parts of the province of British Columbia known as the Peace river district and the Creston-Wynndel areas, and such other parts of the province of British Columbia and such parts of the province of Ontario-
And so on. This area to which I am referring specifically namely, the Creston-Wynndel area, has never been granted any concessions at all under our freight assistance policy. At the present time the federal government has spent approximately $2-|- million in the construction of our Pacific Great Eastern Railway wholly within the province of British Columbia; and we are asked as the taxpayers of British Columbia and the taxpayers of Canada to contribute our share toward the construction of this Pacific Great Eastern Railway which brings a great deal of the feed grain out of the Peace river area. The payment of freight assistance in the Peace river area has been in effect for a number of years especially into the Vancouver markets. In view of the fact that this is a government subsidized railway, both federally and provincially, we feel that our efforts on behalf of freight assistance should be extended to the Creston-Wynndel area.
It has been brought to my attention that relatives, especially those living in the Peace river area who have relatives in the Creston-Wynndel area, are able to ship grain to the coast at a much cheaper rate in view of the subsidy than that at which we are able to ship it from our area. This situation has practically eliminated the Creston-Wynndel valley from this market in Vancouver which is rightfully ours. I have been advised that the province of British Columbia is ready and waiting to restore to the Peace river area in British Columbia freight assistance if they were to be deprived in this area of the federal subsidies.
The action of the department does not appear to me to be logical nor does it appear to be consistent in the interpretation of the act. Just what logic is there in setting one part of British Columbia against another part of British Columbia in connection with freight assistance problems? This creates a geographical and economic barrier against one in favour of the other. No country can ever become unified by such action. In view of the fact that both areas are in British
Supply-Agriculture
Columbia, I cannot agree that one district should be given consideration on freight assistance and not another. At the present time there is a difference of $11.20 per ton feed grains shipped out of the Peace river area and those shipped out of the Creston valley.
Last year I spoke on this matter and I received the same argument from the department, namely that this area is not part of the grain producing area for the purpose of freight assistance. This does not appear to me to be a logical argument. We are both in the province of British Columbia. At that time I received from the then minister this reply as found at page 4257 of Hansard of May 26, 1960:
I merely point out that this is a situation in which there seems to be no completely logical answer. We are still looking at the matter. The whole question of the movement of grain and particularly of the movement of feeds is tied up with the inquiry being carried on at the present time in the agriculture committee. After their report is submitted we may make changes as far as the movement of grains and the subsidy on grains, particularly from the Peace river area, are concerned.
That answer was given nearly a year ago and I feel that by this time they should have completed their investigation which would bring the Creston-Wynndel area into this freight assistance category. I feel also that we should be given consideration so that we can enter this Vancouver market. The difference of $11.20 per ton is a little bit too much to allow us to compete with the Peace river area.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few comments on this estimate which has to do with freight assistance on western feed grains, by way of an answer to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) who once stated that farmers should buy their grain during the fall and store it.
I gave two examples for the purpose of establishing whether it would pay the farmers or the feed mill operators to buy in the fall or in the spring. This is what I have found.
If the grain had been bought in October to be used at a later date, it would first have to be delivered to Pembroke from the harbour of Prescott. The option at that time was 82 cents a bushel, with a margin of 13 cents and loading charges of 1.4 cents, making up a total of 96.4 cents per bushel, or $56.62 a ton. Subtracting from this price the subsidy of $5 per ton, we get a net price of $51.62. To this price must of course be added shipping charges between Prescott and Pembroke,

Supply-Agriculture
which amount to $4.60 per ton, plus the interest on the invested money and the storage charges, for a total of $60.06 a ton, f.o.b. Prescott, in October 1960.
Had the same grain been purchased for delivery in March 1961, it would have had to be bought on the basis of the May options, which, at the time, were at 78 cents, plus the spread of 1J cents. So if you convert this grain into tons, you find that the price is $46.62 plus a $13.20 spread, minus the $5 subsidy which applies in this case as in the other, which gives a net cost of $54.82.
This will answer the allegation of the Minister of Agriculture to the effect that grain dealers would profit by purchasing their grain and stocking up in the fall. In the case I have just mentioned-the minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I have tried to get the best figures available-I think I am right in saying that the farmer has no advantage in buying his wheat in the fall and storing it until it can be used in the spring.
I think we should look for other reasons to justify the shipment of feed grains to eastern ports in the fall, so as to avoid finding ourselves in the same situation as last fall, a situation which caused the prices of feed grains to rise, thus affecting the income of eastern farmers.
Now, coming back to the statements made a moment ago by the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Argue) and the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Milligan), I should like to refer briefly to the subsidies paid to western producers and farmers. I am not against such subsidies, as I am sure they are really needed by the western farmers, because I had the privilege of working on a western farm for a year-that was about 20 years ago

and I had occasion to familiarize myself with the thinking of those farmers. I learned something of their language, and I was able to appreciate their attitudes and courtesy.
However, I have made a calculation based on figures provided by the "Current Review of Agricultural Conditions in Canada", wherein it is stated that in 1960, the prairie provinces received an amount of $77 million, including, under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act-the payments being based on acreage-an amount of $42 million, and under the federal-provincial farm assistance schemes for unharvested grain and for western wheat producers, another $35 million, which makes a total of $77 million. The number of farmers in those three provinces, in 1956, was 232,000.

Thus an average of $340, in round figures, went to each western farmer. If we apply the same figures to eastern farmers, including those of Ontario, Quebec and the mari-times-and I am leaving out British Columbia -we find that if the government had given our 315,000 farmers the same subsidies as were given the prairies farmers, it would have meant a disbursement of $104 million so that eastern farmers, and Quebec farmers in particular, would have got an additional $340.
According to a statement made by the management of la cooperative federee, as published in Le Devoir of February 2, 1961, the average net farm income last year, that is in 1960, amounted to $1,475. If the eastern provinces had enjoyed the same benefits as the western provinces, the net income of our farmers would have been $1,800 instead of $1,475.
The minister and the western members might think I am being critical of a policy which is beneficial to western farmers. Not in the least. What I am trying to point out is that there are farmers too in eastern Canada, in the maritimes, in Ontario and in Quebec, and that they too deserve consideration. We will soon have an act on farm rehabilitation. I hope that it will do us more good than did the crop insurance enacted two years ago.
Mr. Chairman, those are the few remarks I wanted the minister to hear. I hope he will consider the representations made by eastern farmers. I would be glad if he came out to visit the eastern provinces, particularly the province of Quebec, if he will allow me to extend that invitation. I also take the liberty of telling him that I will provide him with a chance to talk to our farmers and to tell them of what he is planning on their behalf.
(Text):


The Acting Chairman (Mr. MacEwan):: Shall
vote No. 25 carry?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I think I should say a few words on this issue of feed grain assistance. This assistance has been in effect for a good many years. Over those years I think that generally speaking, hon. members of all parties have supported it.
A debate is going on among farmers as to which particular group gets a subsidy out of this assistance. The western farmer stoutly maintains that the subsidy is to the eastern

farmer, and the eastern farmer maintains just as stoutly that the subsidy is to the western farmer.
I have noticed a growing amount of criticism of this assistance in both the west and the east. Eastern farmers are saying it should be taken off. These are the farmers who are growing wheat in Ontario. Western farmers who are anxious to build up a feed grain industry out west say that it should be taken off because it is subsidizing their competitors in the east.
I will immediately relieve the minds of hon. members of the committee by saying that thers is no intention on the part of the government to change the feed grain assistance system. We have this matter always under review, and at the present time I think it is doing much more good than harm to any particular group. I think that in connection with trying to set the eastern farmer against the western farmer we would all be well advised to remember that we are all Canadians and that eastern and western farming are complementary to each other.
As Minister of Agriculture I have taken great pains to point this out, not only in the house but across Canada. I have pointed out that there is no need at all for quarrels between the two groups. The difficulties in connection with trying to assist agriculture to receive a greater share of the national income are big enough as they are, without starting a fight between the two different groups.
I think that with a little thought hon. members will find there are very few cases of serious clash between eastern and western farmers. If anyone tries to divide up the help which the government has given, on a direct basis of the number of dollars that go into one particular area as compared with another, I think they would be doing a great injustice to agriculture.
A comment was made about freight rates in Quebec. The reason for the recent changes in the province of Quebec is the fact that the movement of western grain to eastern Canada has been based on rail rates. However, of recent years more and more of the feed grain moving to eastern Canada has gone by boat. Since the rates in Quebec are based primarily on Montreal, the subsidy has been equal to that applied to Montreal plus the local rate. When boats discharge their cargoes at Quebec city cheaper than they can be taken by rail, then obviously people in the area around Quebec have the benefit of a much lower rate. It is very confused and I suggest to hon. members from Quebec that they have a considerable advantage in connection with the grain that comes by water because the subsidy is no greater than the actual cost of moving it in.
Supply-Agriculture
In some places the difference is considerable. Chicoutimi is a case in point. We have tried to rectify this situation and bring rates into line, and these efforts have improved the situation. The same thing is happening in the maritime provinces. However, I would point out that this is a question of rate reductions; changes are made which we think, in the first instance, improve the situation, but, immediately, we receive representations from other places asking that adjustments be made. I can say, sincerely, that this matter is under constant review. It is under very active review, because the representations we are receiving from the various groups are so contradictory in their nature. We shall do our best to eliminate the differential as much as possible.
I should like to say a word now to the hon. member for Kootenay East. I think the case he has made out during the last two or three years that an injustice is being done to the people who live in southern British Columbia has now been changed through the building of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway. I can promise him that shortly he will get an answer, yes or no, in the case of grain being moved into Alberta from the southern and eastern parts of British Columbia. (Translation):


Augustin Brassard: I would like to thank the Minister of Agriculture for the information he gave me this afternoon and I hope that he will eventually find a solution to those problems.
I was a bit sorry to hear him say on a few occasions-and I have been listening to him for two or three months-that we are trying to pit the eastern farmers against their western counterparts.
I hope he does not take us for narrowminded individuals and that he does not pass judgment on us according to considerations I am not aware of.
We favour the western farmers as much as the eastern farmers, but we do want every farmer to have his share of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.
Even though we come from Quebec, and whatever the minister may think, we are as truly Canadian as he is.
We have at heart the welfare of western farmers as much as that of eastern farmers.
Every time requests came from the west and estimates had to be adopted for the benefit of western farmers, I think we have never shown any reluctance to comply with those requests.
However, we would like the government, the Minister of Agriculture, as was indicated earlier by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) to go in the east,

Supply-Agriculture
to go in Quebec and see for himself that we are people like others, that we love our English-speaking compatriots as much as he loves them himself.
But, we also want our French-speaking compatriots to get their share of the national revenue.
I would not want to believe in the remarks he sometimes makes in this house because it would give me a poor opinion of his education and his broadness of mind.
As I say, to make us out as being against the western farmers and for the eastern farmers, I realize that may sound well in a debate and that it may be a popular statement in his constituency, but I do not think it is a right judgment to pass on the people of Quebec.
(Text):


Hazen Robert Argue: I appreciate the statement the minister has made with regard to the seed grain subsidy and the fact that it is being continued. In stating that we should not try to divide the east and the west, the minister said that certain organizations both in eastern and western Canada have asked that this subsidy be removed. I should like to know from him what organizations in western Canada are campaigning for the removal of this feed grain subsidy. I am not aware of any organizations engaged in such a campaign and I should like the minister to tell me what organizations are involved because as far as I have been able to ascertain, the farmers of western Canada, certainly the grain farmers, are pleased that this policy is being continued. In their own minds, rightly or wrongly, they feel it is at least as much in the interests of the farmers and feeders of eastern Canada as it is in the interests of those who produce grain on the prairies.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I do not think there is any point in saying much about this. I have been making a tour of western farm organizations during the last two or three months and talking to various members of those organizations and discussing feed grain assistance with them. Several have remarked to me, mostly among the livestock associations, that as far as they are concerned they would not mind if it were cut off. I do not know of any organizations which have passed resolutions to this effect. I have simply pointed out that this feeling is growing. I do not think it is strong enough to warrant any action; I think it is just an expression of opinion that the subsidy is of no assistance to them.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think the minister is engaging now in loose gossip, because he says that no farm organization has passed a resolution suggesting that this subsidy should be discontinued. Yet he comes into this committee and
[Mr. Brassard (Lapointe) .1
with the authority of the Minister of Agriculture he says that certain officials of livestock associations in western Canada have expressed to him the opinion that this subsidy should be removed. I think it is a disservice to agriculture generally to engage in this kind of idle talk and loose gossip. I have noticed a predisposition on the part of the minister in his policies to weight his policy against the ordinary grain producer on the prairies-


An hon. Member:: Oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is what has been done. If some producer of high priced export livestock goes to the minister he seems to lend a much more sympathetic ear to him as witness the breaking down of the orderly system of marketing through the wheat board.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member can catcall all he likes from the back. Those interruptions are his main contribution to debates in this chamber. But I would say this loose talk on the part of the minister, this gossiping of private conversations on to the record of this committee when no western farm organization has made any policy statement which is critical of the feed grain subsidies, should not be repeated.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I want to thank the hon. member for his gratuitous advice. We all know from long experience of the hon. gentleman who is the one who talks loosely and who gives misinformation to this committee.


Hazen Robert Argue: No misinformation at all.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I did not interrupt the hon. member when he was speaking about me in such a loose fashion. I would like to point out that we have had a discussion spread over the last three or four months in the House of Commons concerning feed mills in western Canada, and I notice the hon. member said today in this committee that all the farm organizations in the west were supporting the stand he is taking. That is not true.


Hazen Robert Argue: I said no such thing.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Read the record carefully and you will find you made a misstatement of facts today. I did not get up and criticize it because the hon. member makes a good many of those misstatements and it is difficult to stop them all. I am simply pointing out in regard to this ques* tion that I made a statement in this chamber which is true, and I do not like it very much when an hon. member whose record in keeping to facts in this house is not too good stands up and challenges it.


Hazen Robert Argue: I never challenged the accuracy of the minister's statement at all. I did not say that he did not gossip with the officials. I did not question his statement regarding what certain officials had said to the effect that they might just as well take off the feed grain subsidy, but I did suggest that it was loose and irresponsible talk on the part of the minister when he related private conversations and statements, which he alleges have been made by unnamed officials, regarding a policy very much of interest to the agricultural industry in this country. It is difficult enough to maintain a good policy with the present minister in office without his trying to torpedo some of his own policies by this kind of loose and irresponsible talk, the accuracy of which I have not questioned at all. I have, however, questioned the propriety of the Minister of Agriculture in making this kind of statement when the organizations in question, in the words of the minister, have made no such policy statement whatsoever. The minister is merely referring to private conversations and is placing them on the record.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
26. Agricultural lime assistance, $1,300,000.
William Arnold Peters: Organizations in northern Ontario have in the past been interested in expanding this subvention, and the benefits the farmers derive from it, to include assistance in the field of fertilizer that is imported because of the very heavy cost of transportation. The farmers are at the end of their patience in this regard and have on a number of occasions, to my knowledge, asked for an extension of the subsidy paid, in regard to this fertilizer. I was wondering whether this is feasible, and whether consideration has been given to the representations that have been made during the last two or three years on behalf of northern Ontario farmers regarding the expanding of this lime assistance for agriculture so as to cover fertilizer commodities.
The Aciing Chairman (Mr. MacEwan):
Shall item 26 carry?


William Arnold Peters: I would like to have an answer to the question I have asked. The farm union locals in my area have been very interested in this problem and have passed resolutions in the Ontario section requesting this assistance. I might say it is very seldom that the northern Ontario farmers ask the federal government for assistance. I would ask the minister whether he has done anything about these representations or if he intends to give consideration in this regard.
90205-6-225
Private Bills


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: We have a policy to assist the provinces wishing to build up the capital of their land. The question of lime involves building up the land and is not fertilizer in the sense the hon. member has referred to it. We do not have any policy to date of assisting the provinces in regard to the importation of fertilizer. Our assistance has been directed to the capital lime buildup as distinct from the fertilizer lime. I cannot give the hon. member any more satisfaction than that because this is a different kind of policy from that which we have been considering so far.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
28. Poultry division, $1,248,856.
(Translation):
Samuel Boulanger: Would the minister give us some information on item 28?
(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Would the hon. member be more specific?
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: There is a decrease of $230,000. I would like to get some explanation in that connection.
(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think there is an increase in this item of $60,000.
I would like to suggest, while we are looking up the actual increase under the poultry division for this year, that any slight increase like this-$60,000-is almost entirely due to salary changes this year.


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, may I call
it five o'clock?
The Aciing Deputy Chairman (Mr. MacEwan): Order. It being five o'clock, it is my duty to leave the chair in order to permit the house to proceed to the consideration of private and public bills, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. J. N. Ormislon (Melville) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-12, an act respecting Co-Operative Life Insurance Company.
He said: Bill No. S-12 provides for an amendment to the act respecting the CoOperative Life Insurance Company, its head office being in Regina, Saskatchewan. Hon. members will notice that there are two proposed changes being made for the purpose of assuring policyholder members throughout Canada that the control of the company will not be centralized in Saskatchewan, and in particular at its head office. In fact under clause 1 precautions are written in to prevent employees of the company from exercising

Private Bills
the proxies of other members and thus preventing the control of the company being kept in the hands of head office personnel.
Clause 2 of the bill would add a new section, section 4(a). The purpose of this is to prevent the control of the company being concentrated in any one designated region. In this respect it would mean that the Co-Operative Life Insurance Company would operate in the same manner as other co-operative societies, on a delegate basis. Finally, the superintendent of insurance has indicated that he has no opposition to the proposed changes.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I am not rising to register any objection to this bill. I think the purposes of the bill should be supported because I view with very great alarm a situation where it has been possible, at least in theory, for the control of a co-operative life insurance company to fall within the hands of a very few people. I wonder whether the sponsor of the bill could tell me whether steps will be taken to assure that the same co-operative principles will be followed in relation to this life insurance company as have been followed in relation to other co-operative organizations under the Rochdale principle, namely, that one member shall have one vote and one vote alone, and that this principle will be maintained throughout the operation of the company.
When membership in such a co-operative company is spread all across Canada I can appreciate that control of the company from the point of view of voting at conventions would have to be in the hands of delegates. However, I would appreciate it if the sponsor could give me an answer to this question. Will the principle of one member, one vote be followed throughout the operations of this company? I think most hon. members feel that co-operatives can play a very important part in the life of our country but certainly they will fall into ill repute if it is possible for control of such companies to fall into the hands of a few individuals which means in fact that really they are no longer co-operatives in the sense that those of us who are associated with such organizations understand co-operative principles.


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the hon. member for Melville speaks now he will close the debate.


James Norris Ormiston: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the wording of the bill it is certainly the intention that the members of the Co-Operative Life Insurance Company

will be elected and will vote in the same manner as members of other co-operative organizations such as the wheat pools, livestock co-operatives and dairy co-operatives, with which we are all familiar. The bill simply makes provision for the same arrangements to apply to the Co-Operative Life Insurance Company.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
House again in committee on the whole on Bill S-2, an act to Incorporate Aurora Pipe Line Company. (Without amendment).-Mr. Woolliams.
Mr. Churchill:: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: I note that the house leader is suggesting that this order stand. It would have to be by unanimous consent. Is the house prepared to waive this order by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


William Arnold Peters: the second reading of Bill No. C-28, to provide for minimum wages for employees.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill has been before parliament on previous occasions. It was first introduced by Mr. Stanley Knowles who is now executive vice president of the Canadian Labour Congress and I have introduced a similar measure on several occasions. The bill would establish a minimum wage of $1.25 per hour for all employees under the jurisdiction of the federal government. A number of years ago it was considered throughout Canada that a basic rate of $1 per hour was a fairly good wage but because of increases in the cost of living and the upgrading in the standard of wages throughout industry generally over the years it seems to me that the government should establish a minimum wage not only for all those who are employed by it but also for all those employed in industries over which the federal government has jurisdiction.
Certainly it was made evident in Ottawa recently that it is necessary to establish a minimum wage law. Not long ago a number of convictions were obtained in the case of industries coming under the jurisdiction of the province of Ontario. With each application of the minimum wage law there is a growing indication of the need and desirability of establishing a fair and reasonable

minimum rate in those industries in which no organization bargains for the employees.
If the bill were passed it would not have any effect with respect to employees within industries over which the federal government has jurisdiction if those employees are receiving more than $1.25 an hour. The bill will not have the effect of reducing wages. It simply establishes a bare minimum and raises rates to that minimum in all cases where the federal government has jurisdiction. This would be a very simple law. It would be similar to laws that are in effect in all the provinces of Canada. The minimum rates vary from one province to another. The federal government, however, has depended upon prevailing rates, casual labour rates and other rates. We are now suggesting that a minimum rate of $1.25 per hour be established in those fields over which the federal government has jurisdiction.


Mr. E. A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate briefly in the debate on Bill No. C-28 having to do with the establishment of a minimum wage for employees of the government of Canada. As was indicated by the hon. member who introduced the bill, this is not the first time such a measure has been before the house. I regret to say that I was caught somewhat unaware. I had intended to speak at greater length on this matter on a previous occasion. However, I have hurriedly got together some of the material I had intended to use and I hope I can make a small but valuable contribution.
As a supporter of the government I do not hesitate for one moment to say that I support the bill now before us. We know very well that such a provision is basic in the establishment of living standards in our country and, so far as employees under the jurisdiction of the federal government are concerned, unquestionably parliament should give leadership by taking this step. Obviously the previous bill specified a lower hourly rate, but I think that is of no great consequence at this time. We all agree that the standard of living in our country is high, and I certainly believe this basic rate of pay would be required to maintain a family on accepted standards.
Back in 1935 the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, then prime minister, introduced legislation of this type in this House of Commons and carried it through to its conclusion. The Liberal government which followed referred this legislation to the supreme court and, of course, it was proclaimed ultra vires. Canada had agreed at an international convention to establish certain labour standards, including 90205-6-2251
Industrial Relations
minimum wages, and the country was therefore obligated by treaty to put such legislation on the statute books. I would ask hon. members to bear in mind that this action was taken by the Conservative government of that day and contested by the subsequent Liberal regime. I am not saying that, in recent days, the thinking of the Liberal party has not changed in this regard.
We must realize that in so far as the subject matter of this bill is concerned, the jurisidc-tion of the federal government is limited mainly to the fields of transportation, communications, a few corporations under federal control, and the banks. Certainly I would say that in those fields there are certain categories that require the assistance that would be extended by the terms of this bill. We cannot really expect that other phases of the economy will carry on at a high standard if the federal government does not take responsibility in the fields over which it has jurisdiction.
There will probably be some objections to be considered before we consider the detailed terms of the bill. No doubt these objections can be overcome during the course of the discussion or they can be referred to the committee and ironed out at that time. One such objection might be the possibility that the implementation of the bill would involve the expenditure of public funds.
There is one particular aspect of this question that concerns me somewhat. It is not that I feel the terms of the bill are wrong, but perhaps we do not have sufficiently in mind, when we are trying to determine what is right or wrong internally in our country, the fact that the federal government should take the lead in this field and establish a rate at least equal to the highest provincial enactment. We should bear in mind the fact that we are setting the standard for other governments.
Recently the New York Times published a comparison of hourly rates for labour in which the Canadian rates appeared. I think this is an important aspect of the matter, especially when we are endeavouring to establish a basic rate such as this of $1.25 per hour. The article revealed that in Canada we have an average rate of $1.72 compared with $2.13 in the United States. In the United Kingdom the average hourly rate is 66 cents; in west Germany, 54 cents, and in France, 38 cents. I do not have before me the figures for Japan, but we know they would be much lower than these figures.
I should like to quote here the figures relating to income per capita in those countries

Industrial Relations
I have mentioned. I do have the figures relating to Japan in this regard. In Canada the average per capita income is $1,400; in Japan, it is $200.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Eric Alfred Winkler: Yes.


Murdo William Martin: Will the hon. member quote the figures relating to the cost of living index in those countries as well as the income figures?


Eric Alfred Winkler: No, I cannot do that because, as I said earlier, I have that material but I prepared rather hurriedly and I did not bring it with me. I admit it is relevant to this matter, there is no question about that. This is precisely where I agree with the hon. member in connection with the establishing of a minimum rate of $1.25. I am supporting the bill in every detail in this regard. However, I do say these factors should be borne in mind and they might lead to the necessity of regulating other things which perhaps the hon. member would like to do but we would not like to do.
In the Soviet union the average per capita income is $500 and in the United Kingdom it is $900; west Germany, $700 to $800.
As I have just indicated, I am not mentioning these factors in the hope they will be used as background material to oppose this bill. However, I believe if one cites arguments in favour of this bill, all the factors should be kept in mind. I will say that if the discussion of this bill terminates this afternoon and it is not brought to a vote, I am sure that in the future the government will put legislation of this type on the statute books. I say that with all sincerity. I have quoted these figures only because I believe we should support the standard of living we have now. I would be the last to suggest we should reduce the standard of living we are enjoying or that anyone should use these figures as a basis for opposition to the bill. However, I believe we must consider all these things when we are making such determinations. As I indicated earlier, I am very much in favour of this bill and I will support it if the opportunity arises.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Before discussing the terms of the bill, Mr. Speaker, I intend to make a few comments on the remarks just made by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler). It is true that legislation of this kind was passed in the late thirties under a Conservative administration and that this legislation was applied all across the board to any class of employees, not just those under federal administration as is the case in this bill, No. C-28. Later on this legislation was referred to
[Mr. Winkler.)
the Supreme Court of Canada in order to ascertain whether or not it was ultra vires. There is a good reason for that. Over the years the Liberals are well known for standing in favour of the autonomy of provinces instead of being in favour of centralization as the Tories have been all down through the years. I am not stating anything new here. Besides that, the present administration has been in power for the last four years. They certainly could have brought forward legislation of this kind if they think that minimum wages should be-


Eric Alfred Winkler: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Yes.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Will he indicate to the house whether or not he is in favour of the terms of this bill?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Of course, Mr. Speaker. I could not allow the remarks of my hon. friend to go unchallenged.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Will the hon. member answer the question?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Of course I am in favour of having a minimum wage.


Eric Alfred Winkler: How does it come about that you were here for twenty two years and did not pass a minimum wage law?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I am just commenting on the remarks made by my hon. friend and I am stating that the present government has been in power for the past four years but nothing has been done .to bring forward legislation of this kind. I think that statement cannot be challenged.
I now intend to continue in French, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):
I do not suppose anyone is opposed to this bill. Indeed I think the sponsor of this bill was very conservative in setting a minimum of $1.25. In view of the present cost of living, I think it is absolutely necessary that at least $1.25 per hour be guaranteed to employees who come under federal jurisdiction.
I believe that we should set an example to private industry because, in view of the present high availability of labour, a great many business enterprises are taking advantage of the situation and paying wages of 70, 75 and 80 cents an hour.
I think we should give leadership in the matter of wages.
This is a bill which, I hope, will be passed before six o'clock. I hope no member will

still be talking at the six o'clock bell, so that the house may vote on the principle of this bill.
I do not want to keep the floor too long but I do wish to say that if this Bill C-28 were adopted, it would have the immediate effect of raising the wages now paid to seasonal employees of the national employment service. It would also have the immediate effect of stepping up the wages we are paying to post office seasonal employees, and many others.
I wish to congratulate the sponsor of this bill. I think it is time we adopted this legislation. I hope we are going to vote on the principle of this bill before six o'clock. (Text):


Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonton-Sirathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have not in any previous year spoken on this bill but it occurred to me that there was one point relating to it on which I should like to say a few words. I refer to the necessity for the bill itself. I would not want my remarks to be taken to apply generally to business men in this country. I will therefore make it plain when I say that some employers about whom I intend to talk are the reason for or give rise to the introduction of this bill. I cannot tell what the percentage is; I hope it is a very small number of employers. However, there are certainly some across the country here and there who will take advantage of a workman in any way they can, sometimes merely to increase their own profit. Some may be driven to taking an unfair advantage because of the desperate circumstances their business is in and they will try to use anybody whom they can use in order to save that business.
I have had a little bit of personal contact with that type of employer. What I am afraid of in a bill like this is that where you force the employer to pay a minimum wage, it may lead him to feel, "Well, the government has set this fair minimum wage and, if I give the employee this wage, that is all I need to give him". It might in some respects deter an employer who, in trying to satisfy his own conscience without such a law in force, might be a little bit more generous.
I can recall working for a firm just prior to the war. At that time in the province of Alberta the minimum wage was 33J cents per hour. There was an old faithful employee who had worked for that company since 1897. He had started as a teamster driving a wagon delivering their lumber. He had graduated to driving a truck for the company and at the time I knew him in 1940 he was driving the oldest truck in the firm.
Industrial Relations
At that time he had had 43 to 44 years of continuous service with the firm. He was distinguished from the other truck drivers in that he was not on an hourly wage but was on a monthly salary. His monthly salary worked out to exactly what the other truck drivers would get if they put in a few hours overtime in a week. The only difference was that he received his pay every month and I am afraid that he did the same amount of overtime every month.
I was shocked by the treatment of that man when I came back from overseas and checked to find that he was still there but had just that summer been taken ill for a while. At the end of two weeks the accountant took his cheque to the secretary of the firm for signing and the secretary said, "That is his holiday pay". The man still was not back at the end of another two weeks and the accountant made out another cheque and took it to the secretary of the company who said, "He has had his holiday pay. We owe him nothing". I am happy to say that the president of the firm stepped in and said, "This man will continue to get his cheque, no matter what happens".
When we stop to consider the attitude expressed by the secretary of the company toward this man who had been a faithful employee of the company for 50 years, we are inclined to feel that certainly we cannot be too zealous in our efforts to protect some of the workers from some of the employers.
I am sure that the vast majority of employers in this country are not at all alarmed at the thought of a bill like this being enacted. I think the wage scales across the country are probably substantially above the minimum set out in this bill. I am convinced that in most of those industries where the pay is not above this amount there are many sound economic reasons why they are not able to pay it.
This, of course, causes me a little difficulty in connection with the bill. Certainly we all wish to protect workers. In so far as we are able, we wish to ensure by legislation that these workers obtain at least a minimum living wage. We know they require some protection, but we also know that conditions in this country vary considerably from place to place. They vary considerably from industry to industry. The conditions under which people work even in one industry may vary considerably. There are various types of jobs and there are certainly different rates that industries can afford to pay. An across the board minimum wage as would be fixed by this bill would certainly have different effects, depending upon where the people are employed.

Industrial Relations
I suggest that when we look at the different conditions and standards, a single rate across the country for all industries and all purposes would give some workers absolutely no more protection than they now have. The natural laws of economics, supply of labour, economic conditions, health of the industry, and so on, in one area mean that we are not giving those particular working men any protection whatsoever.
There may be other areas where industry is trying to get started and is struggling along, where the cost of living may be generally much less and where the economic value of $1.25 per hour would certainly be out of all proportion to its value in another area.
I would suggest that this argument is quite realistic, and as evidence of this we have only to consider what is being done by the provinces across the country in their minimum wage laws. I am not familiar with all the regulations and rates, but I do know they vary with regard to the minimum wage rate all the way from perhaps 35 cents an hour in some places for female help, to perhaps a minimum of $1 in other areas-it may be even more-for male help, depending on the job.
I note that this bill deals with more than just the minimum hourly rate. There are other benefits that this bill endeavours to provide. But looking at the provincial legislation-and much of it is of long standing-it seems to me that we would be attacking this problem in a much more realistic way if there were a little more flexibility in this bill.
I cannot pretend to come up with a formula at this time as to how the minimum wage should be fixed for any particular part of the country or any particular industry, other than by reference to provincial legislation. These provincial bodies and labour boards which operate in the provinces are constantly in touch with all the factors that affect rates of pay and the economic situation in their areas. Over the years they have evolved rules, regulations and rates and have set minimum rates of pay for various industries and various sections, taking into account all these factors. We might not be remiss in taking advantage of the work they have done in order to establish our own minimum wage regulations.
I should think that instead of fixing the rate of $1.25 an hour across the country- which, as I have pointed out, might not be too satisfactory for some reasons-it would be better to pass a bill to tie in a minimum wage rate which would rise, fall or vary according to the provincial minimum wage laws prevailing in the area or industry where these people are affected. Then we would be a little more realistic in our approach to the problem.

As the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) pointed out, when he first introduced this bill the rate was $1 per hour and now it is $1.25 because the cost of living and wages have gone up. I have no doubt that over the next few years, if this bill were put into effect, there would from time to time be amendments to increase that rate as economic conditions changed in the country.
If we fix a single rate across the country, paying no attention to the varied economic difficulties which have to be faced, I think it would not be satisfactory now, we probably would not find it satisfactory in the future and amendments would be necessary. I think we would have to bring in more than one figure if we attempted to cover the whole country.
Therefore, my first suggestion in connection with this bill is that we should take advantage of the work, time and money spent by the provinces. We should take advantage of their experience in this field and should make some use of the knowledge and figures they have compiled and the regulations they have evolved.
Let us put this bill, not on the basis of a rate of $1.25 per hour but on a rate which would bear a relationship to the minimum wage laws which are in force in the provinces for the particular area and the type of work being done. We should tie this rate closely to the provincial scheme.
I should point out that I am not advocating that it has to be the same rate of pay as is laid down by the minimum wage laws in the provinces. I am sure that if we looked at the rates now prevailing in some of the provinces most of us would probably be more interested in our own province and would feel a little dissatisfaction with the provincial legislation and consider that it has lagged a little. We would probably think it is time these minimum rates should be raised so that they are more in keeping with modern times.
When I say that we should take advantage of provincial legislation and experience, I am not saying that we should let the provinces set our rate. However, I do say that those factors which have caused the rates to vary from province to province, and in some cases to vary within the province, will probably be good reasons why our rate should vary also, I would suggest, therefore, that our rate should be an amount which varies, as the provincial rates vary, but should not necessarily be the same sum. It could be a percentage; it could be 1| times the minimum prescribed by the province; it could be 10 per cent more, or 100 per cent more, depending on the area under consideration.



II. 1961

[Stage Direction]
I agree that we should give leadership to this extent. I do not think the federal legislation should set a rate which is less than that set by the provinces. However, I do feel that the most sensible rate, and the one which will provide the best protection for workers, is one that takes advantage of the experience which has been built up by the provinces.
There are a few cases where a minimum wage of $1.25 as set out would impose a hardship on the working man himself. These are individuals and merely because they are working people it does not mean they do not have their own defences, that they do not know their own minds or have to be led by the hand. I have seen examples of cases where a man might feel it is to his own best long term advantage to work for a very low wage at the start because he can see a new industry struggling to get going and believes that his own personal sacrifice will help that industry to get past its formative stage so that within a short time the company will possibly be able to pay him a wage much better than the minimum wage offered elsewhere in that area. A man might therefore want to join with his employer in making the sacrifices necessary so as to improve his position on a long term basis.
I have seen examples of employees who much prefer assistance of a very small guaranteed wage coupled with a share of the profits or bonuses and certainly this system does much for the incentive of the working man. Certainly those who are most vitally interested in the progress of the industry have their own welfare at heart. By setting a minimum wage too high we would make it difficult if not impossible for many of these worth while schemes to be put into effect.
I realize there are some employers who would take advantage of schemes of this sort, who would try to get their employees to work for little or nothing, and when I suggest that workers should be free to enter into such schemes I do so with the intimation that there is going to be some danger that they will suffer instead of gain. Having worked in the coal mines in the west, perhaps conditions there would be a good example of what I mean. I know that most of the miners who were digging coal wanted to be on a contract rate though some others preferred to be paid at so much per day. I have no hesitation in saying that those who worked on the contract rate worked about twice as hard as the other miners. The company man usually turned out to be the one who would do the least work, the last one you would choose to have as your partner if the two
Industrial Relations
of you were working in one place and were dependent on the total output for your daily wage.
I think this minimum wage is going to prevent a lot of ambitious hard-working people who are willing to make short term sacrifices in exchange for long term benefits from being able freely to exercise their choice. I think this will be more detrimental to them than exposing them to possible harsh practices by unscrupulous employers.
I do not like to deal with individual items in the bill but for the purpose of illustrating some of my remarks I cannot help but comment on the amount of money which it is proposed be deducted in respect of meals and lodging. I suggest it is most praiseworthy to make sure that a man is really protected where he is on a job where his meals and lodging are provided by the employer to make sure that the minimum wage provision is not circumvented by the charging of excessive rates for necessities. I suggest, however, that the rates for meals and lodgings must bear some relation to the actual cost of providing them.
We set in this bill a minimum wage rate of $1.25 an hour but we put the value of a night's lodging at 75 cents-that would be the bunk, the shelter and so on-and I think the price set for the meals is 50 cents. I find it hard to imagine how the same employer who must pay his cooks $1.25 an hour as a minimum, who must pay the most useless roustabout around the camp at least that sum in order to get the simplest tasks performed, must still be able to furnish food and lodging at those rates. I am not objecting to a working man getting those rates of pay but I think we have to be practical. We have still a lot of country to open up in Canada. In many of the places where people have to work the only way in which the project can be organized is for the employer to set up a camp. Nowadays wealthy companies with sufficient capital try to set up complete towns together with all the facilities, including facilities for recreation but there are still some areas where only a small development is to take place in charge of someone who possesses only a small amount of capital but large ambitions and lots of courage, the kind of person who originally opened up this country and who are still trying to open it up to the best of their ability. They do not have money for frills. They must be able to get in and provide some facilities for their employees. To put an artificial value on meals and lodging supplied-though these may have cost the employer three or four times as much-is going to make it correspondingly more difficult to get the project started at all.
[Stage Direction]
Industrial Relations
I hope none of my remarks will be considered as indicating my opposition to the principle of the bill. I take it the principle of this bill is to protect the working man in his dealings with his employer no matter who or where he may be, to the extent that he will get at least a minimum living wage for his services. I am opposed to the flat rate being inserted because I think it would not do the job; it would not operate correctly; it would cause much trouble in some places and leave people without coverage in others. I would suggest that the rate be set at a percentage over and above the prevailing provincial rate in the area and that the item concerning food and lodging supplied need not necessarily be included if we have properly set out our prevailing wage rate.
There is nothing in this measure which takes into account the fact that we have in this country a good many people whom I might perhaps describe as difficult to employ. There is nothing in this bill that will encourage an employer to hire someone who is mentally deficient; individuals for whom we would like to encourage employers to find jobs in order that they might support themselves. This bill does not take into account the halt, the lame and the blind, and those individuals for whom we are attempting to find jobs. If jobs could be found for these individuals they would feel self-sufficient and would feel they were doing their part in this country. These are problems which I think can be worked out, and I would suggest to the mover of this bill that more progress could be made if amendments were included along the lines I have suggested.
Finally, I would say to the businessmen in this country that any remarks I have made about the hard-hearted businessmen apply only to a very few. I think the unscrupulous businessmen are a small minority. I feel most of our businessmen are hard-working honest individuals who give their employees the best treatment possible because they appreciate that their employees will in turn give them their best effort. I thank the hon. members for the patience they have shown.
Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member speaks now he will close the debate.


Mr. John Smiih (Lincoln):: I would like at this time to express my views regarding this bill and say to the sponsors that I appreciate their sincerity in attempting to bring about a higher standard of living in Canada by way of minimum wages.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does the hon. gentleman realize that if he speaks until six o'clock he will prevent a vote?


Mr. Graffiey:: Demagogue, demagogue.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is not in order. It is not relevant to the discussion.


William Heward Grafftey: Twenty eight years of indifference to the working man; let him speak.


John Smith: This is a bill which I feel requires a good deal more discussion than we have had to the present time. I have spoken in regard to bills of this type on several occasions in the house and my opinion has not changed. There is, I feel, no hon. member in this house who is opposed to the principles of a bill of this type. However, I feel very strongly that the matter of minimum working rates is a provincial one. While this bill deals particularly with individuals working on federal government projects, there may be a very distinct clash with provincial acts causing a great deal of difficulty. The provinces in Canada have their own departments of labour, in most cases with advanced labour legislation. I feel that if this government supersedes that legislation without thorough discussion and the agreement of the provinces it would be entirely wrong.
For many years I was a member of a trade union and was connected with the enforcing of minimum wage rates in the province of Ontario, and I refer particularly to the industrial standard act. I am familiar with the problems involved in the enforcing of an act of this type. I feel that if this government were to move forward quickly in the passing of a bill of this kind without providing for an enforcement force it would get into serious trouble. The minimum of $1.25 per hour, as set forth in this bill, would be fair in an area such as Toronto but might create hardships in areas such as Newfoundland, Quebec and other areas. This is one reason why I feel that the minimum wage statutes should be matters with which the provincial governments should deal. I do feel that this bill requires a great deal more study before it is passed.
I had intended to deal with a number of other items but will say in summary that I endorse the bill in principle but feel that it must incorporate much more before it becomes a satisfactory formula for every part of Canada. For that reason I feel that it should be brought forward at some later date, perhaps in different form and at a time when all hon. members will have an opportunity to express their opinions. There is no doubt that it is a good bill but we should have the approval of the provinces before it is put into effect.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

Supply-Agriculture


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hour for private and public bills having expired, the house will now resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.

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



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
28. Poultry division, $1,248,856.
(Translation):
Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, on March 16 1960, the hon. member for Richelieu-Ver-cheres (Mr. Cardin) asked a question of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) on the possible removal of the 4 million pound maximum quota on the importation of turkeys from the United States. The following day, as reported on page 3090, the Minister of Agriculture made the following reply:
Mr. Speaker, I examined this question in Hansard this morning. The question is as follows:
Is it the intention of the government to abolish the 4 million pound maximum quota on the importation of turkeys from the United States?
I am not sure whether this question is in order, though I may be subject to correction in that respect. If it is, I should like to say that at the present time we have no thought in mind concerning any change.
It seems that the words "at the present time" have caused some confusion among the public, judging from an article published in the Family Herald for April 13, 1961, under the signature of Jack Trower. I should just like to quote part of that article:
(Text):
It is doubtful, however, if Mr. Hamilton's very brief statement will completely satisfy the turkey industry. Answering a question in commons concerning the possible abolition of import quotas or United States turkeys, he replied simply that: "... at the present time we have no thought in mind concerning any change."
(Translation):
It seems that Canadian turkey producers, particularly in the province of Quebec, are concerned about this situation. I have received a number of letters from turkey producers in my area in this connection; they are concerned and they ask me to seek additional information.
Before going on with my remarks, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture with regard to this 4 million pound quota. Does this quota include all types of turkeys? I should particularly like to know whether it includes turkey poults, young turkeys, medium turkeys and others?
(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I think the answer to the hon. member's question is yes. It does include all types of turkeys.
(Translation):


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct another question to the minister. Has this maximum 4 million pound quota been in force throughout the year 1960?
(Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The quota year is the calendar year. Therefore the quota is for 1961.
(Translation):


Gabriel Roberge: And now, Mr. Chairman, in view of the answers just given by the minister, I must say that several of the letters I have received mention the fact that in 1960 over 6 J million pounds were imported from the United States.
On the other hand, in reply to a question put by my colleague for Drummond-Artha-baska, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Morris) replied, as found on page 2294 of Hansard, that in 1960 the importation of 4,444,298 pounds of turkeys, live or killed, not reported elsewhere, was authorized, under 77 permits.
On the other hand, if we examine the report issued by the Department of Trade and Commerce, entitled "Trade of Canada Imports, December 1960" for the 12-month period ending December 1960, and most particularly page 46, we will note that 4,682,777 pounds were imported under those 77 permits, I presume. The same information may be found under item 2261, "Turkeys NOP". Under another item, i.e. number 2013 of the same publication, it is noted that the importation of baby chicks and turkey poults reached 7,614,095 pounds.
I do not have the details of this item; I do not know whether there are any, and the minister may be able to throw some light on that subject. In any case, this item covers chickens, young chickens and young turkeys: 7 million pounds of them. Supposing that even a third of this 7 million were comprised of young turkeys, I feel that the figure of 6J million pounds which was given was not exaggerated.
Therefore, I ask the Minister of Agriculture why when a maximum quota is set at 4 million pounds, the importation of 4,682,777 pounds of small or large turkeys is permitted, including, I imagine, some 2 million pounds of young turkeys?
Does the department take the necessary steps to ensure that importers will not exceed the quotas permitted under their permits,

Supply-Agriculture
which quotas are intended for the protection of our turkey and young turkey industry? (Text):


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think the answer to the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, is that the Department of Trade and Commerce compiles figures relating to all turkey imports, whereas our figures deal with turkeys for consumption only. In other words, the trade and commerce figure would include poults that come in for feeding purposes. They are not for consumption.


Gabriel Roberge: Is the minister saying that turkeys for consumption did not exceed the 4 million quota?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have not the final figures before me. However, if my memory serves me correctly the final figure was about 4,100,000. A check is made each quarter and the imports cannot go over 2 million for any one quarter with a maximum of 4 million for the year. However, if you get within round numbers of that figure, that is as close as you can get.


Gabriel Roberge: Coming back to the article I just read from the Family Herald, the concern of the turkey growers is that the quota will remain. Can the minister say firmly now that the four million quota will stay?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The answer to the hon. member's question is yes, the quota will stay at four million for this year and there will be the tariff of five cents.


William Moore Benidickson: I believe the Minister of Agriculture was one of the ministers who met with the members of the new United States administration. Was this one of the subjects discussed then?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There were a number of subjects discussed between the six United States ministers and the four Canadian ministers, on which there have been discussions over the past years. I do not know whether or not this one was actually discussed by itself, but the whole general problem was discussed.


Clarence Adam Milligan: Does the board of grain commissioners come under this particular vote?


Jacques Flynn: No, it is under vote 29.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Board of grain commissioners (Canada Grain Act)-
29. Administration, $166,215.
Clarence Adam Milligan: I should like to say a word in connection with this vote. I certainly agree that the board of grain commissioners is doing a very good job in the marketing of grain. I feel this is an example of orderly marketing that has proven itself. I only wish we could

adopt this system of marketing for a lot of other products, and then agriculture would not be in the awkward position in which it is at the present time. I certainly believe we should be doing everything possible to protect the operations of the wheat board.
I am concerned about the restrictions that were lifted from feed mills in western Canada in relation to the buying of grain from the wheat board. I feel I should mention this item in particular because I was one of the people who took part in the negotiations which led to oats and barley being placed under the wheat board. The farmers of western Canada, through their farm organization representatives, came down to a meeting of the federation of agriculture and asked support from eastern Canada to have oats and barley placed under the wheat board. We thought this was good business. We thought it was a step in the right direction toward orderly marketing. At the same time, we realized the result would be an increase in the cost of feed in eastern Canada. However, we were prepared to meet our obligations.
There was no opportunity last fall during the meetings of the agriculture committee for the eastern organizations to present briefs on this subject. These organizations did not know anything about the hearings that were being held. Since that time I have received communications from the co-operative fede-ree" in Quebec, the maritime feed services in the maritimes, from the united co-operative in Ontario and the Ontario federation concerning this move to allow feed mills to buy grain directly from the farmers. I am concerned about this procedure because I think it represents the thin edge of the wedge which may be driven in to weaken the operations of the wheat board. I hope the minister will take a new look at this situation when the authorization expires in July. I think there is discrimination against our eastern feeders.
In addition, there is a principle involved. Oats and barley were put under the wheat board about 1949, and after 12 years the western boys are the ones who come down here and ask to be released from the wheat board restrictions. We in the east are still obligated to pay wheat board prices.


Hazen Robert Argue: They were not speaking for the farmers.


Clarence Adam Milligan: I am buying western oats and I am paying $1 a bushel.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is a crime.


Clarence Adam Milligan: I was looking at the wheat board quotations and they are paying 78J cents for oats. The minister was kind enough

to give us the figures to show what the feed mills were paying the farmers for western grain. In going over this list I find that none of the mills was paying over 55 cents for oats, 65 cents for barley and 95 cents for wheat. Certainly, if I could buy grain at those prices I would feel I could very easily beat the market. After going over these prices, I find they are the initial prices the wheat board is paying the farmer for grain. As I understand it, there is always a payment made to the farmers after the crop has been sold. I do not want to see the western farmer faced with any more problems or expense, but it does seem too bad that he cannot buy his grain as he would like.
I feel we should tie down the feed mills so that they would at least pay the initial price paid by the wheat board. I understand there are freight charges, elevator storage and all the rest of it placed against this grain when it is bought by the feed mills in western Canada. There could be regulations imposed upon the feed mills so that when they buy directly from the farmers they must pay the initial price paid by the wheat board plus whatever return there is from the grain after the crop is sold, on the same basis as we pay in the east.
This is not something new. I have discussed this grain question for the last 15 years in farm organizations. I have been told we need not pay these exorbitant prices for grain. We can buy it directly from the wheat board and store it, and that is exactly what the western farmer can do. Instead of buying from the feed mills, he can buy from the wheat board, store it and then take it over to the feed mill for processing. We have been told for five years that we are being exploited because, as I understand it, there are no storage facilities down here for the grain.
I have been told that the elevator storage at Prescott and Kingston at the present time is filled with export wheat No. 3 which has been there for some three or four years, with the result that there is no room for any more grain to be placed in those elevators. As a consequence we are left to be exploited by the grain trade. I think that is one of the reasons why we pay such enormous prices for grain today as compared with what the western farmer gets. I would not mind paying $1 a bushel for oats if the western farmer were getting that price on the farm, but I know he is not getting it.
For three years many of us have asked for the closing of the grain exchange because of the speculative market. We are leaving it wide open for the speculators to take advantage of the western producer and also of the feeder in the east. That is exactly what
Supply-Agriculture
is taking place at the present time. We are left in short supply, with the result that we are obliged to depend on rail shipment. We are obliged to depend on the trade. They know we are in short supply and they exploit us and take advantage of the situation. I hope these conditions can be changed. I felt I should mention these things because I was one of the people who sat in at these negotiations. I think a principle is involved, namely the protection of the feeder in the east as well as the producer in the west. It seems to me that we must have one policy for agriculture right across Canada. Unless we have that kind of policy I do not think justice can be done to the feeders in eastern Canada.


William Moore Benidickson: I rise on a point of order for purposes of clarification owing to the fact that this year we have, I think for the first time, the transfer of responsibility for the Canadian wheat board to the Minister of Agriculture, the Canadian wheat board having previously been under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and having been in his estimates. I have no quarrel with that transfer. However, I have spoken to the Minister of Agriculture and have pointed out to him that unless a member of the committee of supply speaks on item No. 1, he might have some difficulty in speaking on problems tremendous in their scope which involve the Canadian wheat board.
I do not think the Canada Grain Act or the jurisdiction of the board of grain commissioners perhaps permitted the discussion we had from my hon. friend from Prince Edward-Lennox. However, I certainly did not want to interrupt him because he is a very conscientious member of the House of Commons and a good friend of mine. Nevertheless with the transfer of responsibility from the Department of Trade and Commerce to the Department of Agriculture I think we should have, as members of parliament, some clarification from the minister as to what debate he would expect in the future.
In my conversation with him, I think he asked me to look up the former practice when the wheat board was under the Department of Trade and Commerce. I attempted to do so during the dinner hour but I could not find that the situation was any different. I could not find under the Department of Trade and Commerce an item, shall I say, that would be equivalent to the absence of an item here in agriculture. It is a very big area of the minister's responsibility, whether he be the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I have no particular suggestion to make if this has been traditional. We always have room for change and improvement.

Supply-Agriculture
I have already spoken this session making some complaint with regard to dollar items which offer opportunity for debate but which may, in so far as the estimates are concerned, have no real meaning. In this case I think perhaps I should be consistent. Unknown as it sometimes is to some of those interested in agriculture in eastern Canada, the Canadian wheat board operation is an operation of western farmers; and from what we are doing tonight it is obvious that the Canadian wheat board and its western farmer members absorb the cost of operation. We as parliamentarians are therefore not called upon to vote money for the operation of the Canadian wheat board. However, I thought perhaps the new Minister of Agriculture might give this matter some thought because it is extremely important.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order which the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has raised, if I may,-


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, we cannot have two points of order at the same time. I spoke to a point of order.


Hazen Robert Argue: I asked the hon. member to excuse me.


William Moore Benidickson: I will defer to the hon. member.


Hazen Robert Argue: I thought the hon. member had concluded that part of his statement having to do with the point of order. As the hon. member has pointed out, it is perfectly true that there is not in the estimates an item covering the Canadian wheat board. However, under the general grain items, the board of grain commissioners and so on, it has been the practice in years gone by to discuss the Canadian wheat board and its operations. The Minister of Agriculture has the Canadian wheat board under his jurisdiction.
I was not able to be here yesterday. The government found it necessary to change the order of business, something about which I make no complaint. However, I feel that it would be in order for the committee to agree that the Canadian wheat board and the items surrounding it-and I am thinking particularly of the existing quotas on the prairies-might either be discussed under this item-and the discussion has already been broadened by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox- or that, after the conclusion of the detailed items, we might revert to the administration item so that I might be able to make some comments on the wheat board quotas and one or two other matters that I should like to mention.


William Moore Benidickson: In response to the hon. member for Assiniboia may I say that I checked some debates in past years during the 	' ,j ;SHf
dinner recess and I find that, under the item respecting the Canadian board of grain commissioners, it has been traditional to have some reference to the wheat board. This practice has gone on for years. I am simply raising the point that I do not think it is perhaps desirable because when I look for the jurisdiction of the board of grain commissioners which is contained in the Canada Grain Act, I cannot find that it is too appropriate for the wheat board discussions.


Hazen Robert Argue: Do you want to discuss that point?


An hon. Member:: Wait your turn.


William Moore Benidickson: I join with the hon. member for Assiniboia in simply pointing this out and asking for the usual traditional discussion on this item. It has gone on for a long time. However, I had a previous discussion with the Minister of Agriculture to whom I think only this year has the wheat board been referred for ministerial responsibility. I suggested to him that perhaps in another year a dollar item would be appropriate, which item would provide us surely with the opportunity of discussing the wheat board. I know that the formers minister of trade and commerce who is the leader of the house, knowing the tradition, would not for a moment object to the committee discussing wheat board matters tonight on this item. I was simply saying that for future guidance and clarification we could perhaps have a better arrangement for the estimates of the government.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I should say that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River raised this matter with me before the recess. I said there should certainly be discussion on the Canadian wheat board and its operations on my estimates. I was not too sure about just what the experience and background had been and I asked the hon. member to look it up. In the meanwhile I have also checked. The hon. member is quite right when he says that traditionally the Canadian wheat board has always been discussed under item 1 of the Department of Trade and Commerce.
Under item 1 of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture this year the wheat board was discussed by the leader of the C.C.F. party, the hon. member for Assiniboia. Apparently the question now is whether the wheat board can again be discussed under the vote concerning the board of grain commissioners, which is the vote now under consideration.
All the remarks made by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox were, of

course, out of order; they had nothing whatsoever to do with the board of grain commissioners.
It is for you, Mr. Chairman, to decide whether at this time we should change our custom in midstream or follow the traditional custom that the house has followed for many years. As far as I am concerned, in answer to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, I think there should be a clear understanding about where this item is to be discussed. I had not actually faced up to it until before the recess, when it was raised by the hon. member.
I should like to suggest that the debate on this matter of where the wheat board should be discussed should be dealt with at this time. My colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, has dealt with this matter on previous occasions and I would ask him to take up the point of order where I have left off.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, my recollection is that in the session of 1957-58, the summer session of 1958 and the sessions of 1959 and 1960, when I was in charge of the wheat board, it was discussed under the first item of the Department of Trade and Commerce. I think that is where it should be discussed.
I think it would be quite wrong to bring under this vote concerning the board of grain commissioners a general discussion of the wheat board, because the two boards operate in separate fields.
That is my recollection of what has been done in the past. I have a good recollection of the debate last year on this matter. At that time quite considerable attention was paid to the Canadian wheat board, and that was done under the first item.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, if I may be allowed to say another word, under the former administration there was no hesitation in allowing discussion of the general grain situation when we came to a grain item. Right Hon. C. D. Howe did not hesitate to allow discussion in detail of the operations of the Canadian wheat board under this particular item which has a specific relationship to the board of grain commissioners. I suggest that the government should be lenient with the committee in allowing us to carry on this particular tradition.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Have you the page references of Hansard to substantiate those statements?


Hazen Robert Argue: No, I have not; but I have been here a long time and I make that statement knowing it to be correct.
Supply-Agriculture
I would make a further statement. I plead with the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who is the house leader, to look at this question rather leniently because the progress in this house for the session must depend upon the co-operation of all parties.
It was announced before the Easter recess that the first order of business for last Monday would be a supply motion. For reasons of the convenience of the government it was felt necessary to change the order of business. It is quite correct that the Minister of Veterans Affairs tried repeatedly to reach me in Saskatchewan and was unable to do so through no fault of his own. I was not near a telephone and he was unable to reach me.
However, I think that since the hon. members of this house, including the members of this group, were prepared to give unanimous consent to the government to change the order of business and to take estimates on a day when hon. members had the right to move a supply motion, no matter what the agreement, it is only a fair request to ask that the very important item of Canadian wheat board policy should be open for discussion by hon. members under this item, or, as I suggested earlier, at the end of the detailed items, to allow us to revert to item 1 for a discussion on this particular matter.
There are one or two other specific matters which I should like to discuss, but I do not want to get into them at this time. However, surely the question of the Canadian wheat board policy is of sufficient importance that the government should accede to a request that an appropriate place be allocated, either at this moment or at some later stage by agreement, for discussing this policy.
Because of the visit of Prime Minister Macmillan and certain arrangements which the government had to make, those in the official opposition and in this group were co-operative and I suggest the government should also be co-operative with us on occasion.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Why did you say "on
occasion"? We are frequently co-operative.


Hazen Robert Argue: We try to be as co-operative as we can, and so does the minister. If the minister does not like the words "on occasion", I will say "on many occasions", or "on frequent occasions", or "on most occasions".


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, may I reply to the hon. member who was unavailable by telephone on Friday and who was expected to return, according to his office, on Sunday night-and had he returned then I would have been in touch with him in regard to the changes in the program for Monday-that

Supply-Agriculture
we are quite agreeable to making some reasonable arrangement with the hon. member for Assiniboia.
If we could complete the remaining few items under the Department of Agriculture I would suggest, in deference to the wish of the hon. member for Assiniboia who was unavoidably absent yesterday, that he be permitted to speak on this general subject if he wishes, leaving sufficient time for the Minister of Agriculture to reply.
If that is agreeable to other hon. members of the committee, I presume it will be agreeable to the Minister of Agriculture.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, having raised this problem because it arises from a transfer of jurisdiction of the Canadian wheat board, may I say that I had a short time for research during the dinner recess. I am informed very authoritatively that affairs relating to the Canadian wheat board have for many years been discussed under the item concerning the board of grain commissioners.
I would agree immediately with the suggestion of the leader of the house that we might postpone this item at the moment, if this is agreeable to the hon. member for Assiniboia, for an opportunity for us all to look at the traditional pattern and keep up the tradition.
I really raised the point because I thought we should have something more reliable to follow next year in our procedure. I thought that the Canadian wheat board was of sufficient importance that no hon. member of the committee should be under any misconception that he must speak with respect to the salary of the Minister of Agriculture or otherwise have no chance to speak at all. It was on that basis that I thought perhaps we could raise this problem.
I do not for a moment suggest that we should depart from our traditional practice, and I hope that is not the intention of the leader of the house. However, if it is acceptable to most hon. members of the committee I would suggest that we continue with other items and in the meantime we will have an opportunity to look at the pattern of debates in the past with respect to the Canadian wheat board to establish the precedents.


Mr. McIntosh:: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I trust that the leader of the house did not mean that the debate will be entirely between the leader of the C.C.F. group and the Minister of Agriculture. I hope the house leader meant that the opportunity would be open to all of us to take part in this debate.


William Moore Benidickson: Oh, quite.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I did not take that from What the minister said.


Jacques Flynn: I am, of course, in the hands of the committee but I may point out that the advice I have been able to secure would indicate that this question of the wheat board should be discussed under item 1 of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, now that responsibility has been transferred to that department, in the same way as it was discussed in the past under item 1 of the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce. However, I realize I do not have to rule definitely on that tonight if the suggestion of the leader of the house is accepted, because hon. members may have been taken by surprise because of the change.
I would point out, however, that item 1 of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture has been discussed on six different days, February 24, March 16, 17, 23 and 24, and April 1. Of course, if I understand the idea behind the suggestion made by the leader of the house, it is based on the fact that the hon. member for Assiniboia was not here yesterday and therefore could not take the opportunity of speaking on item 1. On the other hand it may be that other hon. members who had the opportunity of discussing the same item should not ask for the same treatment. That is how I understood the suggestion made by the leader of the house.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am the last person in this committee to ask for special treatment and I do not ask for special treatment. If the item is to be open for me to speak and for the minister to make a reply it must be open to other hon. members to make comments if they see fit. I say that on the basis of ordinary common sense and the progress this session there must be some agreement by the government that this item can be discussed either now or on reversion to item 1.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will you finish the discussion tonight?


Hazen Robert Argue: I will finish my part of the discussion tonight but I cannot be held responsible for what other hon. members may do. I will make my comments if I am given an opportunity. But I suggest to the leader of the house that if the government wants the co-operation of hon. members from all sides it should consider this question I am putting forward now because co-operation does work both ways and I think this is a reasonable request. Indeed, I am a little surprised there has been some hesitancy on the part of the government about granting it.


William Moore Benidickson: On the point of order, the leader of the house, the present Minister of Veterans Affairs, was formerly minister

of trade and commerce, and responsibility for the wheat board was then his. It has been transferred to the Minister of Agriculture, I think during the present session.
Now, to judge by the remarks made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs the hon. gentleman was just about as uncertain as I was with regard to some of the history behind this. I want to assure him that we in this party are not going to abuse unduly the privilege if a discussion of this item is permitted. I cannot, of course, give a guarantee for all my colleagues but it is not our intention to delay the passage of these estimates. However, I thought it was appropriate to raise the question when I noticed that we have really nothing specific in the estimates under which the wheat board could be discussed. I mentioned to the new Minister of Agriculture tonight that I did have some responsibility, having been associated with the former minister of finance. We did not do better then to provide such an item. We discussed this in a most friendly way. I suggested that there was something wrong if we did not seek to question the vote for the minister's own salary, that somewhere else in the book of estimates members should have no opportunity to discuss the activities of such an important quasi-governmental organization as the wheat board even if the wheat board charges all its costs to the farmers and does not ask the taxpayers for anything in this book of estimates.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In view of the remarks which have been made by the hon. member for Assiniboia I think I should make my personal attitude on this subject very clear. I welcome at all times a debate on the Canadian wheat board and its operations but I should like to make it very plain to the committee-and this is a matter of personal privilege which is now raised-that I have had my estimates before the committee on several days this year. On the night prior to Friday, March 24, for example, a decision or agreement was made that I would have the next day for my estimates, the whole Friday. I was asked to step aside for one speaker from the C.C.F. group, one speaker only who would take just half an hour. When the debate began on Friday morning the hon. member for Timmins spoke as was agreed and then he was followed by several C.C.F. speakers all of whom went against the agreement made with me with regard to my estimates.


Hazen Robert Argue: I made no agreement with you.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I wish the hon. member for Assiniboia would let me finish. I understood that when the hon. member who speaks for that party comes across-and the
Supply-Agriculture
hon. member is present now-and says we have agreed that there should be just one speaker, the word of that member covers the word of all the other members. I agreed to stand down and let the interim supply measure go ahead of me. If hon. members look at the record in Hansard of March 24 they will find that not even a full page was allowed me that day. All I had was about 15 minutes. I think this question of understandings and convenience works both ways, and if this house is to operate as it ought to operate in a democratic parliament there has to be understanding on both sides. I think there has to be some very serious consideration given, Mr. Chairman, before we revert to an earlier item and open up this debate again.
The second point I should like to make is that the hon. member for Assiniboia has spoken on item 1. He has spoken on the wheat board. Now he is again asking for the same privilege. In addition, he wants to open up the subject so that all members of the committee can join in. This was their privilege when item 1 was under discussion and a number of hon. members took advantage of it.
Ordinarily I should like to make arrangements for the convenience of all hon. members. I know the inconvenience which was caused by the change of the order of the government's business, but it should be remembered that before the house rose for the Easter recess I myself was seriously inconvenienced by the actions of the C.C.F. group.


Murdo William Martin: I should like to say just a word on this because my name has been brought into the discussion. I had no intention of speaking to this point of order but the minister has brought my name into it. He said an agreement was made on behalf of this group, that I made a speech and was followed by several other C.C.F. members. That is entirely untrue. We kept that agreement. I spoke-and spoke very briefly-and no other members of this group spoke at that time. A vote was taken immediately after I had finished speaking.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am very sorry to have to contradict the hon. member but I have Hansard here. Turn to March 24 and read the record. There was no vote at all. This was a straight fight between the C.C.F. and the Liberals over old age pensions and who did the most for pensioners 25 years ago. They spent the whole day debating that and there was no vote on it at all until we got to the end of the day on the question of supply. This was on March 24 and the understanding was reached the previous night.

Supply-Agriculture


John (Jack) McIntosh: Before you decide on this point, Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that you have already allowed one hon. member to speak with regard to the wheat board on this item. He has made certain statements to which I feel that we, as western members, should reply. It does not matter whether the hon. member who spoke is the leader of a party or not. The constituents whom we represent are as entitled to the same rights as those of anyone else in this chamber.


Hazen Robert Argue: Before you make a ruling, Mr. Chairman, since the Minister of Agriculture has already apparently vetoed any suggestion regarding unanimous consent relating to item 1 in order to discuss the Canadian wheat board, I would ask you to rule in order what has been a long-standing custom of this house, namely, that this item of the board of grain commissioners and its administration be discussed, to allow a general discussion of the wheat situation in Canada, and a general discussion not only affecting the operation of the board of grain commissioners but also of the Canadian wheat board. The late Right Hon. C. D. Howe has been accused in this house very vehemently on previous occasions by present members of the government of being the architect of closure, but the late Right Hon. C. D. Howe never for one moment tried to thwart a discussion of the Canadian wheat board in the House of Commons, as this government is trying to do at this time. I do not know what the Minister of Agriculture is afraid of, but he-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: On a point of order-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I do not think the hon. member is correct in raising this argument because it seems to me when the application of the rules is questioned by an hon. member, which he is entitled to do, it is for the Chair to decide whether the point of order is well taken.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am not disputing your prerogative to make a decision. I cannot understand the campaign by the cabinet ministers in an attempt to stop you from ruling that this is in order, as if has been ruled by so many chairmen over so many years. Perhaps the point was well made by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, that you cannot have two rules in this house affecting members. The hon. member for Prince Ed-ward-Lennox was allowed to deal with the Canadian wheat board and the Canadian wheat board only, but not in any way with the board of grain commissioners. I suggest that you cannot have one rule for a member on the government side and another rule of

closure for members on the opposition side. I suggest that the wheat quotas in western Canada are a national disgrace, especially in that part of the country from which I come, and that the minister's policy with regard to equalizing wheat quotas stinks, and that we should have a chance to discuss these things.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I have pointed out that when the hon. member for Prince Ed-ward-Lennox spoke, no point of order was taken, but that the point was raised after he had resumed his seat. It seems to me, therefore, that this is not good reason for saying that an hon. member is entitled to reply. On occasion an hon. member will make a statement which is out of order, but surely that is not good reason for another hon. member to be allowed to continue out of order.
The second point I must raise is that when a point of order is raised the Chair has to decide what interpretation should be applied to the rule, and, therefore, the Chair is not at liberty to make any kind of a deal. If the committee wishes to grant an hon. member permission to speak on a certain topic that is permissible but I must point out to the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek that the suggestion of the leader of the house to allow the hon. member for Assiniboia to speak about the wheat board could only have been acceptable with unanimous consent. If an hon. member objects the Chair must apply the rule and declare that such a discussion is out of order. The Chair must apply the rule this way because hon. members wishing to speak on some other subject cannot be forced, for the sake of one hon. member of the committee, to listen to a discussion which is out of order. I would say, therefore, that if the Chair is called upon to rule on this point of order it must be declared that it has been well taken.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Did you give the first speaker permission to speak on the wheat board when he started?


Jacques Flynn: I did not give permission but, as I indicated, no point of order was raised and the Chair was not aware that the wheat board was not mentioned specifically in the agricultural estimates.


William Moore Benidickson: May I speak to the point of order? I would say that perhaps I was the only one who devoted some time during the dinner recess to a review of past debates in connection with this item.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Moore Benidickson: I do not require any cheers in connection with this statement. I only wanted to say that I have discovered

that invariably over a period of 15 years the discussion regarding the wheat board takes place under this item.
I should like to repeat that prior to six o'clock I indicated that this might not be strictly in order, but I spoke to the new minister in whose estimates this item appears, because this year we had a transfer of this important item to his Department of Agriculture. I want to say that I knew what the situation was when debate started on this item but remained silent largely out of deference to my colleague, a member of the government party, for the constituency of Prince Edward-Lennox, with no thought of interrupting him, when he discussed the wheat board on the board of grain commissioners item because my studies had persuaded me that this had been regular traditionally. I did not think the chairman of the committee would start to restrict us, and I am going to say, with all respect to you, Mr. Chairman, that one of these days I will make a long speech on a point of order with reference to rules that have been made in the committee of the whole and the committee of supply that differ from those made during 22 years under the previous government.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think the ruling which has been made represents a very grave mistake. I think Your Honour by making this ruling has-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Jacques Flynn: Order.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


Hazen Robert Argue: I will not withdraw.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I indicated to hon. members that if no agreement was reached 1 would make a ruling. If there is no way of satisfying hon. members, such as following the suggestion of the hon. leader of the house, I will have to rule that the only point which should be under consideration is whether some accommodations should be made regarding the rules of the house. As I indicated, if the Chair is called upon to make a ruling there is no choice but to apply the rules. But if the committee agrees to some other arrangement the Chair has no choice but to accept that arrangement.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, are you ruling that a discussion in respect of the Canadian wheat board, which has been traditional since the inception of the wheat board -about 15 years ago-is not appropriate in connection with this item? If that is so, having heard the supporters of the government say that they have heard from the members of
Supply-Agriculture
their own party, from eastern Canada, cast some aspersions with respect to policies of the Canadian wheat board and that they would like to reply, I would move, I hope with the endorsation of the hon. member for Assiniboia:
That item 29 of the estimates be discussed after item 36 respecting the Department of Agriculture in this committee of supply.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am not sure, Mr. Chairman, whether such a motion is in order in the light of the ruling you have made but I would point out to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River that he set a trap for himself by raising a point of order. I thought he had enough experience in the committee to know that the opposition should be careful about raising points of order that may bring about a ruling by the Chair having the effect of preventing the speeches they claim they want to make.


William Moore Benidickson: I rise on a point of order.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am speaking to a point of order. When we get around to it we are going to appeal your ruling.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I think the only point of order the hon. member can raise now is whether or not the motion is in order and I thought that was the point with which he was going to deal. If that is the case I will hear him.


Hazen Robert Argue: I thought you had made a ruling. Perhaps you have not. If you are going to accept the motion we will be prepared to support it in the hope that when we get to the item you may make a more lenient ruling and reverse a decision which I suggest is repugnant to parliament and repugnant to the conduct of business in the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, on that point I rise to read from citation 72 on page 62 of Beauchesne, fourth edition.
The Speaker's actions cannot be criticized incidentally in debate or upon any form of proceeding except a substantive motion.
I read further from page 63 where Beauchesne quotes Redlich whose work was published some time ago.
"To an Englishman-"
We can substitute "Canadian" there.
"-it would appear seriously to undermine the exalted position and dignity of the Speaker-"
In this instance the chairman of committee of supply.
"-if, in addition to his application of the rules being open to challenge upon special and important occasions, it was competent for every member to call in question the Speaker's authority whenever he chose, and if he was liable at all times to be called upon to defend the correctness of his decisions."

Supply-A griculture
My point is that the hon. member for Assiniboia has risen in his place to criticize the decision of the Chair and he should withdraw his remarks.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have no remarks to withdraw. I say that closure by this means today is just as repugnant to parliament as closure was in the pipe-line debate and I am surprised at the statement made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I am highly surprised.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I trust the hon. member did not mean that in making a ruling the Chair was applying closure because if that is what the hon. member said I will have to ask him to withdraw his words without any qualification.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, you said you had not made your ruling. I said that when you got around to it, having in mind the lack of response on the part of the government, if you were going to rule that we could not discuss under the item for the board of grain commissioners the policies of the Canadian wheat board which over the years we have traditionally discussed on this item-1


Gordon Minto Churchill: Give me the page reference.


Hazen Robert Argue: -that that was a type of closure. I do not intend to sit silent while closure by the front door or by the back door is being applied.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Produce the evidence.


Mr. Cardiff:: Mr. Chairman, when did it come about in this house that a member of the C.C.F. party was more important than any other member in the house?


Jacques Flynn: Order. As far as the motion of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River is concerned, it appears to me to be out of order because the only motions allowed in committee of supply are motions to reduce the amount of the item or that the chairman leave the chair. I refer to Beauchesne, fourth edition, citation 242, paragraph 2.
I will have to make a ruling on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. I have indicated that whatever the feeling of any hon. member may be the Chair has no choice but to apply the rules and the rules are very clear and definite that speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration. That applies especially to every item except item No. 1 of a department. On item No. 1 it is the practice, of course, to allow a discussion of all problems concerning a department. In my view a discussion of the wheat board is not relevant under the item we are now

discussing. It could have been discussed under item No. 1. It has been discussed generally in the past under item No. 1 of the Department of Trade and Commerce and therefore the proper time to discuss it was when item No. 1 of the Department of Agriculture was before the committee. Therefore I rule that any discussion of the wheat board under this item is out of order.


Hazen Robert Argue: With great respect, Mr. Chairman, I appeal your ruling.


William Moore Benidickson: Have you ruled my motion out of order?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Hazen Robert Argue: With great respect, Mr. Chairman, I appeal your ruling that we cannot discuss the Canadian wheat board under this item.
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and the chairman of the committee made the following report:
In committee of supply when the vote concerning the board of grain commissioners was being considered I ruled that debate on the operations of the wheat board was not relevant to the item before the committee, and that as the Chair was bound by section 2 of standing order 59, he must insist on relevancy of debate, whereupon Mr. Argue appealed to the house from the decision of the Chair.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
The question is an appeal to the house from the ruling of the chairman of committee of supply as follows:
In committee of supply when the vote concerning the board of grain commissioners was being considered the chairman ruled that debate on the operations of the wheat board was not relevant to the item before the committee, and that as the Chair was bound by section 2 of standing order 59, he must insist on relevancy of debate, whereupon Mr. Argue appealed to the house from the decision of the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the ruling confirmed.


Murdo William Martin: I rise on a
question of privilege,	Mr. Speaker. A short
time ago, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton)-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.	I am advised that my
duties at this time are	limited to the disposal
of the appeal.	

The house resumed in committee of supply, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
Supply-Agriculture
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Board of grain commissioners-
(Canada Grain Act)
29. Administration, $166,215.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, on vote 29-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Jacques Flynn: Order. A question of privilege has been raised.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, a short time ago the Minister of Agriculture raised the matter of a broken agreement in which I was supposed to have participated. Since then I have had an opportunity to check Hansard. I believe the minister referred to March 24. I find that the minister is mixing up two different debates.
On March 24 1 raised the matter of old age pensions under interim supply. There was no agreement, nor could there have been any agreement because neither the government nor the official opposition could have known the matter I would raise at that time.
I think the minister has mixed this up with the debate on NATO under the supplementary estimates, at which time there was an agreement entered into by myself and the rest of this party.
I know the minister would not like to be unfair. Possibly in the heat of debate he made this error and I would ask the minister to withdraw the implications contained in his remarks at that time.


Jacques Flynn: Shall vote 29 carry?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words on vote 29, the administration of the board of grain commissioners. I have some statistics here that I think are rather amazing in light of all the wild and optimistic statements which have been made by the Minister of Agriculture.
Our overseas clearances of barley to date have been only 13.2 million bushels, while a year ago they were 25.9 million bushels. This is a drop of 12.7 million bushels. The amount exported, the overseas clearances of barley this year to date, are just about 50 per cent of the amount last year.
One can only ask why we have such gloomy figures, in light of the minister's boast that everything is well, everything is improving and conditions are getting better. The grain situation in Canada today is probably tighter than it has ever been. There is probably more congestion than there has ever been. The farmers are having great difficulty in marketing grain because of the congestion. I do not see from the figures in my hand that there is any real hope that this congestion is going

Supply-Agriculture
to be alleviated, because month after month the congestion seems to get worse.
The visible supplies of all grains in various positions to date amount to 413.2 million bushels, whereas a year ago they amounted to 364.7 million bushels. I ask the minister whether this is a deliberate policy on the part of the government to take in every possible bushel of grain to bring about a further congestion, a further filling of available storage space, or whether these visible supplies of grain in all positions-


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


Hazen Robert Argue: -has been increased because-


Edwin William Brunsden: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. This item has to do with the administration of the board of grain commissioners. Our hon. friend from Assiniboia has been away for a few days and since he returned he has been trying very hard to crowd Hansard. I suggest that the hon. member is entirely out of order when he discusses visible supplies and export shipments of grain.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman may be an authority on the rules but he is scarcely an authority on the board of grain commissioners. The statistics that I have quoted have a very great deal to do with the administration of the board of grain commissioners. This is what the board of grain commissioners is all about.
My hon. friend may not know it, but the board of grain commissioners has to do with the assembling, the grading and storage of grain all across this country. The wheat board has to do with issuing tickets and it has to do with carrying out some of the government's policies like this dollar an acre payment, which is still treaty money. The Canadian wheat board has to do with the markets, or the lack of markets.
When it comes to the amount of congestion in the country and the kind of statistics to which I have referred, these matters certainly have to do with the board of grain commisioners. My honourable and learned friend, who is usually very much on the ball and very accurate in his frequent and consistent interruptions, is away off base tonight. The statistics to which I have referred have to do with the administration of the board of grain commissioners.
I want to ask the minister some more questions. Why should the visible supplies of grain be going up by such an amount and so fast? Has it to do with more storage facilities available in the country, or has it
[Mr. Argue.1
to do with the greater congestion that has been brought about by the policies of the government?
I want to know why, after all this tremendous fanfare about new markets, the market for overseas clearance of Canadian oats, should have just about disappeared? It was .8 million bushels of wheat this year, as compared with 3.8 million bushels of wheat to the same date a year ago. I think the minister owes it to the committee to tell us why these statistics are so gloomy, in light of his very optimistic statements to the House of Commons.
I want to know the reason for the figures concerning farmer's marketings to date, 199 million bushels of wheat as compared with 180.8 million bushels a year ago. I want to know why the situation as far as quotas in the minister's province and my own are concerned should be so bleak and so gloomy. I ask the Minister of Agriculture why he does not do something about the quotas.
I do not know why many of the farmers he and I represent should, after eight months of the crop year, be told to market only a one bushel quota, and some of them hoping to have a two bushel quota-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: I hear "Order" from my hon. friends opposite. They are good at interrupting from their seats but they are not very good at explaining why these statistics should be so gloomy and why the minister should make these fantastic statements.


An hon. Member:: They have nothing to do with this vote.


Hazen Robert Argue: They have a lot to do with overseas clearances. They have a lot to do with congestion. The hon. member who is no longer parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture knows you cannot market your grain unless you have-


An hon. Member:: Out of order again.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh no, I am right on the subject of the board of grain commissioners. I know hon. members opposite are impatient-


Edwin William Brunsden: Speaking to this point of order, Mr. Chairman, I have before me the Canada Grain Act and I quote for the record and for the benefit of the hon. member for Assiniboia, the responsibilities of the board. They include the grading of grain, the weighing of grain, the making of deductions for dockage or shrinkage, elevator shortages, the unfair or discriminatory operation of any elevator-


Hazen Robert Argue: Elevator storage.


Edwin William Brunsden: The deterioration of any grain during storage or treatment-


Hazen Robert Argue: Hear, hear.


Edwin William Brunsden: -the refusal or neglect of any person to comply with any provision of the act, or any other matter arising out of the performance of the duties of the board.
I respectfully submit that once again the hon. member for Assiniboia is taking liberties with you and the committee in attempting to inject into this discussion the matter of wheat quotas in western Canada and the export trade.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not think the hon. gentleman can be serious about that point of order, because obviously everything I have referred to is covered by this tremendously wide catch-all definition which he has very accurately read to the committee. There are many items which he has read of which I was not aware a moment ago. That gives me a great deal more latitude than I had anticipated would be mine at this time. The hon. member talks about storage facilities. That raises the whole question of the policy in relation to storage facilities. It raises the whole question of whether this minister is going to allow the grain trade to keep on making tens of millions of dollars at the expense of the producers and the treasury.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I have myself been reading section 9 of the Canada Grain Act and I must say there are many subjects mentioned there, but the export of grain is not one of them. These subjects referred to are all of a somewhat technical nature. If the hon. member would indicate how he relates his remarks to the objects of the board as indicated in section 9 I should be obliged.


Hazen Robert Argue: This section which has already been referred to reads as follows-


An hon. Member:: Not again.


Hazen Robert Argue: I know you would not like to hear it again, but after hearing it twice perhaps you would have a greater understanding.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Perhaps after reading it once you will have some understanding.


Hazen Robert Argue: It reads:
The hoard and the chief commissioner shall have jurisdiction, upon or without complaint made, to inquire into any matter relating to
(a)	the grading of any grain;
(b)	the weighing of any grain;
(c)	the deductions made from any grain for storage or shrinkage;


Edwin William Brunsden: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has substituted the word "storage" for "dockage".
Supply-Agriculture


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member obviously cannot read or he would not be making foolish interruptions.


Edwin William Brunsden: Read clause (c) again.


Hazen Robert Argue: It continues:
(f)	the deterioration of any grain during storage or treatment;
(g)	the refusal or neglect of any person to comply with any provision of the act;
(h)	any other matter arising out of the performance of the duties of the board.


An hon. Member:: Where are the quotas?


Hazen Robert Argue: The quotas are here. The quotas have a definite and close relationship to the storage facilities because you cannot have storage facilities that are full or over congested, as these obviously are, without having had some quotas. It is like the chicken and the egg; they usually go together.


Jacques Flynn: I must point out to the hon. member that the act does not refer to storage facilities in the sense he has indicated.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I have in my hand a publication put out by the Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada, statistics branch, showing the Canadian grain position at close of business on Wednesday, March 29, 1961. The code number of the bulletin is 420.3. I remember Mr. C. D. Howe sat on this for years. I was here about ten years or more before I was able to ferret out this particular publication, but I have it in my hand now and it is put out by the board of grain commissioners. We used to ask the minister of trade commerce what the exports had been, and he would say, "Oh, I cannot disclose the exports of grain because that would put the wheat board in a difficult competitive position". Yet we found that the board was issuing these figures publicly to the trade. Then, when I asked the present Minister of Agriculture about certain items which have to do with the marketing of grain he said, "Do not bother me in the House of Commons; I will send you a weekly letter." Well, the weekly letter comes but the figures get worse. The situation gets worse and I think I am very much in order in quoting from reports put out by the board of grain commissioners though, of course, honourable and sensitive members opposite may say, "Oh, this has to do with the wheat board." It does. It is a publication issued by the board of grain commissioners having to do with the grain situation in this country and it shows what a mess the government has been making of many phases of the situation today. I do not wonder that the minister does not want to try to justify that

Supply-Agriculture
mess. I do not wonder why he cannot answer and tell us the reason for this tremendous congestion.


William Heward Grafftey: You have missed your calling.


Hazen Robert Argue: Brome-Missisquoi is barking again.


William Heward Grafftey: You have missed your calling.


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member has obviously missed his, but that will be taken care of soon. He is on temporary leave.


An hon. Member:: You hope.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is all right, Mr. Chairman. He has come here as a young man. He is a personable fellow and he has learned a little here.


An hon. Member:: Is this part of the leadership race?


Hazen Robert Argue: These are all interesting comments, Mr. Chairman, and they are undoubtedly in order or you would have ruled otherwise. They are very helpful, but I do not think they explain the mess which has been made of the grain situation. The elevator situation on the prairies, which is within the control of the board of grain commissioners, makes it obvious that there is room for a change in policy and I wish the Minister of Agriculture would do something about it. My hon. friend from Burnaby-Coquitlam has been waiting patiently all evening to say something on this item.


An hon. Member:: Well, why don't you sit down?


Hazen Robert Argue: He waits patiently while 200 Tories-or rather, not 200 but about 50- who have wandered in impatiently not wishing to listen to the discussion but only to use their overwhelming majority to control procedures in this committee-


Jacques Flynn: Order. May I indicate to the hon. member that he is far from the subject of the board of grain commissioners and I would say again that he has not succeeded in convincing me that we can discuss export policy under the Canada Grain Act. These are matters, as I indicated before, which really concern only the handling of grain. There is no question of policy being involved in section 9 and I have also gone over the other sections of the act. Unless the hon. member can point to another section which would be appropriate to his argument I shall have to say he is out of order in discussing the export of grain.


Hazen Robert Argue: Surely one cannot be out of order when quoting from a publication.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before you make a final ruling I would like to say a word on the point

of order. It seems to me, sir, that it should not be forgotten that in past years, until an order was made by the governor in council, the board of grain commissioners and the wheat board were under the jurisdiction of the minister of trade and commerce. It so happens this year that they are under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture, and I think he would admit that this is one of his heaviest responsibilities. It does seem to me that all of us in this committee are taking a very dangerous position when we suggest that one of the most important of all the industries in this country should be precluded from discussion because of technicalities. I do not think that our conduct in this regard will be very well viewed in the country.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I am continuing to point out how very difficult the grain situation is, and I suggest this is very much in order, since I shall be quoting from the board of grain commissioners statistics branch, not the wheat board statistics branch.
The Canadian grain position at the close of business, Wednesday, March 29, 1961 showed that Canadian visible wheat totalled 413.2 bushels reflecting a decline of only 1.2 million bushels during the week under review. Preliminary marketings were steady at 4.4 million bushels but export shipments fell off form the relatively high level in recent weeks to only 3.5 million bushels clear.
The minister may not like to hear this, and may say that it is the wheat board's policy, but I am quoting from a publication of the board of grain commissioners. It shows 1.5 million bushels from Vancouver and 2 million bushels from the east coast ports of Saint John and Halifax. This is a dismal and black showing which the Minister of Agriculture of course cannot defend. Clearings now total 29.9 bushels of wheat, some 5.6 bushels better than export wheat loadings from these two ports during the 1959-60 season.
The minister may take some encouragement from that last sentence but I suggest that these statements are serious and we should have a reply from the minister. He should tell us why, after he goes out across this country telling farmers that everything is well and that conditions are improving-just have faith in John and we will get out of the woods somehow-these statistics keep coming in showing the serious position of the grain trade in Canada at this time. I think our producers would like to know whether there are going to be additional facilities provided for the storage of grain; whether these statistics put out by the board of grain commissioners are likely to show any improvement in the weeks ahead or whether

there is going to be continued congestion and a further drop-off-I hope not-of export clearings and an almost total disappearance of the market for oats; a reduction in overseas clearances for barley of almost 50 per cent. The Minister of Agriculture apparently does not want to defend this position but I think he owes it to this committee to tell us what he intends to do about this difficult situation.
I would like to know whether the board of grain commissioners has anything to do at this time with the handling of box cars. In years gone by the allocation of box cars was done by one of the commissioners of the board, a Mr. Milner, who used his authority with railway	companies-or	persuasive
powers, when he had any-to try to arrive at an agreement in respect of the allocation of box cars. The government has removed the transport controller, or has not brought in legislation which would again give a member of that board the all-inclusive power, which the board once held, of allocating box cars. I would like to hear from the minister, when he replies at an appropriate occasion, about the extent of jurisdiction the board of grain commissioners will have over the allocation of box cars. I would like to know the number of complaints the minister has received with regard to the grading of grain and dockage and overages. Clearly all of these questions are within the jurisdiction of the board of grain commissioners.
Business of the House
I would like to know why the government has delayed in bringing the board of grain commissioners under the Department of Agriculture. Did the Prime Minister forget that the board of grain commissioners was under the Department of Trade and Commerce? Was this an afterthought when the Prime Minister discovered he had moved the wheat board to the Department of Agriculture but had left the board of grain commissioners in the Department of Trade and Commerce? I wonder why there was such a long delay in transferring the board of grain commissioners to the Department of Agriculture?
Mr. Chairman, if I see the clock accurately, I would call it ten o'clock.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I believe the house leader was to indicate what further departments were contemplated for the rest of the week.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, we will continue tomorrow, Thursday and Friday, with the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, the post office and public works.


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

[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. Fisher: 1.	Has the government under consideration any subsidy or other aid to provide for a car and passenger ferry between Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, and Rockland, Maine?
2.	If so, what are the details and consideration involved?
3.	If not, has the government any views or has it made any statements regarding the proposal that a foreign ship owner operate the City of Havana on this route for a three-month period?
Answer by: Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of
Transport):
1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	No statements have been made and the government has not formulated any views on such a proposal. On March 31, a letter was received from the mayor of Yarmouth, N.S., suggesting that the City of Havana could be acauired by purchase and operated between Yarmouth, N.S., and a New England port for the summer months, to supplement the service of the M/V Bluenose. The Canadian maritime commission will examine this suggestion and report.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Livestock division-
17.	Operation and maintenance including premiums on purebred sires and contributions for livestock improvement; stockyard supervision and furs, $2,861,681.
18.	Supervision of race track betting, $682,786.
19.	Grants to agricultural fairs, exhibitions and museums in accordance with regulations of the governor in council; payments pursuant to agreements in force on March 31, 1961, with exhibitions covering the construction of buildings and other major undertakings; and a grant of $50,000 to the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, Toronto, and freight assistance on livestock shipments for exhibition thereat, $967,600.
20.	Special grant to Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, Toronto, $450,000.
22.	Grants to agricultural organizations as detailed in the estimates, $260,250.
23.	To authorize, notwithstanding sections 33 and 35 of the Financial Administration Act, the issue by the Minister of Agriculture, in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council, of premium warrants for high grade hog carcasses, and to authorize the charging to this vote of the value of premium warrants at the time they are issued and the value of any unredeemed premium warrants issued in previous fiscal years, notwithstanding that the total value of all premium warrants to be charged may exceed the estimated cost of the program which is, $6,865,000.
24.	Operation and maintenance including seeds. Plant products divisionfeeds, fertilizers, insecticides and fungicides control, $2,121,639.
25.	Freight assistance on western feed grains,
[Stage Direction]
26.	Agricultural lime assistance, $1,300,000.
27.	Plant protection division, $1,283,468.
28.	Poultry division, $1,248,856.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 12, 1961