1961-03-17

SAINT PATRICK'S DAY


Mr. J. A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting most of the hon. members of this house. Today is St. Patrick's day, Mr. Speaker, and it is appropriate that on this St. Patrick's day we welcome back to this house from the commonwealth prime ministers' conference and his history making visit to Ireland our distinguished Prime Minister, the first Canadian prime minister to visit the land that gave Canada Thomas D'Arcy McGee.
On behalf of all Irishmen in this house and those hon. members who wish they were, and on behalf of all Irishmen throughout the length and breadth of this country, I wish you, sir, the top o' the morning. May I voice the age-old cry of Irish exiles and Irish patriots everywhere and say "Erin go bragh".


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition may we be permitted to associate ourselves with the remarks of affectionate admiration for Ireland and St. Patrick, coupled with the name of that distinguished Irish visitor, Mr. John Patrick O'Diefenbaker.
While we are lauding St. Patrick from the old Emerald isle, let us not forget St. George, St. Andrew and St. David.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Koolenay Wesl):: On
behalf of this group I shall now do something that I rarely do; I endorse wholeheartedly the remarks of the leader of the official opposition.



STANDING ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of standing committee on standing orders-Miss Aitken.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, may I first thank the Leader of the Opposition for the way
in which he welcomed me back and the designation he gave me. I am sure it was hardly realized that on this day I would be one of those who would owe so much to St. Patrick.
In that connection I might say that in the last few days I paid an official visit to Northern Ireland and also to the republic. In Northern Ireland my wife and I were the guests of the Prime Minister, Lord Brooke-borough and Lady Brookeborough. I had the privilege there of addressing a luncheon meeting in the parliament building. From there I went to Dublin at the invitation of the Prime Minister of Ireland, Mr. Lemass. Everywhere I went there was a warmth of feeling for Canada. All were aware that one tenth of the population of Canada is of Irish origin. When I was there I paid a debt that Canada owes to one of the fathers of confederation, the prophet of confederation, Thomas D'Arcy McGee, and there gave to the Irish people a plaque from the people of Canada. On this day all of us, whether of Irish origin or not, join in the tribute paid by the hon. gentleman and those who have followed him to a race to which Canada owes so much.
Mr. Speaker, my primary purpose in rising today is to bring before the house something of the events of the last two weeks. The meeting of the commonwealth prime ministers began in London on March 8 and, as the house knows, I was accompanied there by the Minister of Justice and the Secretary of State, and was assisted during the conference by the high commissioner to the United Kingdom, Hon. George Drew.
The prime ministers' conference is a most unusual convocation. We sit around a small table with practically all the races of man and five of the leading religions, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu and Mohammedan represented there. While during the discussions there are always disagreements in detail, there is that feeling that came to me as I visited the commonwealth countries in Asia and Australia and New Zealand some years ago, a feeling that defies explanation or understanding. It is just impossible to believe that any of the members of the commonwealth could ever be at war with one another.
We met in an international setting not as dark as in May, 1960, when the last meeting was held, but there are disturbing elements. While the Soviet campaign of vilification against Washington has subsided, and this is

Commonwealth Conference encouraging, there has been no sign of restraint in other ways by the Soviet leaders. They have relentlessly pursued Communist aims in countres as far apart as the Congo and Laos. I am not going to deal today with the Congo except to say that there the United Nations is on trial, and if it does not succeed in restoring law and order in that country the hopes and aspirations of mankind with respect to that institution may very well be diminished.
While all of us know the situation in Laos, those who live in Asia regard it as fraught with terrible danger.
The Soviet have maintained with increasing vigour their assault on the United Nations and also on the secretary general. Notwithstanding smiles toward Washington, there is much evidence that the Soviet union is not preparing genuinely for a period of calm and conciliation.
Everywhere over that conference came the shadow of communist China, the leaders of which country show an even greater thirst for domination and influence in the uncommitted world than does the Soviet union. The prime ministers were acutely conscious of these uncertainties and dangers. We dealt at some length with the current international situation, and I will deal with that on another occasion.
What I intend to do today is mainly to emphasize the momentous change that took place in the future relationship of the Union of South Africa with the commonwealth. Some may say this is being emotional, but my mind goes back to February, 1917, when for the first time I had an idea of what this commonwealth might be. The expression was not in general use at that time, although it had been originally used some 25 years prior to that date. I saw the King going to open parliament in the darkest days of the war escorted by three or four troops of Boer cavalry, all of whom had served against Britain only a matter of 14 or 15 years before. All of us saw, too, the contribution made by the Union of South Africa in two world wars.
Even before the meeting it was very clear that this would be the focus of general attention. I do not think it is an overstatement to say that in the long history of these commonwealth or empire meetings-we have had ten since the war-no issue so severely strained or tested the flexible bonds of the commonwealth association as did the one which faced this conference.
You will recall that South Africa first raised the question of its future relationship with the commonwealth at the meeting of the prime ministers in May, 1960. The foreign minister of that union gave notice of the intention of his country to hold a referendum
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l
on the question of whether South Africa should adopt a republican form of government. At the same time he asked for advance approval of its continuance of membership, or readmission to the commonwealth. At that time we gave to this problem a twofold reaction; the prime ministers affirmed that the choice between a monarchy and a republic was entirely a matter for South Africa to decide, but they also agreed unanimously, and I intend to read this because it represented a change in the commonwealth relationship which had previously existed-*
In the event of South Africa deciding to become a republic and if the desire was subsequently expressed to remain a member of the commonwealth, the meeting suggested that the South African government should then ask for the consent of the other commonwealth governments, either at a meeting of commonwealth prime ministers or, if this were not practicable, by correspondence.
On October 5, 1960 South Africa's choice was made by a referendum which resulted in a majority favouring the adoption of a republic. Subsequently the government of that country announced that a republican constitution would be proclaimed on May 31. I felt and still feel that we had made it clear last May that there was no automaticity about the application of a country which was a member of the commonwealth and which changed its form of government to that of a republic; and that until the legislative processes had been completed the decision had not finally been made.
That view did not command general support. I should point out here that the first reading of the bill to set up a republic was given in the South African house of representatives on January 23, that second reading was given on February 9 and that then the bill was referred to a select joint committee of both houses, the committee to report to parliament on March 24. Hence the matter is still before the parliament of South Africa.
What in effect was being asked was advance approval prior to the final legislative decision being made, something that was denied last May. The wording of the communique in May, 1960 reflected the general view of the prime ministers that a positive act of concurrence was required on the part of each of the other member governments if South Africa's request for consent to remain a member of the commonwealth was to be granted. It was agreed by the foreign minister of South Africa that all governments would have to consent; at least that was the statement he made in May last. It was argued that even in the face of the wording of the communique last May, it was still a virtual formality for countries applying for continuance of membership to remain as

members. I think it was the consensus of a majority if not all of the prime ministers that more than a formality was involved. We met. The Leader of the Opposition, with the experience he has had, realizes that I cannot go into detail as to what actually took place but can give only a general outline.
Dr. Verwoerd, the Prime Minister, relied throughout on the argument that the consi-tutional issue should be dealt with separately, and that on the basis of the precedents there should be no question of South Africa's right to continuing membership. The discussion took a long time. All agreed that South Africa's constitutional change was not in itself an obstacle to continuing membership, but the view was strongly held that the question of membership could not be divorced from the international implications of the union government's racial policies. Apartheid has become the world's symbol of discrimination; and in the eyes of the prime ministers present, other than Dr. Verwoerd, to give unqualified consent to South Africa's application would be to condone the policies of apartheid.
That was the core of the issue which engaged our attention for three days. It was, I have been told, a discussion without parallel in the annals of the commonwealth association. It is a great organization where men- and a woman this time, the Prime Minister of Ceylon-with strong convictions, can sit down together and yet not speak to one another at any time with bitterness, virulence or in the manner described in some of the articles written by persons who must have secured their information from sources not present at the meeting.
I said, and I repeat, that it was a time for the exercise of the utmost compassion, and I have no apology to offer for that. That does not mean an acceptance of what is wrong; and I have found through life that if you follow that course you do not too often have to look back on events and say "If only I had acted otherwise". Compassion does not mean sacrifice of principle. It is based on a seriousness of purpose and a desire for accommodation. Though viewpoints were diametrically opposed, there was a determination to explore every possibility of a solution. If that attitude had not been followed the meetings might well have ended in an angry outburst of mutual recrimination.
Last night at the hour of 11.30 there were gathered in London the prime ministers of the commonwealth-and South Africa is still a member of the commonwealth-and you could not have detected there the tremendous effect of what had taken place a few hours earlier.
Commonwealth Conference
We tried to do whatever was humanly possible to avoid a break without making a sacrifice of basic principles. South Africa sought consent on the ground that continued membership was a virtual formality. I took the position that if we were to accept South Africa's request unconditionally our action would be taken as approval or at least condonation of racial policies which are repugnant to and unequivocally abhorred and condemned by Canadians as a whole. Speaking for Canada-and I do not have to say that this attitude represents no recent conversion-I pointed out that we were opposed to racial discrimination, and made it clear that I could not approve any formula or solution which did not maintain beyond any doubt that non-discrimination in respect of race and colour is an essential principle of the commonwealth association.
This was not a stand which was taken then and not before; I have followed that course over the years. All but the Prime Minister of South Africa were in agreement that no expression of consent to South Africa's continuing membership was possible without an expression of the strongest views on their part regarding apartheid.
I shall not go into detail in this connection. We spent a long time on this. The general attitude we took was to criticize strongly and deplore the racial policy of the Union government and the anxiety which we felt it was arousing in the hearts and minds of millions of people throughout the world. We expressed our deep concern about its impact on the relations among the member countries of the commonwealth and on the cohesion of the commonwealth itself as a multiracial association. I took the stand then, and I have taken it before, that the United Nations answers to these principles, and that the commonwealth cannot do less.
The Prime Minister of South Africa stressed strongly the positive aspect of the Union government's policy. He deplored the accusations of racial discrimination and contended that the other prime ministers did not understand the situation as they should. As I have already said, there was a patient and exhaustive search for a formula which would encompass frank criticism of apartheid. Somebody said "We do not want compromise". Well, the countries which feel discrimination most strongly, and which were the most outspoken critics, showed a desire and readiness at all times to come to agreement without sacrifice of principle, and I say in no bitter sense that there was no corresponding readiness on the part of Prime Minister Verwoerd. When I say that, I do not want
3082	HOUSE OF
Commonwealth Conference hon. members to conclude that he was lacking in forbearance. He is a wonderful personality; he is a kindly burgher. In the face of strong and sometimes provocative criticism he maintained throughout an impressive courtesy and calm.
Was there ever a prospect of a constructive outcome? There might have been. There was a time when discussions seemed to give promise of a mutually acceptable solution. Dr. Verwoerd seemed ready then to acquiesce in a formula which would have been coupled with a declaration of principle by the cumulative conscience of the other prime ministers. That formula might have been accepted. But as discussion proceeded the basis of the compromise dissolved and it was impossible to find language capable of bridging the gulf. Again I say this; it is a lesson to those in this house who sometimes speak about what they would do if they were there. Those who belonged to non-white races showed an attitude of endeavouring to bring about some compromise.
When that hope ended, criticism continued. With some evident regret and without any advance notice-although he read from a document which I observed was somewhat dog-eared-Dr. Verwoerd formally withdrew South Africa's request to continue membership. In the tense drama of that moment little remained to be said. The true depth of the cleavage between him and the things he represented and the other members of the commonwealth was revealed, stretching to the breaking point the will to bridge it.
As I said a moment ago, South Africa remains a member of the commonwealth until May 31. Dr. Verwoerd made it clear that traditional ties with the commonwealth countries will continue. It is difficult to convey the picture of only a matter of 12 or 15 hours ago, when we were together as guests of the Queen and when such a change came about with so little apparent ill feeling.
Was the result unavoidable? I think it was. Over the years I have contended that in a multiracial association it had to become clear beyond doubt that if the commonwealth is to be a force for good, as it should be, there must be a measure of general agreement that discrimination in respect of race and colour shall not take place. I do not think we can compromise that principle if we believe that the commonwealth has a mission for all mankind. It would lose its power to meet challenges and opportunities in the future. I am more convinced than ever as to the power of this institution touching every part of the world.

I am not going to deal today with the conclusions on disarmament, but I think the discussions on that subject brought about a new relationship among the members of the commonwealth; but not an institutionalization, or anything that would interfere with the sovereignty of any of us. The influence of India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Ghana, Nigeria and Malaya joining with the other members of the commonwealth on a subject that has divided the United Nations and on which there has not been that progress that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would have hoped for, represents a major step, as indicated in the appendix on disarmament, toward a realization that only through action now can we save mankind from ultimate selfdestruction.
The question naturally arises, has the commonwealth been weakened? Dr. Verwoerd says it is the beginning of disintegration. There are some who view with apprehension the shifting composition of the association. It is a strange thing, but out goes Verwoerd and in comes Archbishop Makarios to represent Cyprus. Sierra Leone was accepted, and other countries will be making application to join within the next year or so. The close intimacy of the days when the present Leader of the Opposition was secretary of state for external affairs, with a few members gathered about, is ended.
There are those who see South Africa's decision as the forerunner of further withdrawals as a result of campaigns of criticism related to national policy. In that connection I should point out this. All of us agreed that no national policy of any country should be examined or considered without the consent of that country. Dr. Verwoerd himself undertook the explanation of the policies of his country.
I do not minimize the risks inherent in the emerging trends. The task before the commonwealth is to reduce the risks by building firmly on new foundations. What has happened might be epitomized thus. We have declared that non-discrimination on the basis of race and colour is the foundation stone of a multiracial association composed of representatives from all parts of the world. No foundation could be broader or more solidly based than the fundamental principle which, though unwritten, has emerged from this meeting.
I have advocated in the past and I continue to advocate a declaration of principles. When I spoke in the house on May 16 last I referred to the possibility that the time might not be far distant when acceptance by custom rather than by the declaration of certain basic principles, including the equality of all mankind irrespective of race, colour

and creed would be assured. No document was signed on this occasion, but that does not diminish the importance of what happened. I reiterate that we accepted the basic principle and established it as a commonwealth custom for the future. This is the bedrock of the modern commonwealth, the assurance as I see it of a stronger commonwealth in the future.
You will have noted, sir, that shortly before the meeting began the chief minister of Tanganyika, Mr. Julius Nyerere, published an arresting statement in which it was said that in so far as Tanganyika was concerned there would be no question of applying for membership in the commonwealth if discrimination were condoned. That statement and others by African leaders in territories shortly to achieve independence foreshadowed the course and the promise of the future.
There will be some who will say, and they will speak with great energy, that we should have pressed for the expulsion of South Africa. I remind those who speak in that vein that Ghana, Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Malaya and Ceylon did not follow that course. I think the fact that this break had to come and that South Africa should have withdrawn its application was the best course that could be followed. It provided a clearer opportunity of registering the principle of non-discrimination; for the prime ministers would not have been satisfied with less.
As the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom said yesterday in the British House of Commons, I regret that South Africa made this choice instead of adopting the attitude of a reasonable acceptance of a primary fact in the world in which we live.
I have seen the commonwealth in a different light than ever before. We took the course that anyone who recognizes the fact that communism marches on the application of discrimination, wherever it is practised, must take. I shall detour a moment to tell hon. members that, in the midst of the argument the day before yesterday, Dr. Verwoerd handed me a clipping regarding the denial of admission of two negroes to a hotel in the city of Edmonton. I do not think I have to make any further observation in that connection.
This is a fair summary of what took place. I thank the house for hearing me so patiently. I do not think there is any immediate necessity to discuss the other matters that were dealt with, but I will do so if the house grants me that privilege when the estimates of the Department of External Affairs are before the committee of supply.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be to reiterate what I have already 90205-6-195
Commonwealth Conference said to the Prime Minister personally, namely that it is good to see him back in the house and looking so hale and hearty after what must have been a very exhausting and in some respects, I am sure, a trying experience at the prime ministers' conference. As a matter of fact, when I was passing the Chateau this morning I had thought of dropping into the hotel and taking advantage of one of those machines that are scattered around the lobby to give him the message on film and signing it in that way. Perhaps this is a better way of doing it.
The Prime Minister has spoken with moving eloquence about the nature, the character and the history of conferences of commonwealth prime ministers; how in the past it has been possible to maintain the informal, friendly character of those meetings, sitting around, as he put it, a small table, which will now have to get larger, and talking together as members of a family. It has been possible in the past to keep those meetings on that informal family level; prevent controversial subjects coming up in the kind of discussion which would bring about public statements and reports.
The communique on this particular conference which was issued this morning and to which the Prime Minister alluded briefly- and I can understand that the reference should be brief on this occasion, because we shall have an opportunity later to debate the international matters referred to in the communique as well as in greater detail the commonwealth questions involved-referred to the international situation which he mentioned as one in which the atmosphere happily is somewhat better. I do not think however, that any of us can take very much comfort out of that, however, because, as the Prime Minister has put it, cold war policies have not changed. Even the atmosphere after the inauguration of the new administration in Washington has unfortunately clouded again recently and, if I may put it this way, coexistence seems to be returning unhappily to normal.
The communique has an interesting reference to the importance of making progress in disarmament. It is to be regretted that understandably the commonwealth prime ministers on this occasion were not able to co-ordinate the resolutions which now are before the United Nations, including the Canadian resolution designed to, as the communique put it, promote disarmament negotiations, so that the commonwealth could have acted in this respect through a single disarmament resolution.
The Prime Minister referred to the discussions-and they are mentioned in the communique-about the United Nations structure
3084	HOUSE OF
Commonwealth Conference and constitution. There is an interesting paragraph in the communique on that. I regret that it was not found possible-I can understand why it was not-to include in the communique some expression of unity and strong support for the secretary general in the work he is doing under the vicious attacks that are being made on him by those who are even more interested in destroying his office than they are in destroying the man. However, I am glad to see that there is in the communique a reference to the desirability of upholding the purposes and principles of the charter and the preservation of the international and independent character of the secretariat. In that connection I cannot help but feel some relief that a proposal which appeared in the press at least and which may have appeared in the conference, to change the structure of the higher level of the secretariat by surrounding the secretary general with three deputy secretaries general does not appear in this communique. I cannot myself feel that this would be a helpful change at this time.
There is no reference in the communique, although I am sure it is a matter under continuous consideration, to the desirability, and perhaps even in the future the necessity, of modifying in some way the structure of consultation and discussion among members of the commonwealth at commonwealth conferences in the light of the new constitution of the commonwealth. New members are coming in at each commonwealth prime ministers' conference, and that is all to the good; but of course it does alter the nature of commonwealth meetings, as the Prime Minister himself has pointed out. As he said, the old days of a small, intimate, informal association around a small table seem to have disappeared.
The most important and difficult matter, and one of the most dramatic that has ever come before a prime ministers' conference, was the situation that arose in regard to the application of South Africa to remain in the commonwealth consequent upon the adoption of a republican constitution to take effect at the end of May. It was decided some years ago, and the decision is not likely to be reversed, that there is room in this commonwealth of nations for nations of every constitutional form and character. Yet it has, I think, become a part of the conventions, because there are no laws of the commonwealth, that if a member of the commonwealth changes its constitutional structure or character, or if a member of the commonwealth seeks to enter via colonial status, the application should be agreed to by all the existing members of the commonwealth. That was required previously, and it has been required in the application made by South Africa. That application has 

now been withdrawn, and there is no reason to believe that South Africa will not now be leaving this association of nations at the end of May.
It is impossible not to regret deeply that the diplomacy of conciliation and mediation was not successful at the meeting in London in finding a formula which would have maintained inviolate a principle without bringing about a separation. No one, Mr. Speaker, can surely take any satisfaction out of the withdrawal from the commonwealth of the country of General Botha, the country that produced in the person of Field Marshal Smuts one of the greatest statesmen and leaders in the commonwealth, the country where the transition in a few years from military defeat to self government, to partnership, has always, and rightly, been heralded as one of the glories of the commonwealth association. Whatever may happen to South Africa, Delville Wood and Tobruk will always be in the commonwealth, and perhaps even now we may be able to look forward to a day when changing policies and changing conditions and the acceptance of those changes in South Africa may make it possible and desirable for South Africa to ask for readmission into the commonwealth in circumstances which would ensure a welcome for her by all the other members of the commonwealth.
One can take no satisfaction out of this withdrawal, but one can take even less satisfaction out of the fact that it was brought about by the uncompromising adherence of the South African government to a policy of race discrimination which was bound to be deeply repugnant to and opposed by other members of our multiracial association of free nations. The feelings of Canadians inside and outside the house about such discrimination have already been expressed. They have been expressed by the Prime Minister and other members of the government. They were expressed by me last April 27 prior to the conference of that year, and they were expressed formally in a resolution by the national convention of the party I have the honour to lead, a resolution passed unanimously last January, which reads as follows:
The commonwealth has recently undergone rapid and important changes which have brought colonies to independence. Canada should continue to foster and support all such moves inside and outside the commonwealth toward responsible freedom. We should uncompromisingly oppose policies or trends based on racial or other forms of discrimination, including apartheid in particular, which not only are bad in themselves but are incompatible with the nature of the commonwealth as a multiracial association of equal, independent and freely cooperating nations.
Nothing has happened since then, Mr. Speaker, to change my views and those of my

party on this matter. Before the last commonwealth prime ministers' conference, which was in May, 1960, I believe, the Prime Minister said that he feared "for the future of the commonwealth if the prime ministers' conference should become the judge and jury of the conduct of member nations". He repeated that view at a Canadian Club dinner in London a week or so ago, according to press reports.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the commonwealth conference has now decided that there must be such judgment including, according to press reports-and the Prime Minister confirmed those reports this morning-the requirement that every member of the commonwealth accept certain principles, among them being condemnation of racial discrimination. According to the London correspondent of the Toronto Globe and Mail, as found in the issue of March 15-until the Prime Minister spoke this morning this was the only quoted text I was able to get on this subject-Mr. Nehru put forward this requirement in a declaration which included the following:
We the prime ministers of the commonwealth recognize that the principle of racial discrimination is inconsistent with membership in the commonwealth.
I take it that now applies to the commonwealth association. Last May 1 stated in the house that the conference of that time had merely "postponed a showdown". That showdown has now taken place, presumably on the basis of the declaration I have just quoted or the one from which the Prime Minister read this morning, because when such a declaration was pressed to a decision the result, it is now perfectly clear, was inevitable. I take it from what the Prime Minister has said this morning that the choice had to be made in London between South Africa and apartheid in the commonwealth and the Asian and African members remaining in the commonwealth. In the circumstances which made that choice necessary, the processes of conciliation and mediation having regrettably failed, there was, I believe, only one course for Canada to follow and she followed it.
But let us not deceive ourselves. The implications of the procedure that has been followed and of the results that have flowed from it at this conference are very important and very far reaching. On May 16 last the Prime Minister had this to say in the House of Commons as found on page 3899 of Hansard:
... if we ever arrive at the point where we will
discuss-
He was referring to commonwealth prime ministers' conferences.
-the internal affairs of other countries and determine the course by a majority, then there 90205-6-1954
Commonwealth Conference will be problems that will arise and it could only mean that several countries in the commonwealth could not accept the decisions of the majority. I need not go into particulars in that regard: I think a number would come to mind immediately, including the question of migration.
The commonwealth has now reached and passed this point of non-intervention.


John George Diefenbaker: If I may be permitted to say something, and I do not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman, I pointed out that Dr. Verwoerd himself introduced the subject for discussion at London and said, "I am prepared to discuss this". Otherwise we would have found ourselves in the position that we always have, that internal affairs of any nation shall not be discussed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister has made an interesting intervention to the effect that-I hope I am not misinterpreting what he said-if Dr. Verwoerd had not himself agreed at this meeting to the discussion of the matter, it could not with propriety have been, discussed. That is very interesting and very significant in terms of the future of the new commonwealth association. Undoubtedly we have had indication that this will happen; that questions concerning racial discrimination in all its forms, if they should ever arise, will in fact be subjects of discussion. I would have thought from what happened in London that it has now been established that the policies of any of the members of the commonwealth which affect racial discrimination in any form, or constitute a violation of human rights or human dignity, are now subjects for examination at the commonwealth conferences. This change comes at a time when new members are being added to the commonwealth who are sensitive to a degree in regard to these matters especially and to any suspicion, even, of racial discrimination, but who do not-I say this in no spirit of criticism at all in view of the circumstances that they face in these countries-all apply in the conditions that face their countries those concepts of personal liberty and political democracy which, in the case of our own country and others, are the result of long and slow development over the years, which is no doubt why they work so well in our country.
We are indeed approaching a new and testing era in commonwealth relations. A great deal of understanding and good will is going to be needed by all the nations concerned if the test is to be met successfully. It is imperative that it should be met. If it is, then the commonwealth can perform now a role of great and increasing value as a bridge between Asia and Africa on the one hand and the west on the other, when there are

Commonwealth Conference very few if any such bridges in the world. I would think that the commonwealth is now, because of what has happened in London, put in a stronger rather than a weaker position to perform that particular role.
South Africa's announced withdrawal raises certain questions for its former associates in the commonwealth, questions of preferential trade and commonwealth status which it is not necessary to go into now; we will have an opportunity to discuss that before long, I assume. The withdrawal raises one other question which I am sure is in all our minds. What will it do for those African people who are the victims of that policy of apartheid which in the event, because the South African government clung so stubbornly to it, forced South Africa out? Will it hurt or help them? In any event, surely it is to be hoped that South Africa's new isolation will not give her a feeling of immunity from world opinion in this matter of apartheid and racial discrimination.
The commonwealth will soon lose one of its founding members in circumstances that can cause no satisfaction to anyone. One old member will go and two new ones will now come in, one from Africa and one from the Mediterranean. Let us hope that this association which has done so much in the world since it was formed will now be stronger and have a deeper meaning for those that remain in it and for the new ones to come into it.
Surely there can be no difference of opinion in this house on this score, that the strengthening of this association should be the objective of every member nation in the commonwealth whose full equality with every other member in rights and in race has now been confirmed, I think it is correct to say, as a condition of membership. There is no certainty, in the new circumstances of the old commonwealth, that this objective of strengthening can be achieved. It will not be done merely by speeches and declarations; it will be done only by the closest co-operation among all its members based on mutual respect and understanding.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I want to add my voice at this time to that of the Leader of the Opposition in extending to the Prime Minister a very warm welcome home. We welcome him today, along with the people all across our country, as the Prime Minister of our nation who has returned from a very important international conference.
I think we all regret exceedingly that South Africa found it impossible to start along the road of changing its policies of discrimination based on race. We regret that South Africa gave no indication that she


was prepared to amend those policies. We believe, that being the situation, the members of the commonwealth had no other course but to express strong opposition to those policies, strong to the point that South Africa withdrew her application for readmission to the commonwealth. If the commonwealth is to survive and grow, as I am certain it shall, then it seems to us essential that this principle of nondiscrimination should be spelled out and strengthened.
The commonwealth, to make a contribution to peace and to the welfare of humanity, must be based on nondiscrimination. I suggest therefore that it must be based, for its main strength, on free institutions. The principle of the equality of human races is being accepted more and more throughout the world, and those who would continue a policy of the dark ages of the past will find themselves, in our opinion, in a smaller and smaller minority. Survival of humankind itself depends on the removal of discrimination in all its forms.
If the prime ministers at the commonwealth conference had decided, which was the alternative, to allow South Africa to remain in the commonwealth I should think there would have been great danger that other nations might leave the commonwealth. It would seem to me that this very act would carry the danger of turning the peoples of Africa and Asia against the commonwealth itself. There is no doubt that the course taken by South Africa is a very dangerous one and that this small minority, the white population, is in increasing danger because of the policy that South Africa has followed. If that minority is to have any hope of survival it must be in a community where racial equality is accepted, and it will have to be in a world where the white nations have determined that racial discrimination shall be removed.
We naturally regret these unhappy events, but we think the maintenance of the commonwealth has not in fact been jeopardized. On the contrary, we think history will show that although this was one of the most frustrating days for members of the commonwealth, it will eventually be found to be a turning point from which the commonwealth will gain greater and greater strength.
There is, of course, one question which I think is in the minds of most of us and which has not been dealt with today. I refer to the economic policies that will be followed as between South Africa and the other members of the commonwealth beyond May if this extremely difficult and apparently inevitable step is now to be taken. I am not one of those who think we should necessarily discriminate because one action has been taken which

we do not support. However, it seems to us that it must not be possible for a member to remove herself from the commonwealth of nations while at the same time retaining the economic advantages that go with partnership in the club. We think it would be a bad precedent if a member could be removed from the club while still allowed to enjoy commonwealth trade preferences.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it seems to me that he is introducing a new subject which is beyond the scope of the statement and which might better be reserved for the time when debate can take place on these matters.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, this is certainly a question which must be dealt with, on which statements must be made and as to which policy must be determined. South Africa having taken this course, we are of the opinion that it may be possible for more liberal elements within that country to exert themselves and that from this unhappy situation will grow a modification of the apartheid laws. We believe that economic pressure may become an effective means of bringing to bear on the government of that country the kind of influence that may lead to a modification of those policies. The future we cannot see, but certainly as a result of the events that have taken place Canada is now in a position to exercise stronger and increased determination to lead middle powers in the world along the line destined to bring about peace, racial equality and the removal of discrimination in all its forms.
We express the hope that the voice of Canada will speak out more loudly in this regard. Although these are very difficult times, we think the United Nations will stand us in good stead. With conditions in Africa as they are and with the possibility of deterioration, we think now is the time for members and supporters of the United Nations to strengthen the instrument of the United Nations in every possible way.
As to the step that has now been taken, we believe history will show that it indicates a growing support of the basic dignity of human individuals and a growing respect for the equality of races; we believe that in the days ahead it will lead to a strengthening of free political institutions. Although it is a difficult time for all of us, we think eventually this step will go down in history as one of the great events to its credit in the evolution of the commonwealth, and as one of those great historic events to which mankind will refer and say "Here we made great progress".
Centennial Anniversary of Italy EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



CENTENNIAL ANNIVERSARY OF ESTABLISH- MENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the house to a significant anniversary observed this year in the history of a nation which has been closely associated with Canada in friendship and history, and whose traditions and culture have contributed much to this nation. On March 17, one hundred years ago, the parliament of Piedmont met at Turin, Italy and proclaimed Italy a kingdom under Victor Emmanuel II. This act created the first national government of united Italy and the present parliamentary republic which came into being in 1946 was the successor state to the constitutional monarchy established in 1861.
To commemorate the centenary of this historic event celebrations are being held this year throughout Italy, and major Italian cities will solemnize the occasion with appropriate ceremonies. This occasion provides us in Canada with an opportunity to pay tribute to the major contributions made in so many fields of Canadian endeavour by nearly a million and a half Canadians of Italian descent, among whom are two distinguished members of the house, namely the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Martini) and the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai).
As a manifestation of the deep-rooted friendship and good will which Canada cherishes for Italy and for its people, I should like to suggest that it would be appropriate for the Canadian House of Commons, on this the one hundredth anniversary of Italy's independence, to pay tribute to what has been done and also to have placed before it an appropriate motion. I therefore move, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson):
That the Speaker of the House of Commons convey to the president of the chamber of deputies of the parliament of Italy, the good wishes of the Canadian House of Commons on the occasion of the centennial anniversary of the proclamation of Italy as a unified state at Turin on March 17, 1861.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured by being able to second this motion of tribute to one of the lands from which Canada has secured so much strength and colour in the person of Canadians from that land. I refer to the land of Italy to which the world owes so much as the source of the civilizing mission of Rome, of the mission of the Christian church, as well as the source of so much that has contributed to civilization in the arts and letters, especially from the Renaissance.

Inquiries of the Minister
As the Prime Minister stated, one hundred years ago the nation of Italy was established. It was due to the work of men like Cavour, Mazzini and Garibaldi. During that one hundred years Italy has had its ups and downs, and there have been times when we in Canada have not found ourselves on the same side as Italy in international events. Happily those days are over, and we now work together with the government and the people of Italy in the friendliest possible cooperation as allies in the Atlantic community.
As the Prime Minister has mentioned, we owe a great debt of gratitude to that country for those who have come to Canada from it and whose industry, initiative, intelligence and colour have added so much to our national heritage.


Hazen Robert Argue: This is another subject, Mr. Speaker, about which there is unanimity in all quarters of the house. I am pleased on behalf of the C.C.F.-New Party caucus to associate ourselves with the remarks of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. We are pleased to pay this tribute not only to Italy as a nation but also to our fellow Canadians who have come from that land. It is easy for us to pay this tribute at this time since our relations with Italy are so cordial, and we are fortunate as a country to count among our citizens so many thousands of people who have come here from Italy and who are becoming in such a short space of time Canadian citizens in the very best sense of the word.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: In the absence of the Minister of National Revenue perhaps I might address this question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I referred to it yesterday in addressing a question to the hon. gentleman. It is this. Is it not a fact that the government may withdraw by order in council the benefits of the British preferential tariff from any British country, and that authority for any such withdrawal is given to the governor in council under subsection 1 of section 4 of the Customs Tariff Act?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The Leader of the Opposition has asked this question in a general way, but I presume what he is fishing for is an answer to a question he asked yesterday as reported at page 3033 of Hansard, which reads:
[Mr. Pearson.)

Is it or is it not a fact that preferential treatment automatically ends with withdrawal of any nation from the commonwealth?
Yesterday I replied by saying I was not in a position to give a definite answer to the question. I am in a position to give an answer today. The fact is that there is a bilateral trade agreement, as I had indicated earlier yesterday, between Canada and South Africa signed in 1932 following the imperial economic conference, and that agreement provides for guarantees on rates of duty and in some instances margins of preference for specific products. The agreement extended initially for five years, and after that date was terminable on six months' notice by either party. There is no clause in the agreement which states that preferential treatment ends with the withdrawal of either party from the commonwealth. The agreement is still in existence, and hon. members may be interested to learn that Canada sells far more goods to South Africa than we buy from that country.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: In view of the fact that so many important questions turn on the studies of the royal commission on transportation I wonder if the Prime Minister could inform the house when he expects to receive either the intermediate or the final report.


John George Diefenbaker: I have not had a report since my return about two hours ago, but I shall try to have the information for Monday.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
the Secretary of State for External Affairs what action the government proposes to take to carry out the United Nations resolution, which it supported, that influence be brought to bear on South Africa to change its policy in connection with the trust territory of South West Africa.


Howard Charles Green: I am not in a position today to make any statement about what action should be taken. I think that resolution was brought forward having in mind the commonwealth conference which, of course, has just ended.



REQUEST FOR OVERPRINT STAMP


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to address a question to the Postmaster General. I am asking this question at the request of the David Thompson stamp club at Castlegar, British Columbia, whose members are ardent philatelists with an appreciation of major sports achievements in Canadian history.
In view of the fact that from time to time numerous countries smaller than Canada have commemorated many less important events than the winning of the world hockey championship by the Trail Smoke Eaters with special issues of stamps, would the minister give consideration to having some five million copies of the large size northern development stamp overprinted with the words "World Hockey Championship, 1961"?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: I agree with the hon. member that this is an event of considerable interest to all Canadians but, like so many of our recent stamp issues, this one has proved so popular and in such demand that there is no substantial quantity left which could be overprinted in the way suggested. Since the name of the team is the Trail Smoke Eaters I looked to see whether we might have five million copies left of the fire prevention stamp, but we do not have this quantity available.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In the event of there being another issue of this stamp during the present year, would the minister give consideration to the request I have made?


William McLean Hamilton: would not be too hopeful that we would be able to work anything out, but I shall be glad to give consideration to the suggestion.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, following the question of the hon. member for Kootenay West, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General and ask him if he will not issue a stamp in honour of the record established last night in Montreal by Boom Boom Geoffrion?


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, if we were to issue stamps in honour of the records established and to be established this year by the Montreal Cana-diens we would have no room for other issues.
Inquiries of the Minister INDIAN AFFAIRS



SARNIA, ONT.    INSTALMENT PAYMENT ON SALE OF LAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Charlton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate inquired whether Dimensional Investments Limited had made the payment which was due on March 15 in relation to the sale of Indian land at Sarnia. The answer is no. Notice was sent to the company yesterday giving them 30 days in which to remedy the default.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold Hicks (Fraser Valley):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence based on a recent editorial appearing in the Abbottsford-Sumas-Matsqui News. I wish to ask the minister whether it is correct, as stated in the editorial, that reserve army parades have been cancelled in the Abbotsford area due to the withdrawal of transport vehicles for repair.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: The militia units in Abbotsford consist of two transport platoons and one workshop platoon of 156 company, Royal Canadian Army Service Corps. In addition there is an army cadet corps sponsored by the militia. Five vehicles are maintained for the transportation of militia and cadet personnel to the training area. Earlier this month three of these vehicles were sent to the workshop for repairs, one of which will be returned before Easter and the remaining two shortly thereafter.
I am informed that to date training has not suffered through the temporary loss of these vehicles. Western command is attempting to arrange alternative transportation.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Triniiy):: A supplementary question. Is there no pool of vehicles in western command available to provide alternative transportation in these circumstances?


Douglas Scott Harkness: There is a pool of vehicles available. Western command headquarters, as the hon. member probably knows, are in Edmonton and, as I said, an attempt is being made to provide some extra vehicles while the repairs to the unit's vehicles are being undertaken.
3090	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Minister TRADE



DISCUSSION OF U.S. SUBSIDY ON EXPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Roslhern):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Could the minister tell us whether he raised the question of subsides on United States flour exports in his conversations with United States officials on his recent visit to Washington?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of Finance has already made a statement on this subject. I believe he mentioned that food products were discussed. Of course that would include flour.



TURKEYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of Agriculture is in a position today to answer a question I asked yesterday, which his parliamentary secretary took as notice.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: 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 four 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.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare based on a statement he made in this house two and a half years ago to the effect that he was studying the recommendations and projections of the Clark report regarding the old age security system in the United States and its possible adoption in Canada. Now that the study has proceeded for two and a half years, is the minister in a position at this time to say that government policy is or will be?


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No, Mr. Speaker, government policy will be announced in the house in the usual manner, of course.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
minister whether he has completed his study, Mr. Speaker?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour whether he has had an opportunity to look into the question I asked yesterday in connection with the laying off of some 300 employees of the Grand'Mere Knitting Mills and the Grand'Mere Handcraft Mills?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: No report has yet been brought to my attention on this matter, Mr. Speaker.



INCOME TAX ACT

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) moved: the third reading of Bill No. C-73, to amend the Income Tax Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

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



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including advisory committee on agricultural services, $911,098.
Mr. Smallwood:: Mr. Chairman, as I am the first speaker today I think I would be remiss if I did not welcome our Prime Minister back to Canada. I am very pleased to see that he is in good health after such a tiring trip. We have an outstanding Prime Minister who is guiding the destiny of our country in difficult days. If I may address the right hon. gentleman through you, sir, I am sure. Mr. Prime Minister, that the people of Canada appreciate the untiring leadership you are giving us at this time.
I wish to take this opportunity of congratulating our Minister of Agriculture on the fine job he is doing at this time. It is beyond my understanding how the hon. member for Assiniboia can go across the country talking about what a great mistake was the appointment of our present Minister of Agriculture. I have in my hand an article which appeared in the Edmonton Journal reporting a speech made by the hon. member for Assiniboia in Regina. The article reads in part:
National C.C.F. leader Hazen Argue said Tuesday the appointment of former northern affairs minister Alvin Hamilton as agriculture minister in a federal cabinet reshuffle is a mistake.

He also said he is disappointed that the federal government failed to appoint a farmer to the post.
"This is not only a mistake because Mr. Hamilton is not a farmer but because he is not acquainted with agriculture."
We all know that the hon. gentleman from Assiniboia places great reliance on the Saskatchewan farmers union. Let us examine what the president of that union said with respect to this appointment.


Hazen Robert Argue: I often disagree with them.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Oh, not very often. This is terrific. The hon. gentleman is changing horses again.


Mr. Woolliams:: Don't worry about the ability of the hon. member to change horses.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Maybe he will marry off the farmers to labour. The hon. gentleman is now starting to disagree with the farmers. This is what the president of the Saskatchewan farmers union said as reported in the Western Producer:
President Alf Gleave of the Saskatchewan farmers union said Saskatchewan farmers will be happy to have one of their own members of parliament as minister of agriculture.
"Mr. Hamilton has a thorough knowledge of the farm situation, particularly of the position the western grain growers are in, and we are hopeful that he will enact measures that will improve it."
I am pleased to read that statement by the president of the Saskatchewan farmers union. Our present minister who now has control of the wheat board has done a great job in expanding our markets.
I wish now to deal briefly with some of the comments made by the hon. member for Assiniboia, who recently advanced the proposal that the government should announce quotas for the ensuing year and made the suggestion that if the government announces it will take eight bushels and can take only six the wheat, should be left on the farm and the farmers should be paid for the remaining amount.
Let us examine this proposal. It is obviously a suggestion designed to help the big producers, the big wheat farmers. During the discussion of the Aurora Pipe Line Company bill we heard a great deal from hon. members in the far corner about Texas buccaneers.


Hazen Robert Argue: A red herring.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: I am not dragging in any red herrings, buster. During the discussion of Aurora we heard a great deal about Texas buccaneers. We are aware that it is a fact that 24 per cent of Saskatchewan farms on the Regina plains are controlled by United States interests. These are the big boys that the hon. member for Assiniboia seeks to help with his proposal. They probably own up to 3,000 acres. The hon. member wants the government to buy their grain which is 90205-6-196
Supply-Agriculture
left on the farm. He urges that we spend our money in this way giving it to the big American buccaneers on the Regina plains instead of helping the small family farms.


Hazen Robert Argue: You are even more stupid than usual.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: I did not hear that remark, but I thought the hon. member said I was stupid. If anyone is more stupid than the hon. member for Assiniboia I should like to know who it is.


Hazen Robert Argue: He is talking right now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, in fairness to the hon. gentleman who is speaking I believe that the word "stupid" used by the leader of the C.C.F. is unparliamentary and should be withdrawn.


Hazen Robert Argue: I did not say he was stupid; I said more stupid than usual. If that offends the sensibilities of the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose or on this particular occasion those of the hon. member for Essex East, I will be happy to withdraw or modify that comment.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: I would not want to put the hon. member to all that trouble. In this case it is just like getting kicked by a mule. You have to consider where it comes from, and the hon. member's comment does not bother me at all.
The proposal advanced by the hon. gentleman is designed to help the big farmers. I am more interested in the family farm unit. Those on the family farms are the people we must keep on the farms. They produce some of our finest citizens. Children who are raised on family farms enjoy a full life and have a good background. If we can keep them on the farms we will prevent the unemployment situation from worsening.
There is a paragraph in this newspaper about the feed mills. I am not opposed to the new feed mill legislation, but if the hon. member will look around he will see that again he is wrong. I quote from a letter in the Western Producer, as follows:
I note in the press where the farm unions were left holding the bag, re the feed mills. After some other farm organization pulled the rug out from under them, by some of them reversing their stand.
Now I predicted this would happen after they came to realize how badly the vast majority of farmers wanted the new feed mill regulations and I admire them for it as a man's a man when he comes back and makes amends after he realizes he was wrong. I even wrote our M.P. quite early in the fray and explained if they held the line for a while proof would come out that the vast majority of farmers wanted and approved of the new ruling. Also it was not compulsory and the farmers are capable of their own bargaining.
That is what we want on the farm. We do not want complete government control. We

Supply-Agriculture
are an independent class of people and we like to do our own bargaining. We do not like to be tied down by too many government controls.
I was up in the cafeteria yesterday, and I was interested to hear a couple of reporters talking about how well off the western farmers were. I would suggest to the members of the press gallery that if the farmers are so well off in the west they lay down their pens and go out and buy farms. I predict that they would starve to death. The trouble is they make those statements but they do not know what they are talking about. Like those reporters, too many people living in the cities think the farmers are well off. I wonder whether these people would be interested in going through the country, not only in the west but in the east, to see the women and children who are working on the farms helping the farmers to make a profit and a living. I realize that food costs in the stores have gone up far too high, but I can certainly say that the farmer is not getting his share of the price the consumer is paying.
We have more or less spoiled ourselves these days. I can remember a few years back when you were able to go in the butcher shop and have the butcher take down a whole quarter of beef and cut you off a roast or a steak. What happens today? Everybody expects it to be wrapped in cellophane. Years ago when you went in the store to buy a dozen eggs you would be glad to take them home in a paper bag. Today they must be in a special container. This is all costing money. The middleman is making the profit, and the farmer is not receiving a fair share by way of return for his work.
I have here some very interesting notes regarding the operation of farms, their importance and what big business farming is. I do not think there is any line of business where the investment is larger and the return is smaller than in farming. Here is a study which was undertaken in the United States, and I am sure the results will apply to Canada. It has been found that at the beginning of settlement of this continent if took nine men to feed one person. Today one farmer can feed 23J persons.
This United States study went on to show that agriculture is big business. For example, agriculture is the biggest buyer, seller and borrower in the United States. The farmer buys more trucks than any other industry. The inventory of farm machinery is bigger than the assets of the United States steel industry and five times that of the automobile industry. Agriculture uses more finished steel than the output of passenger cars, consumes more crude petroleum than any other industry and uses more electrical power than Chicago,

Detroit, Baltimore or Houston, Texas. I have just quoted this study to show what a big industry farming is.
The government has enacted a lot of good legislation. I do not want to be critical, but I might say that the deficiency payment on eggs and hogs is still a problem for us. I suggest to the department that the deficiency payments on eggs be based on a quarterly and regional basis. I would like to see hogs placed on a six month basis and also on a regional basis. To test the plan, I know that last spring a great many farmers sold their hogs at a very reduced price. The small farmers who had sold their hogs in the spring did not receive any deficiency payments on them. If they had been able to accumulate them on a six month basis, then those who sold a few hogs in the spring would have received deficiency payments on them later.
I should like to mention one matter concerning the last acreage payments. I feel that the regulations set up by the department were too rigid, and that in dealing with them the wheat board was also too rigid. There should be a little more flexibility. I had a few farmers in my area who were ineligible for payment because in a couple of instances they did not hold a 1959 permit book. This was the first permit book they held. These were young farmers. I think particularly of one young farmer in New Norway who had bought land from his father in 1959, and earlier in the year the father had made the mistake of including in his own grain permit book the land he had sold to his son. I did all I could to draw this matter to the attention of the Canadian wheat board. I had letters from the grain agent and some other agents in the town of New Norway. Because this small mistake was made I could not get this younger farmer paid. He needed the acreage payments much more than some of those who had already obtained them. I do hope that the department will take note of those remarks I have made, and I will not take up any more of the time of the committee.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Clifford Silas Smallwood: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. When I was speaking before lunch the hon. member for Assiniboia made an interjection and at the time I was not aware of the fact that he was referring to me. He said then that I was "more stupid than usual". I have taken the opportunity

during the adjournment to check the typescript of the debate, and I can now say that the hon. member did make this statement about me. Before we proceed further I must ask the hon. member to withdraw his remarks and apologize.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I was given to understand that the hon. member had withdrawn the remarks he made or had modified them.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: I understood him to say "stupid". I am no more stupid than any other member. However, I have checked the transcript and I find that he said "more stupid than usual", which is just a little different.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I do not apologize for taking part in this discussion. It has been suggested by implication at any rate by some hon. members, notably last night by the hon. member for St. Hya-cinthe-Bagot, that one has to be a farmer in order to justify participation in matters having to do with agriculture. That is not my conception of the role of a member of parliament, and I think that last night the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont clearly established what I believe to be the duty of all members of parliament. Our duty, as I see it, is to be concerned about all aspects of the problems that face the Canadian people, whether they live in the rural or urban parts of our country. In any event, as one hon. member of this house who represents a large number of farmers I feel it is my duty to make some comments today. I would remind hon. members, who sometimes find my participation in the discussion of agriculture unusual, that it is a matter of historical record that one of the first, if not the first, speeches I ever made in the house had to do with certain phases of agriculture as they affected the constituency I have the honour to represent in this chamber.
The Minister of Labour-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can understand hon. members finding some amusement because my confrontations with the Minister of Labour are more frequent than with the Minister of Agriculture. The latter, in the opening statement he made on the presentation of his estimates, sought to create the impression that the revenue position of the farmers of Canada since he became Minister of Agriculture one or two months ago has considerably improved and that during the past year farmers have been better off than in the previous year and relatively better off than at any time during the past 12 years.
90205-6-1964
Supply-Agriculture
This misconception which was afforded by the speech of the Minister of Agriculture has been repeated in the province of Ontario and undoubtedly it will be hard to catch up with. I propose for a few moments this afternoon to deal at least in part with this particular aspect of the problem that concerns us at the present time. The fact is that the farmers of Canada are not as well off today as the Minister of Agriculture sought to portray. I note that when he spoke in Saskatoon the other day he presented a picture of moderate optimism as to the outlook for agriculture on the prairies. He did not give that impression in the house when he spoke in introducing his estimates. He argued that there had been a rise in the net agricultural income across the board. He did not differentiate between one section of Canada and another. I am sure, for instance, that when he made that speech he did not take into account the summary of statistics, dated February, 1961, presented to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization by an official of his department. On page 7 of the report, which was prepared by Mr. Gordon Haase, the following is to be noted:
The behaviour of certain farm prices was examined . . . and the results of these price movements can be interpreted in terms of their final effects upon total farm income and expenses.
At the conclusion on page 8 the author observes:
It should also be noted that this changing relationship of farm income and expense has had different effects in each province reflecting the particular types of farming that are practised.
In examining the minister's statement I think it is important that we bear in mind certain facts and among them is the fact that Canada's gross national product in current dollars increased from $16.3 billion in 1949 to $34.6 billion in 1959 and to an estimated $35.5 billion or thereabouts in 1960. With this as a background I should like to observe that while productivity in agriculture has risen rapidly, prices for farm products have not increased in step with increased costs. The report prepared by Mr. Haase for the standing committee on agriculture, and it is well worth examining, clearly establishes this fact. I think we have to examine the problem facing the farmers of our country with the background of present economic conditions in Canada. I cannot believe that any occupational group in any section of Canada can be well off for very long when the general level of economic activity is declining; when there is very serious unemployment and so long as our basic financial monetary exchange, trade and commercial policies are the subject of much criticism throughout the country.

Supp ly-A griculture
Although changes in agricultural conditions are inevitable, we must be sure that the major changes are not brought about too quickly at a time when unemployment, as at present, is at an unprecedentedly high level. We must realize that there are some social problems facing the farmers which must be solved with sympathy and understanding.
The agricultural revolution of today places many farm people in a comparable position to that brought about by the industrial revolution of the last century. Rather than have these people leave the farms, as some suggest, and move to urban areas where they would add to the numbers of unemployed, it is preferable that they stay on the farms until employment opportunities in the cities increase. That puts a responsibility on the Canadian people as a whole, on this government and on this parliament.
As I see it, it is the responsibility of all Canadians to assure farmers a decent standard of living, and the measures taken toward this goal will be less expensive for the Canadian taxpayer in the long run than having to provide financial assistance to even greater numbers of unemployed people in Canada.
Dealing directly with the matter of the cash income of the Canadian farmer in 1960, I think it is important to bear in mind certain statistics that were not dealt with by the Minister of Agriculture. An examination of the statistics produced by his department through the economics research division of the Department of Agriculture reveals that the cash income from farm products declined in 1960 to $2,784 million, from $2,789 million in 1959, and $2,795 million in 1958. What the minister has done in the figures that he has given to the committee to show the alleged rise in net farm income has been to exclude from his calculations transfer payments that have been made under various measures passed in this house providing assistance in one form or another to the farmers of Canada.
Supplementary payments to farmers in 1960, it should not be forgotten, amounted to $77 million. These payments were made under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, western grain producers acreage plan, the federal-provincial emergency unthreshed grain assistance policy and other measures. In 1959 the total supplementary payments amounted to $22 million only, most of which was received under the provisions of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. So there has been an increase in 1960 of $55 million in transfer payments to the agricultural sector of the economy. These transfer payments, representing an increase of $55 million, were overlooked by the minister and must be

calculated in determining the net farm income position of the Canadian farmer. In spite of this increase of $55 million in supplementary payments, the realized gross income of farmers rose by only $53 million, from $3,155 million in 1959 to $3,209 million in 1960.
This means that if one discounts the increase in government transfer payments the farmers' gross income declined in 1960 and did not increase as the Minister of Agriculture suggested to this committee and to the people of Canada. This statement is borne out by the dominion bureau of statistics compilation which was given out recently, and particularly the table entitled, "Net Income of Farm Operators from Farming Operations, Canada, by Provinces". This covers such things as cash income from farm products, income in kind, supplementary payments, realized gross income, operating and depreciation charges, realized net income, value of inventory changes, total gross income, and total net income. Hon. members will find this table, which was distributed by the minister or by the Department of Agriculture, of great significance in this regard. For instance, I find in the third paragraph of the commentary attached to this table the following statement, which bears out what I have said about the relationship between transfer payments and the calculation of the net farm income in 1960.
Supplementary payments to farmers in western Canada in 1960 amounted to approximately 77 million dollars and included payments made under the provisions of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act-
And the various other measures which I have already cited. It goes on to state:
This is in contrast to 1959 when farmers received approximately 22 million dollars, most of which was received under the provisions of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
So, this fact alone puts the enthusiastic statement made by the Minister of Agriculture, whose enthusiasm sometimes permits him to run ahead of his judgment, in proper perspective.
This is not the only fact. Since operating expenses of farmers rose by some $13 million according to the table to which I have already made reference, from $1,880 million in 1959 to $1,893 million in 1960, realized net income rose by only $41 million or about four fifths of the increase in transfer payments to farmers.
Moreover, the table also indicates that inventories on farms increased by $36 million in 1960 as opposed to a decrease of $70 million in 1959. It is indicated that this was due to an increase in grain production over the preceding year and a continuing build-up

of Canada's cattle population. So between 1959 and 1960 inventories accounted for a change of some $106 million.
I draw from all these facts the following conclusion: The total net income in 1960 was approximately $1,352 million. In 1959 it stood at $1,206 million. This was an increase of only $146 million despite the fact that there was a $55 million increase in transfer payments and a change in inventories held on the farms which amounted to $106 million. These two factors would account for a change in the cash income of some $160 million. Despite these facts-and notwithstanding what the Minister of Agriculture said, and notwithstanding what the propaganda agencies of the Department of Agriculture indicated -the net income rose by less than $146 million so that the underlying economic position of the agricultural community, after allowing for an increase in transfer payments and a change in inventories, deteriorated in 1960.
That is in direct contradiction to what the Minister of Agriculture told this House of Commons. The government can take no credit for the increase in the yield of wheat or the continuing increase in the number of cattle which is the major factor in the change in the farmers' net income position. This was not the result of government policy. I am sure that even the Minister of Agriculture would say that these were factors that went far beyond the reach of government action. This government has nothing that warrants being called an agricultural policy. The increase in transfer payments which took place was the result of abnormal conditions that existed on the prairies during the last year; I refer, for instance, to such things as the early snowfall that caught the wheat unharvested in the fields.
Furthermore, a cursory look at the regional distribution of net income from farm operations reveals, I believe, a complete lack of a national agricultural policy. Yet I have in my hand here a document with a large blue streak across the top on a white background, addressed to certain people who are meeting in Ottawa at the present time for some undisclosed purpose. If one examines that document, one will find that this government has, according to its own impression, a clear-cut agricultural policy designed to meet not only the long term aspect of the problem but the short term aspect of it as well.


Mr. Churchill:: That is a first-class document.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says it is a first-class document. He is right if one interprets that statement in the proper sense. It is a first-class Madison avenue product. That is what it is. All the propaganda
Supply-Agriculture
of the government engineered by the archpropagandist of the government, namely the Minister of Agriculture, is not going to convince the Canadian farmer that his position under this government is greatly improved over what it was when this government took office. The fact is that farm net income declined in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec. The increase of over $100 million in Saskatchewan resulted from a good wheat crop and the increased transfer payments to western farmers. The increase in Ontario was largely accounted for by the increase in the inventory of cattle held on the farm. When the minister deals with the various submissions that have been made during the course of discussion on the first item, I hope he will address himself to the figures which I have produced and which come from his own publications. I challenge him now, in the face of these figures, to deny the picture which I have presented of the actual income position of the farmers of Canada at the present time.
The minister is a man of great enthusiasm and for that quality he is to be admired and congratulated. But when a man is administering a large department of government, he should not allow his enthusiasm in any way to discolour his judgment or to interfere with his capacity for good judgment. He must see things as they are and not as he would like them to be. A good case in point to illustrate what I have in mind is a statement made by the Minister of Agriculture two weeks ago when he said:
The action taken by the government last year in placing hog support on a deficiency payment basis has had the anticipated effect of eliminating the previous surplus production and greatly improving hog prices.
That was a statement by the Minister of of Agriculture. I do not think that statement can stand any test of real validity. However, the minister is entitled to make an argument. Nevertheless, I suggest that no department of the government of Canada is warranted in using its agencies for the purpose of spreading political propaganda.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have before me the statement that came from the information division of the Canadian Department of Agriculture repeating precisely the words of the minister. I now quote what that information division says:
-the action taken by the government in placing hog support on a deficiency payment basis has had the anticipated effect of eliminating the previous surplus production and greatly improving hog prices.
That is a complete reproduction of a political statement that was made by the Minister

Supply-Agriculture
of Agriculture. The information division of that department or of any other department has no right to use its services, which are paid for by the taxpayers of Canada, in order to try to put forward the government's answer to suggestions made in the House of Commons concerning the application of aspects of its agricultural policy. Lest anyone think that I am giving an argument that is specious, I have before me the Farmer's Advocate of February 25, 1961. Here is what it says:
As you can see the two statements-
That is the one by the information division and the one by the Minister of Agriculture.
-are identical. Is the information division-
The editor asks this question.
-becoming an agency for repeating party propaganda? Surely the task of the information division is to inform not to repeat political overstatements.
And an overstatement it is.
So says the editor. He continues:
Anyone who believes hog prices are now high solely because of the new deficiency payment system of price support is living in his own little dream world. Deficiency payments for hogs were instituted mainly to get the government out of the hog business (their storages were full at the time).
The reason hog prices are good now is because a good many farmers have no hogs to sell. The reason they have no hogs to sell is because they lost their shirts when prices dipped so low a little more than a year ago.
No wonder the editor concludes his observations by saying this:
And let's keep politics out of the government Information bureau.
I now make this suggestion to the Minister of Agriculture. He is beginning the administration of an important department. We all wish him well in the discharge of that function. However, he will not do the cause of agriculture much good by failing to make a distinction between his functions as a politician and his functions as Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. Aiken:: He will never come up to your record.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think that is true. The only difference between the Minister of Agriculture and me is that I am simply an ordinary private member of the House of Commons and the man to whom my remarks are addressed holds an extremely important post as a minister of the crown. He has been in that office only a short time and I believe he will be there for only a short time. Mr. Chairman, no one will deny that our country is faced with a recession. This we have been experiencing for a short time. Now this recession, which began in the second

quarter of 1960, is commencing to show its impact on prices received for farm products. The ability of our economy to recover is impeded by the level of the income earned in the farm sector. Thus, both the farm and the non-farm segments of our economy have a vested interest in seeing to it that farmers are better compensated than they are at the present time.
This government was going to remove the cost-price squeeze in which farmers find themselves. In fairness to the present minister I will say that he has not yet made the extravagant claim made by his predecessor, namely that the present administration had removed the difficulties of the cost-price squeeze. However, I suspect that one must not allow the Minister of Agriculture to fall into the same error as that into which his predecessor fell.
Let us look into this business of the cost-price squeeze, something which greatly concerns the farmers as we know from the representations made in the briefs presented to this government by the national farmers union and the federation of agriculture, and about which not one word was said by the Minister of Agriculture when he introduced his estimates a week or two ago. Some insight into the deterioration of the farmers' financial position can be gained by referring to the following statistics which I obtained from the minister's own figures. I refer, first of all, to the index number of farm prices for the three years 1958, 1959 and 1960. The index number of farm prices in 1958 was 245.5. In 1959, it was 243.1 and in 1960, 236.6. Comparing the figures for those three years with the prices of commodities and services used by farmers in the same period, including farm living costs, we find the following: 242.7, 249.8, 253.6. The result is that the index of farm prices declined by 3.6 per cent between 1958 and 1960 while, on the other hand, the price of commodities used by farmers increased by 4.5 per cent. This is what is meant when the farmer says he is caught in the cost-price squeeze.
The Minister of Agriculture must address himself to this aspect of our presentation because one of the contentions made by the government when it introduced the Agricultural Stabilization Act through the instrumentality of the former minister of agriculture, and one of the assurances given by members sitting on the treasury benches, was that they were going to eliminate this situation which confronts the Canadian farmers. The figures which I have just quoted fairly establish the extent to which the government has been able to meet this problem. In the light of this deterioration in the position of the Canadian farmer, what

should be the objectives of the federal government's agricultural policy? I ask the minister that question.
In his speech in Saskatoon the other day he told the Saskatchewan association of rural municipalities convention that the government had a long term program. He referred to the resolution which he had introduced in this house with regard to land use, and spoke of the potentially great benefits which could flow from such a reform measure. While that may be true in principle, that is not what the government said it was going to do. It was not going to deal with the long term situation; it was going to embark on policies designed to meet the present plight of the Canadian farmer. Moreover, when the minister talked of this land use program he neglected to mention the foundation of that program which does not reside with this government. The basis of the bill which will ultimately be presented to this house, lies in the work of a committee sitting in the other place, as well as the representations which were made on at least two occasions by the federation of agriculture, these representations went so far as to provide the minister with a model bill, suitable for introduction, in respect of the development of agricultural land in our country in a productive way so as to enhance the income position of Canadian farmers.
But this measure, which is not even to be passed this session according to the announcement made by the minister when he introduced the resolution, can hardly be referred to as representing an agricultural policy. Certainly, it is not designed to meet the present plight of the Canadian farmer. I use the word "plight" advisedly, because if there was a plight when hon. gentlemen came into office the income position of farmers in Canada in 1960, 1959 and 1958 clearly establishes that there has been no improvement whatever in their situation. The minister cannot hope to give the impression in the country that because the government has this land use program in mind, such a program can serve as a substitute or as a means of covering up the lack now of a real agricultural policy for Canada. There is no such thing at the moment, notwithstanding what the minister may claim. There has been no over-all agricultural policy yet presented by this government to parliament which warrants the use of the phrase "over-all policy". Some of the objectives which such a policy might have were admirably stated by the present government when the Agricultural Stabilization Act was introduced. It is well for us to remember the general intentions which the government had in mind when it
Supply-Agriculture
introduced that measure. In the preamble to
that act we find the following:
Whereas it is expedient to enact a measure for the purpose of stabilizing the prices of agricultural commodities in order to assist the industry of agriculture to realize fair returns for its labour and investment, and to maintain a fair relationship between prices received by farmers and the costs of the goods and services that they buy, thus to provide farmers with a fair share of the national income-
As a statement of intention, that is an admirable statement, but the Minister of Agriculture is not going to persuade us that anything he has told this committee so far is in keeping with that objective or those intentions.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I have to advise the hon. gentleman that his time has expired.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: My estimates were introduced almost a month ago, and during that period I have been wondering just what the number two man in the Liberal opposition would have to say about them. All I can say at this time is that it is a good thing the bureau of statistics published this little pamphlet the other day to provide the hon. gentleman with a speech. There are a lot of things which can be done with figures, and I must congratulate the hon. member for Essex East on the efforts he has made this afternoon.
Before I go on to deal with some of the remarks he made, I should like to open my statement by expressing congratulations on behalf, I think, of all of us, to the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont who spoke last evening. I have been in this house for only a short time but one of the things which has struck me about the speeches made by representatives of the official opposition has been not only their lack of constructive criticism but also, and more alarmingly, their complete lack of awareness of the seriousness and complexity of the present farm problem. The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont is a city member and does not pretend to be an expert on agriculture. Nevertheless, in his speech last night I found at least some evidence that someone in the official opposition was doing some thinking and trying to grope his way forward in the situation we have in Canada today. I believe the thanks of all Canadians should go to the hon. member.
Having said that I should now like to deal with the remarks of the number two man in the Liberal opposition who just resumed his seat. The figures quoted by the hon. member for Essex East were an attempt, in his usual facetious manner, to challenge the figures I gave when I introduced my estimates. In referring to my introductory remarks the hon.

Supply-Agriculture
member used such clear dramatic terms as "misconception" and said that I did not consider regions or commodities. The hon. gentleman said his figures were a direct contradiction of what I had said in the committee. These are abrupt and dramatic terms.
Let us take a look at the record and get out of the ether in which the hon. gentleman circulates. Let us examine what I did say. The hon. member said I did not consider the matter on the basis of region by region or commodity by commodity. I wish to direct the hon. member's attention to page 2406 of Hansard of February 24, 1961 where I am reported as having used these words:
I think it is necessary for me to point out that when one analyses the farm income of this country product by product and region by region, it soon becomes clear that the most variable area is the prairie province area.
I have said many times that the more one studies the statistics of farm income across Canada the more one realizes that there is inequality between regions and between commodities. This is one of the difficulties associated with being in a department where efforts are being made at long last to try to bring some stability to the industry.
Another remark made by the hon. member was that in my figures I had overlooked the transfer payments made by the government. I would direct the hon. member's attention and the attention of the committee to page 2405 of Hansard of February 24 where my introductory remarks appear. I quote now the eighth or ninth line from the top of the righthand column:
These figures give total cash income, which does include supplementary payments by the federal government.
I then went on to point out that this increased income was due to two factors, first the efforts of the government and, second, the efforts of the farmer himself. I also did something which the hon. member chooses to overlook. I gave the figures for the decline in the number of farmers in Canada for the last ten years. I could easily obtain these figures for the last 25 years.
This situation reflects the effort of the farmer to attempt to adjust himself to a revolution in agriculture both in terms of machinery and technology. As the farmer fights to make this adjustment the result is less farmers and more money per farmer. If you divide the fewer farmers into the greater amount of money naturally you get a greater income per farm.
I do not intend ever to boast about the fact that in the last three years there has been some little increase in farm income

because I, probably as well as any hon. member of the committee, know how far behind the farmer is in relation to comparable groups in the economy.
When I introduced my estimates I gave some indication of these small gains in the last three years. I do not think any hon. member of the opposition can escape the fact that in eaoh of the last three years the farm industry of this country has received, on the average, $351 million more than was received in the previous four years. I do not think that any hon. gentleman in the opposition can get away from the fact that the average income per farm in the years 1953-57 was approximately $4,300 and in the last three years it has been running at better than $5,200. Using fairly accurate figures that represents an increase of $900.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What about the cost of production?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member interjects "What about the cost of production?" Let me come to that point in respect of net income. I was honest with the committee, Mr. Chairman. Not only did I compare gross income over the whole farm industry but I also compared the gross income farm by farm. I then went on to compare what really counts, what is left over after you deduct the expenses.
In my opening remarks on February 24, I said that the efforts of the government were to some extent being nullified by the increasing costs. The hon. member for Essex East quoted figures from indices of prices. Prices have gone up in the last few years. What the hon. member overlooked is that there are on this side of this committee a few of us who remember that these indices start from 100. When did they get to this figure of 242? I invite hon. members of the committee to ask themselves that question. Go back over the last 25 years and examine the rise in costs, then look at the rise in costs in the last three years.
I do not want to get into debate at this stage of the consideration of my estimates, but let us examine the cause of this situation. A part of this question has been sent to a standing committee for consideration. I simply say to the hon. member for Essex East that he must think, with his completely old-fashioned Liberal arrogance that all wisdom rests with the party that thought it had divine right to rule. The hon. member must not think that the rest of us have no brains nor should he continue to think that what is good for the Liberal party is good for Canada.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This is an old-fashioned dogma concerning which the Canadian people made their opinion clear in 1957 and even more clear in 1958.


Mr. McDonald:: Egotism unlimited.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I wish to tell my hon. friends in the Liberal party that they must not be guilty of thinking that the people have forgotten why the Liberals were thrown out of office in 1957. If my hon. friends ever want to return to the right of the Speaker in this chamber they will have to realize that they must learn humility. When I look at the speeches made by hon. members of the official opposition, both inside and outside this chamber, I can readily see that those hon. members are a long way from having acquired the humility and broadmindedness that one would expect would be learned by an opposition. Judging from the progress they have made in acquiring humility I suspect it will take them a dozen or 15 years to learn this characteristic. There will have to spring up in the Liberal ranks a new group that will blow out the dust from the attic of the Liberal party.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let us talk about agriculture.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will admit that there are hopeful signs of the type to which I referred. I thought I detected a hopeful sign in the speech made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont. I assume that there may be some hope to be found among these younger men.
The hon. member for Essex East says, "Let us talk about agriculture." I should like to touch upon a few points dealt with in the remarks made by the number one man of the official opposition in terms of agriculture, the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska, who is the official agricultural critic of the Liberal party.


John Alexander McDonald: A real expert.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I wonder how long the hon. gentleman will have to reside in Canada before he comes to the realization that the people of western Canada fought a long time for the Canadian wheat board. They are very proud of it. It is their board and they feel they have the right to criticize it. But when the official spokesman of the Liberal party on agriculture stands up in this chamber, as the hon. member did, and unjustly criticizes the wheat board, there will be an answer some day.
(Translation):


Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Following the statement just made by the Minister of Agriculture, I must say that I have never spoken against the
Supply-Agriculture
Canadian wheat board. Let the minister read again my statement. If he did not understand my remarks in French, he should read the English translation and he will see that I did not speak against the Canadian wheat board. If he prefers that I repeat what I said, I am willing to do so right now.


Mr. Fortin:: We have some difficulty ourselves in understanding your French.
(Text):


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: He is just political.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think the hon. member's point is well taken. When I accused him of attacking the wheat board I should have produced evidence of his having done so. I am having the English translation of the hon. member's speech looked up and I will give the hon. member the gist of it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister had better wait until he gets the text.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon.
member said that last fall the producers in eastern Canada were not able to get western oats.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, when one hon. gentleman denies a statement, the hon. member who makes the charge is in duty bound to accept the word of the hon. member. The Minister of Agriculture had an opportunity to refer to the text, but what he is doing now is paraphrasing-again misleading the committee- what the hon. member said, and he knows that is contrary to our rules.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have been able to get a copy of his speech and I shall read some extracts from the remarks of the hon. member. This is the type of thing that we have in the translation; I am not responsible for that:
What do they want to say? After the results achieved in farming in the last four years, the remarks of the new Minister of Agriculture today should amount to more than so much hot air.
Then, he went on to say:
I would now like to address myself to the situation of feed grain deliveries in the eastern areas during the summer, until the closing of navigation. We learned in the newspapers that from August to the end of the navigation season, in the harbours of Montreal, Quebec city, Baie Comeau and others, a number of ships were waiting in line for two, three and even four weeks in front of elevators full of grain, particularly wheat for export. Those ships could not unload their cargoes, and there was no feed grain on the eastern markets.
In the meantime, our farmers were having all sorts of difficulties in getting supplies, and when they could get them they had to pay a high premium. Now, this shortage of feed grain on the eastern markets, was due to a decision of the Canadian wheat board to ship only export

Supply-Agriculture
grades to eastern ports. Incredible losses of the order of $1,000 to $3,000 were daily suffered by ship owners, not to mention the loss suffered by farmers who saw their operating costs increase on account of the higher prices they had to pay for their feed grain.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This certainly does not support what the minister has been saying.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: There you have it, the number two expert backs up the number one expert on this statement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, the hon. gentleman is transgressing the rules of the house. He is now saying that I, too, have taken a position which supports his view as to what was said. In the statement that he has read he has clearly established that the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska did not take issue with the institution of the wheat board, and the play upon words by the Minister of Agriculture is such that the Chair must call the minister to order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If I may be allowed to continue, in the face of the tremendous strength behind the ministry, I would say that the minister has no warrant whatsoever for saying that the words he has quoted justify the conclusion that the hon. member drew. The hon. member for Drum-mond-Arthabaska was seeking to explain a particular situation, and he was not attacking the wheat board. The Minister of Agriculture knows that full well.


Charles Edward Rea: I think it is a matter of interpretation of words. Both hon. members have made their points clear. Will the minister continue with his remarks.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I gather from your ruling, sir, that I am to be allowed to answer the point originally raised by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Provided that the minister keeps within the rules.


John Alexander McDonald: He is doing it; he is one of the few who do.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: One thing I have learned in my short experience in the house is that you never know you have reached rock bottom until you see the suckers jump and squirm.
The statement I was objecting to was this:
Now, this shortage of feed grain on the eastern markets, was due to a decision of the Canadian wheat board to ship only export grades to eastern ports.
First of all, let me make it clear that the Canadian wheat board brings grain only to
(Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle).]
Fort William and Port Arthur. The grain east of Fort William and Port Arthur is handled by the private grain trade and the big cooperatives in Quebec. If the big co-operatives in the province of Quebec and the private grain trade want to buy oats, they put an order in at Fort William and Port Arthur and it is moved east by the buyers. What actually happened last year was that the private grain trade and the co-operatives did not order in time to meet their commitments. As we were moving grain through to take advantage of the market that occurred for durum wheat in Italy, they brought their orders forward and it was impossible to fill them. As a result there was a delay of one or two weeks. The minute those orders were brought forward, we cleaned out the elevators and put in the grain.
This is not the only statement the hon. member made. I am still using the translation at the back of Hansard of February 24, where the following appears:
Because of the lack of Interest shown by the Canadian wheat board and the government, the eastern farmers will have to pay $300 more per carload for moving their grain than it would have cost them if that grain had been moved by ship at the proper time.
If this is not an attack on the wheat board, backed up by the number two man, the hon. member for Essex East, I do not know what it is.
The hon. member for Essex East asked me to speak about agriculture. I should like to say something that is reasonably positive in regard to this point because I know the situation in which the eastern farmers found themselves. I know how they were gouged by the dealers because of that temporary shortage. I have asked the wheat pools of the west to join with the Canadian wheat board in holding a meeting with the private grain trade and the big co-operatives of the east to see whether we cannot go out and show the eastern farmers that if they buy their oats in bulk in plenty of time in August or September for next year's supply- this is the time when they know what their own crops will be and what the supply picture will be in western Canada-they can save 10 cents a bushel. In other words, instead of paying 96 cents they will pay 85 cents if they buy in advance. This difference will pay for their storage. I should like to see a positive type of program which will benefit not only the eastern but the western farmer at the same time. The western farmer will get the same price and the eastern farmer will get his grain at least 10 cents a bushel cheaper. This is the type of positive proposal that I should like to put forward to meet this situation.
My time is about up, and I wish to conclude with this one observation. The hon. member

for Essex East keeps pontificating with the remark, taken entirely from his own imagination, that the agricultural program will not be passed this session.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister said so.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This indicates how clearly and slowly I must speak so that the number two expert of the Liberal party will understand. I asked the house for permission, after I get first reading, to stand the bill over for a period to allow me to consult with the farm organizations and the 10 provincial governments to see whether the bill would meet what they think would be best for all concerned. The hon. member makes a big play over the fact that I have asked that the legislation be held over until I can consult those organizations. I know from past experience that the previous administration never thought of consulting anybody, and that includes the farm organizations. They thought that they were destined to rule by divine right and were unconscious of the needs of farmers. They did not even bother to ask for the opinions of these organizations at all. We like to discuss some of these problems with farm organizations and with other governments. But this is a difference in philosophy which comes only through the humility of long years in opposition, which I hope the opposition will achieve some day.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not want to do an injustice to my hon. friend. If I have misinterpreted my hon. friend's intention respecting this legislation-and his words were open to that interpretation-I want to correct it. The federation of agriculture apparently thought likewise. Has the bill been referred to every provincial government and to every farm organization? When may we expect the reintroduction of the measure, and can the minister definitely say it will be introduced this session?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The resolution has been introduced; it has been debated in the house. The bill has not had first reading and, therefore, obviously I could not show it to the governments or to the farm organizations. The resolution is before the house. When first reading has been given to the bill I will be in a position to take it up with the provincial governments and farm organizations.
I want to conclude with the answer to a question I have heard repeated over and over again by the official opposition and, unfortunately, by the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont last night. I suppose if you hear something repeated often enough it almost becomes the truth, but the fact is that
Supply-Agriculture
back in 1958 after several months of hard work we came forward in the house with a national agricultural policy which the Prime Minister announced on August 30 of that year. We have been following that policy step by step ever since. We have brought legislation forward, put it on the statute books, set up the machinery and have been trying to work out the troubles that arise in the case of any legislation which produced those results which I have already outlined.
I should like to outline to hon. members just what that agriculture policy is. First and foremost, with 30 per cent of our agricultural production going into the export market we have to sell and sell. The hon. member for Essex East has difficulty understanding why, even though there has been a slight decline in prices during the last few years, the farmers are getting more money. One reason is that we are selling more units of these particular articles. I point this out because my colleague, the former minister of trade and commerce and now Minister of Veterans Affairs, caused many very competent farm leaders to scoff when he predicted in 1957 that he would go out and sell 300 million bushels of wheat a year. In the three years since, I think the average has been about 297 million compared with an average of 272 million over the previous ten years or the previous four years.
When I took over the portfolio of agriculture, and also responsibility for the wheat board, I set myself the same objective. I can now tell hon. members that not only is the figure of 300 million, which was set as a target by my colleague, going to be achieved in this crop year but, it will be met for a four year average. A lot more is going to be achieved by way of sales.
I do not want to repeat at this time what I said in Saskatoon on Wednesday when dealing with the outlook for agricultural products in western Canada but every farmer in eastern Canada knows it is in his interests that western farmers, who have to sell mainly in export markets, should be able to sell their products in order to keep the pressure off the eastern farmer in his home markets. I think there is no question of a clash between the two. It is a question of realizing their points of "complementarity".
Let me go on to the next point. I am not going to say that cash advances are a fundamental point of our policy. They were very useful in that they gave the farmer a chance to obtain an advance on the wheat he had produced until it could be sold. It does not cost the farmer anything and it helps to stabilize the economy from the point of view of income.

Supply-Agriculture
The first big item of the national agricultural program was the Agricultural Stabilization Act. It has been in effect now for three years and so far as the nine mandatory products and eight named products are concerned I think in most cases it is working fairly well. In my opinion prices have been stabilized and we are using the legislation wherever we can to raise prices slightly. We have had great difficulties, of course, with hogs and eggs and the technique we had to use over a year ago of changing from a purchase system to one of deficiency payments can only be described as Draconian. It was a very difficult decision to have to make. I think my predecessor as minister of agriculture, now Minister of National Defence, deserves the thanks of the people of Canada for having the courage to make that decision. It has enabled us to get rid of the very burdensome surpluses and to stabilize prices. I think we can go on now to the next step of looking at the legislation so far as hogs and eggs are concerned very carefully and seeing if we cannot make improvements that will achieve the objectives of the government, namely, the stabilizing of prices and also the bringing about of increased returns for those products sold within Canada. This may mean possible amendments to the act. I have asked the advisory committee to the stabilization board to look at two or three of these proposals this year so that next winter we can make up our minds finally as to what we are going to do about these two products.
I would think that all farmers in Canada will support the principles erf the act and will support any government that is willing to be open-minded, look at the facts as they are and see what it can do to make the act work. I do not have to tell the farm members of the house what a difference there is today. When you go to bed at night on the farm you know that if there is a sudden drop in world or domestic prices of the products you are producing you are not going to lose everything. There is a mandatory floor on the mandatory products and there are forward or support prices on all the products. It is a good act and I think we can make it work.
The next point in the national agricultural program is that enabling crop insurance legislation. At the present time only one province has a plan in operation but five other provinces are now working on plans. Active consideration is being given by us to at least two such plans. I predict that many of our specialty crops, and certainly our great cereal crops, will be under crop insurance in the very near future. There will be certain areas,

of course, which can never come under crop insurance because of their poor production. In other words, if the land is very poor and failures are frequent the rates would be so high that it would be impossible to bring such areas under the plan.
The big gun in the arsenal, of course, is the farm credit plan. If you can stabilize prices, if you can stabilize income, it is easier to work out a plan with the farmer that not only enables him to pay back the amount of money he has borrowed but also increases his income. I should like to remind my hon. friends opposite, without any maliciousness whatever, that when farm credit was under the Department of Finance, which has a different philosophy from the Department of Agriculture, loans to farmers across Canada amounted to approximately $8 million in a typical year. In some years it was lower and in one year the figure rose to $12 million, but $8 million is the figure for a typical year. In the first nine months that the farm credit corporation was operated under the Department of Agriculture loans amounted to $56 million, and by the end of the fiscal year the figure will be close to $60 million. According to the estimate for next year, the amount will be $75 million. When you go from $8 million to $75 million there must be a considerable difference in the philosophy and the difference simply is that the Department of Agriculture is actively and aggressively trying to help the farmers to get a plan that will improve their farm income as well as enable them to pay back their loans.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And also because there is greater need.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The need has been there ever since the 30's. We had farm loan acts during the 30's that were good starts but since the war they could not meet the tremendous capital costs required to run a modern, efficient farm. The farm credit corporation is still not perfect. I think there are at least one or two loopholes. There is a weakness in that it does not meet the conditions under which the maritime farmer must operate. There is a weakness in that it does not meet the needs of young lads who have no father to help them and have not got 25 per cent of the assets required. Weaknesses of this type must be apparent. This is the type of constructive criticism that I would welcome from the opposition because I am looking for answers to these problems. The advisory committee to the farm credit corporation, which committee is composed of representatives of farm organizations, is also looking into these problems. I do have some ideas and I would welcome

ideas from anybody because this matter is so important to the farmers that no question of politics should enter into it. It is a matter of a business arrangement. We turn down one out of every four farmers on the ground that they do not meet the requirements.
I see my time is up so I will conclude with one sentence. The other parts of the program involve conservation and of course, the rehabilitation plan. I do think that if you look at every other country of the world you will not find any country that has thought through its agricultural difficulties any better than we have or has come forward with such a coherent and logical plan.


Mr. Pitman:: Mr. Chairman, in opening my few remarks I should like to make reference to the suggestion of the Minister of Agriculture that there are certain ways by which parties become humble. If that is true I would suggest that we in this corner have simply gobs of humility which we are very willing to dispense to our friends at the left.
In presenting the views of this group I would be the first to admit that I myself am not a farmer. However, I would suggest that I have spent more time studying conceivable answers to the farmers' problems than on any other subject in the few weeks I have been in this house, and for that reason I do have a considerable amount of sympathy for the Minister of Agriculture. I think it is quite ironic when we turn to the estimates of the Department of Agriculture that we should be expected to look back into the past and expected to look at a sector of the economy which would be expressing something of an age that has gone. Yet, strangely enough, we are very much looking into the future. Although agriculture is becoming less and less the most important segment of our economy the effects of automation, and all the effects of the twentieth century, virtually are having more effect on agriculture than on any other sector of our economy.
In other words, the whole emphasis is that we have more and more production from a fewer number of people. Strangely enough man's output in the field of agriculture has gone up three times more than the output in manufacturing areas. I think this is one of the most serious problems which the Minister of Agriculture faces and suggests the tale of the sorcerer's apprentice who wanted to use the magical powers of his master to direct the broom to carry the water. Unfortunately of course, he could not stop the process and very soon would drown. We are being drowned in much the same way by the surpluses of our agricultural products to the extent that we have now 10 per cent less income going to farmers, according to the Manitoba farmers
Supply-Agriculture
union, than 10 years ago. We have 10,000 people leaving farms and where do these people go? Today the farms and cities have become more integrated. More and more farmers are sending their sons into the city. Unfortunately, because they have less seniority and are less trained to deal with the new technological age, they find themselves standing outside of the unemployment insurance offices.
A great deal of the difficulty in terms of unemployment relates back to this problem regarding agriculture. Indeed, around every city there are a great many people who are actually subsidizing their farming operation by working in manufacturing areas. You have men who are in a sense doing part-time farming and going into the city, taking a job away from someone else who has no other form of support, and then returning to work the farm. These individuals actually spend the money they earn in the cities in an attempt to keep the farm operating. That is the position to which agriculture has come; a very sorry state indeed in the 1960's.
As one drives through various parts of the country one sees abandoned farms. Certainly, in parts of eastern Ontario more and more farms are being sold for tax arrears. This, in itself, indicates the very sorry state of our agricultural community. I think we have learned that we cannot have a healthy economy in any country without a healthy agricultural economy. We learned this lesson during the 1930's when we found that our manufacturing and secondary industries were in very bad shape simply because we had not kept up our agricultural economy during this period but had let it fall behind in its purchasing power. As a result, the economy began to slow down. Now, the farmer produces even more than he did before. Perhaps because he is less organized or perhaps because he is less concentrated in his displeasure, his problems tend to be ignored. We are still I think concentrating on the wrong aspect of our agricultural problem. We are still concentrating on productivity.
I would suggest to the minister that more emphasis, both in our agricultural economy and in terms of the whole emphasis in the Department of Agriculture, should be upon marketing rather than upon productivity. This very much corresponds to the overemphasis perhaps of the government in other sections of our economy, such as the setting up of the productivity council when we really need a distributing council to distribute the goods of our nation in some just and sensible manner. I would hope that over a period of time we could take a look at some process for bringing these marketing boards together so that we can see the entire pattern of our

Supply-Agriculture
agricultural economy. I hope that the emphasis will constantly be placed, by the Department of Agriculture, on a process that will bolster and support all these pressures toward integrating these marketing boards.
I was surprised to find that in 1951, 58 cents of the Canadian dollar spent on agricultural products returned to the farmer and in 1956 only 44 cents of the dollar spent for food went back to the farmer. I think it is unfortunate if this trend continues. We must emphasize the need to have more of the dollar spent by the consumer returned to the hands of the farmer. I would suggest also that more emphasis must be placed on the securing of markets, both in terms of education and in terms of actual policy. I would certainly suggest that this is a great need in this country today. I think historians will find it strange, looking back on the twentieth century, to find that two thirds of the people of the world were going to bed hungry every night-as the hon. member for Greenwood mentions quite often and rightly so-yet surpluses existed in other countries which could not be used. I do not think historians, in looking back at the twentieth century, will say that we could not control our scientists but that we could not combine our surplus of food and the surplus of hunger in other parts of the world. I am sure that they will look with amazement at our agricultural policy in Canada and our attempt to cut down these surplus areas.
I am sure that this agricultural problem is one that must be solved especially in view of the fact that as scientists tell us, we will face difficulty in supporting the number of people that will be living on this earth in the next 50 or 60 years. We have not developed many solutions to these problems, but I am sure that is the aim of us all. I would certainly accept the fact that the Minister of Agriculture is attempting to find solutions. It certainly is the aim of the group in this corner to find a means of assuring that the farmers will receive their a fair share of the national income. Perhaps we might disagree as to what a fair share is, but they should receive a fair share of the national income. This share must be determined having regard to the family farm. I think the farmer has a right to expect that the economic unit which he respects will receive respect also from the government.
The only way we can really deal with this difficulty is to attack it directly with this in mind. I am convinced that the many direct plans, such as the resolution the minister has introduced to this house, are all to the good but at the present time price represents the main problem. It seems to me that transfer payments could be made to farmers with a

greater degree of efficiency than by simply allowing the farmer to go to the city to collect unemployment insurance, while at the same time he is unable to pay his taxes. He is, in effect, taking his portion of this $2 million being payed to the unemployed in Canada. Surely, some system of deficiency payment based on the cost of production and the number of units of production on a farm, no matter what the farm is producing, could be devised. That is perhaps the fairest and most efficient way of transferring this money so that it will bolster the farm economy.
I view with considerable interest the fact that the Minister of Agriculture has been travelling about the country and that also he has enlarged his public relations division in the Department of Agriculture. I think this is extremely important too. But I hope he is just not going around talking to farmers. I think the main problem which the Department of Agriculture must overcome is the rather mistaken belief that support prices, subsidies and deficiency payments are some form of glorious charity on the part of the rest of the people of Canada to the people who are seemingly unfortunate enough to be farmers. It appears that no one seems to recognize that tariffs and the cost of transportation into mining or forest areas are also out of the public purse and indeed right out of the pockets of the people of Canada, and that this cost is also a subsidy, although I wish we could get rid of that word entirely when we come to talk about means of bolstering the various sectors in our economy. But I think we need a full scale public relations job done to convince the people of Canada that although the number of farmers is becoming smaller, none the less they should receive as much concern and as much monetary support as do the other parts of our economy.
I think that surely more than anything else we have to find methods of distributing this large farm surplus we have on our hands. We have heard that the Department of Agriculture is determined to help the unemployment situation by distributing some of these farm surpluses to those who are unemployed. I sincerely hope that this will be done immediately. I hope that some sort of food stamp plan can be initiated in order to help the unemployed not three years from now, not six months from now, but in the very near future.
I would also suggest that the Department of Agriculture make every effort to enlarge the amount of food that is being given to other nations of the world. In that way the Department of Agriculture could greatly support the Department of External Affairs and extend its influence in world affairs. This would be to our advantage, because as the

other countries of the world become more and more able to buy, they will buy wheat instead of rice. They will be able to buy the high quality and high grade products which Canada produces in such large surplus. I can only hope that the Minister of Agriculture is using his influence to ensure that the tariff policies will not be to the detriment of the agriculture community. We listened with interest to the Minister of Finance when he told us that the legislation is not going to change the tariff policies of the Canadian nation. I hope not because if they are changed, and if we have a high tariff policy the people who will suffer, if they are not suffering sufficiently now, will be the farmers.
I hope the Minister of Agriculture will make every effort to make sure that the Canadian producer captures as much as possible of the domestic market. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has said a great deal about buying Canadian. I think this matter is just as important in the area of agriculture as it is in the area of secondary manufacturing. Perhaps it would help a great deal if agricultural products could be stamped or by some means identified as Canadian. I would hope that the Minister of Agriculture would solve this problem of identification of Canadian products so that people walking into a store will know that these food products are Canadian and will be able to encourage their local supermarket or grocery store to buy food products which will support Canadian farmers.
While there are a number of special areas in which the minister certainly will be taking an interest, the dairy farmers of Ontario have a number of problems to face. The farmers that I meet are particularly concerned about the fact that they sell their milk to the producer on the basis of manufactured milk prices and then find that this milk is used in various other areas which, of course, results in far greater profits to those who are manufacturing the milk. If this is untrue, I should be very happy to take this information back to my constituents. Unfortunately, this is certainly the feeling of those who are engaged in dairy farming in my particular part of Ontario. I am informed this is one of the reasons for the huge butter surplus, namely that the milk producers are using surplus milk in order to produce butter. Indeed, there is some fear on the part of these farmers that this prospective drop of 10 cents in the price of butter will have a serious effect on dairy farming in this particular area.
I was particularly shocked at the suggestion by one of the hon. members to the left that there should be two ministers of agriculture, one for the west and one for the east. It would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, if I may make the
Supply-Agriculture
suggestion, that what is needed more and more is greater integration of the problems of the western farmer and the eastern farmer. Heaven help us, let us not have two department's going off on separate tangents, neither taking into their complete consideration the problems of the other sector of the economy.
The farmers in eastern Canada I think are as much concerned as are the farmers in western Canada with regard to the weakening of the wheat board. The fear is, of course, that the cheaper grades of wheat will be fed to poultry and hogs in western Canada and this procedure will undercut the production in eastern Canada. That is a serious fear on the part of the farmers I have met. I sincerely hope that the minister will do everything in his power to make sure that these fears are unfounded and that the wheat board will continue to market wheat in an orderly fashion as has been done in the past in this nation.
We shall view with great interest indications that the Department of Agriculture will take a new and dynamic approach to the agricultural problems of this nation. We were heartened by the fact that the minister is concerned that farm prices will go up in the next ten years. May we only suggest that the time is now; that he might take the suggestion of the Department of Labour and adopt a do-it-now-attitude toward this problem, and that a far more dynamic approach might be taken towards giving our agricultural economy a healthy and prosperous basis on which to operate over the next number of years.


William Harold Hicks: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take a few minutes to discuss the grant of $26,000 to the Agricultural Institute of Canada. I am one of the original members of this institute and am also fortunate in having a lifetime membership. I believe my hon. friend from Kootenay West is also a member of this institution and I know there are others in the House of Commons. This institute was organized in 1920. It was first called the Canadian society of technical agriculturalists. However, some few years ago the name was changed to that of Agricultural Institute of Canada. The figures that I obtained the other day indicate that the membership totals 3,065. These members are mostly graduates in agriculture from recognized universities. Members hold top scientific agricultural positions throughout Canada. I want to say that I know of no other group in the Dominion of Canada who are more dedicated to their work and to the advancement of agriculture than are the scientific agriculturists of Canada.
310E

Supp ly-A griculture
Our own deputy minister is a member of this society. The head offices are on Gloucester street. There are 32 branches of the institute: five in British Columbia, four in Alberta, six in Saskatchewan, three in Manitoba, seven in Ontario, three in Quebec and one in each of the other provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. There is a national council, a president, a presidentelect and a vice president; there is an honorary secretary and a director from each province helping to run the business, and there are nine affiliated societies. Thus members can see that there are very few areas of a scientific agricultural nature which are not covered by this institution.
In what we term the hungry thirties this institute was operating, but with very little cash, and at that time the federal government gave grants to pay for the printing of the results produced by this scientific research into agricultural questions. The association did the experimenting and compiled the results; the government paid for the printing. This was the arrangement used to supply the public with the results of agricultural research in Canada. The grant now amounts to $26,000 and, I repeat, it is for the purpose of printing a scientific and economic review and other necessary papers and journals. The money is not used to support the actual work of the association but is merely in respect to the printing. The agricultural institute gets its revenue from its membership and from advertisements in different journals and papers.
I have here the November-December issue of the institute, Review. Hon. members will recognize the photograph on the front page. It is a photograph of one of the hon. gentlemen who spoke. I should like to put on record some of the items which are discussed in this particular issue. They include the Canadian Farm Building Plan Service, Rural Aging, Basic and Applied Research in Weed Control, the Inter-American Conference on Agriculture, expressions of opinion by recognized experts, and so on. These are some of the results published, and this is how they are printed. Often in days gone by we heard criticism of experimental and scientific research along these lines: This work is all done in institutions, but you do not get it out to the people who are interested in it. Well, this is the very thing that this agricultural institute does and I strongly support this grant of $26,000.
I do not want to sit down, Mr. Chairman, without saying that even though my constituency is 3,000 miles away from Ottawa I

have a couple of ladies in the gallery from the town of Chilliwack, one of the greatest places in British Columbia, and I am delighted to see them here.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As another charter member of the Agricultural Institute of Canada, and as a life member, I endorse wholeheartedly the speech which has just been concluded.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: 
Louis Fortin: Order.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet who is sitting across from me is trying to interject. If he would listen to what I have to say, he might be in a position to tell the farmers of his constituency what is going on in the house.


Louis Fortin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We are being subjected to the trial of American firms; the hon. member has been discussing their case for at least ten minutes, and I should like him to revert to the matter under discussion.


Samuel Boulanger: If the hon. member will bear with me, he will see what I am leading up to, because I am conversant enough with the rules to know where I am going.
Just bear with me for a moment and you will see what I am leading to.


The Chairman:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska could tell us now what is the intent of his remarks so that we may decide whether they are relevant to the estimates now before us.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, the Canadian government granted patent rights to some firms which are now taking advantage of Canadian farmers with the levy of fees that we should not have to pay-and they achieve that through the use of a licence issued on December 2, 1958.


Jacques Flynn: So, as I understand, the hon. member wants to discuss the question of issuing a patent?


Samuel Boulanger: It is in direct relation with dairy products.
'Mr. Boulanger.]


Jacques Flynn: For my part, I doubt that government policy with regard to issuing patents and trade marks, would be connected with the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, since the matter is under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State.


Mr. Racine:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think the point which the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska wants to make is that the attitude of those companies affects farm income, for he is trying to convince the house-and I am sure he will succeed-that dairy products are controlled by monopoly and that the farmers consequently are receiving less for their produce. I therefore think it is very appropriate to deal with this particular matter when discussing the agriculture estimates.


Jacques Flynn: I may tell the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Racine) that he has been perhaps more convincing than his colleague, and if that is the intention of the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska, I shall allow him to continue his remarks. But, what the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska criticized earlier had to do with patents, which is not quite the same thing as a monopoly by some companies.


Samuel Boulanger: 
Mr. Pigeon:: Just think of C. D. Howe. Big business indeed.


Samuel Boulanger: That is the present situation of the dairy industry. Therefore, I would ask the minister to inquire into the situation of those large companies trying to control the whole production and sale of milk powder in Canada.
We are demanding such an inquiry in order to know whether it is possible to remedy the situation before our farmers vanish from the scene at the rate at which they have been vanishing these last few years.
On behalf of the farmers of the province of Quebec and of Canada as a whole, we are asking that the support price of 64 cents a pound on butter, and of 32 cents a pound on cheese be maintained in Quebec, as well as in all the other provinces. At present, Quebec farmers are getting half a cent less a pound, so I would like the minister to tell us why they are not treated on an equal footing with farmers of the rest of the country.
We also urge the Minister of Agriculture to examine farming conditions in the east, and we invite him to come and visit the eastern part of the country. We read in the papers that the minister is always travelling in the west. So, we would ask him to come and visit the eastern farmers, those of the province of Quebec and of the maritimes, to realize what the actual situation is. Perhaps he will then be in a position to talk more often about it, when he takes the floor here to deal with agriculture.
(Text):


Mr. Korchinski:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to participate for the first time in the discussion of the agriculture estimates I should first of all like to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on his transfer to the department of which he is now minister. I say this because I personally feel he has brought to the department a knowledge that he has acquired through the years and an understanding of the problems of the farmers who are indebted to him for the many actions that have been taken.

Supply-Agriculture
I say this because only recently the Canadian Federation of Agriculture had a convention in this city and some of the delegates who attended that convention also took part in the mass march on Ottawa some time ago on which occasion we were given somewhat a rough time. However, these same people today want me to express to the Minister of Agriculture their feelings of confidence that he will do much for them and that he can display an understanding which was so lacking under the Liberal administration. If I may be permitted to make a comparison, they felt like delinquent children for many years and now they have found an understanding parent.
Perhaps the best thing that could be done so far as the Liberal party is concerned is to ignore the criticisms that have been levelled from that quarter. However, because there may be some people in the country who in a moment of weakness may feel that the Liberal party may have something to offer to them at some time in the future-certainly they did not in the past-I should like to refer to some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska. I am not sure whether he is the number one man or the number two man. When he first spoke on the estimates of the department on February 24 he said, as found on the first page of the English translation for that date:
__the farmers are losing confidence in their
government and, what is more serious still, are losing confidence in their profession.
I should just like to say that if anybody is losing confidence, whether it be a farmer or a businessman, and he feels that the profession he is following has no future, does he take out a loan? Does he go into debt? Certainly I would think that he would withdraw all his equity and run. This is definitely not the case with agriculture and I should like to compare the amount of loans in three years to show whether there is lack of confidence. From April 26, 1956, to March, 1957 loans amounted to $13,978,000. In 1957-58 the figure was $21,278,000 and in 1958-59 it was $30,145,000. Under the farm credit corporation, from April, 1959, to October 5, 1959, loans amounted to $23,215,000 and the figure for the period from October 5, 1959, to January 31, 1961, is $72,200,000. To me that certainly does not indicate a lack of confidence either in the way the government is administering the department or in the profession of farming itself. It is an indication that the farmers have renewed hope.

The hon. member continued to be critical of the government and said that it had channelled a lot of the taxpayers' money into agriculture. As found on page 2 of the English translation for February 24 he had this to say:
As a matter of fact, the cost to the Canadian taxpayers for meeting the commitments under the farm legislation was $77 million in 1960, $22.1 million in 1959 and $60.1 million in 1958.
He made a similar comment in participating in the debate last year. As found on page one of the English translation for March 25, 1960, he had this to say:
Under the Liberal administration, from 1946 to March, 1957, the Agricultural Prices Stabilization Act cost $25,052,806.98. Now if you look at the expenditures for the past three years, that is since the Conservative government took over, you find that in 1958 Canada spent close to $6 million and in 1959 $15,124,000. Now, for the year 1959-60 we are asked to vote $57,661,176.
That means that since the election of the Conservative government it has cost the taxpayers the substantial amount of $78,773,819 to support agricultural prices. In short, therefore, it can be said that in the last 12 years of Liberal administration it cost us $25 million to support those prices, while in three years of Conservative administration the amount expended was $78 million.
I have no apology for what the Conservative government has done. In his statement the other day the hon. member went on to say:
When will it put back in each farmer's pocket the $120 that the Liberal government took from him in taxes each year?
He is complaining that this government is putting back into the pockets of the farmers some of the money that the Liberal government had taken from them and, incidentally, the farmers too are taxpayers. It is no wonder that farmers today are looking forward to the present government carrying on in the manner it has. They well remember the $600 million that the British wheat agreement cost them. It will be a long time before they will look at anything that the Liberals have to offer.
The hon. member went off into the wilderness and ended up in a swamp when he tackled the question of the wheat board. I think the Minister of Agriculture dealt with that point and I will not deal with it further. The hon. member then went off on another tangent and decided to deal with the feed mill problem. I will be very brief on this point. The minister has put on record a table which indicates that prices are not depressed, as C.C.F. spokesmen would have us believe.
I should also like to point out that when the national farmers union presented their brief

this year they were critical of the new feed mill regulations. At that time I asked Mr. Atkinson, the vice-president of the Saskatchewan farmers union, why they should be critical since in their brief they thought that co-operatives should be expanded. I asked him why he should be critical since it appeared to me that the feed mill policy would be of direct assistance in the expansion of cooperatives. It certainly seems to me that would be the case in an area where a feed mill exists and the farmers are being paid lower prices. It seems to me that under those circumstances farmers should group together to form a co-operative and pay the price that the Canadian wheat board pays. This would certainly eliminate the existing feed mills. These farmers could establish themselves as supporters of the Canadian wheat board and could pay, as I have said, the prices the wheat board offers but at the same time abide by its regulations. I do not think this would hamper the development of cooperatives.
I asked him what he thought of this suggestion but his only reply was "I will see you later". I have neither seen nor heard anything from him regarding the problem as I presented it at that time but, I should like to know what his opinion is. I have written several letters pointing out my solution to this problem but have yet to receive a reply.
One other point I should like to mention is that farmers have for years been able to arrange deals among themselves and with others who were interested in paying a price for grain. During all the years I have been buying grain I have always had to pay a price if not equivalent to that offered by the Canadian wheat board, certainly higher. I do not understand why a farmer should allow himself to be taken in, if that is what is happening, because he has no obligation to sell his product.
The wheat board regulations were criticized and it was said the wheat board would be ruined if there were sales over and above the quotas. Anyone familiar with the situation will realize that there are special quotas for barley for malting purposes as well as special quotas for specialty oats and they have not ruined the wheat board. This situation has been in existence for many years. I do not intend to review it again now.
The next point I should like to bring to your attention, Mr. Chairman, has no reference to feed mills. Incidentally, the hon. member for Assiniboia said that the feed mill issue was the hottest issue today and he was sure that the government would have
Supply-Agriculture
to do something about it. This is the master mariner from the prairie who appears to have all the problems in hand, and claims that he can guide us over all sorts of troubled waters. I realize however that he has made mistakes before. He tried to take credit the other day for the big wheat sales to China and Czechoslovakia but I am afraid I cannot see that he had anything to do with them. However, if he wishes to take credit he must also accept the responsibility for the lack of sales under the Liberal government. He cannot have it both ways.
I should like in the little time left at my disposal to deal with a problem that vexes many farmers, and if I may be permitted I wish to follow my notes a little closer. I want to refer to the issue of permit books to producers. Each producer has one permit book in which are recorded all acreages leased. This creates a problem when a cash advance is required by the producer. In many cases the landlord resides miles away from the farm and in some cases out of the country. Before an advance can be obtained the landlord must sign a declaration. It is often impossible to get this declaration and the producer is then deprived of a cash advance. I have known of cases where the landlords simply refused to sign declarations, even though they might reside in the vicinity of the farms. I think this problem can be solved by having two permit books. One could be known as a producer's permit book and the other, perhaps, as the landlord's book. Each could be distinguishable by different coloured pages.
To illustrate what I have in mind, let us take the case of a producer who owns land of which 400 acres is cultivated and also rents land of which there are 300 acres cultivated. The basis of the rental agreement is, one third of the crop going to the landlord and two thirds to the renter. The producer, who is also a renter, would then be able to deliver on 400 of his own acres plus two thirds of the 300 acres making a total of 600 acres. The producer's permit book would then indicate that delivery could be made on 600 acres, while the landlord's book would register an acreage of one third of the total 300 acres or 100 acres on which delivery could be made. This would in no way mean that there would be any additional grain delivered as the total cultivated acreage is the same. The initial quota would, however, have to be divided on the basis of the agreement, even though the producer would have more of his own acreage. In other words, 200 bushels to the producer and 100 bushels to the landlord.
To take the same example, but in this case the rental agreement on a 50-50 basis, the renter would then have an acreage registered

Supply-Agriculture
in his permit book on which he could make delivery of 400 acres of his own land plus one half of the rented land, or a total of 550 acres. The landlord's book would in this case register an acreage of 150 acres. The initial quota would then be 150 bushels to the producer and 150 bushels to the landloard.
The situation becomes somewhat more involved when a producer rents land from several landlords. The same procedure is followed in calculating the acreage for the producer and the landlord, however, depending on the rental arrangement. The landlord and the producer would have to sign a declaration in all cases where the agreement is verbal before a permit book could be issued. If a rental agreement could be produced, an affidavit signed by the producer would be acceptable.
The objection could be raised that the initial quota, where the producer normally sells his own grain to meet his own expenses, would be small when it is split up between the landlord and the renter. This objection could be overcome by the fact that the producer could obtain a cash advance, and also by inaugurating a system whereby the landlords would be prohibited from making delivery until the first quota became available. Under this system it would also be possible for the landlord to obtain a cash advance. All such advances would be recorded and registered against this land, the owner of the land being responsible for the repayment, even if a transfer of land is involved. The onus for repayment always must remain with the owner.
This system would have the added advantage of removing the complaint of the landlords, in many cases older, retired people, that they are often not given a chance to sell grain because the renter supplies his own needs first by selling his own grain and thus fills the quota. This is not, of course, the concern of the government, but it would have the effect of correcting the situation.
I should like to make another recommendation to the minister regarding the proposed changes in the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act regulations. At the present time the Department of Agriculture allows a payment for the construction of dugouts to the extent of $250. This has been a good program in the past and has met certain needs of the farmer, but I suggest that it is perhaps time to have another look at the situation. The water that was stored in these dugouts certainly was not of the best quality. Very often it became polluted in which case it was not fit for human consumption. My suggestion to the department is that when a farmer undertakes to drill a well the department assume a portion of the cost equivalent to the cost of a dugout, providing the farmer can show

the department that there exists an adequate and good supply of water. In other words, if the department pays $250 toward the construction of a dugout for water it is only reasonable to suggest that the department should now pay the same $250 toward the drilling of a well. This would work in conjunction with the new program being undertaken by the department, and I am of course referring to the rural development program.
The other suggestion I wish to make is one which should meet with the approval of the hon. member from Assiniboia. As reported at page 2413 of Hansard of February 24, he said this:
I was, of course, for many years a sharp critic of Mr. Gardiner because the average prices established under this legislation were not payable as some of us felt they should be directly to the producer, or they were not guaranteed to the producer. Instead, they were paid to the packing company and the farmer had to deal with the packing companies and do what he could to get from them the established floor.
I should like to make a suggestion here. It is with reference to making payments on elevator stored grain or the storage payment that the government makes to the elevator companies. I have here a table which indicates the amount of money paid by the government. I should like the permission of the committee to have this table printed in Hansard. This table is supplied by the Department of Agriculture. It indicates the amount of storage payments every year since the program was inaugurated in 1955. May I have permission to have this tabled in Hansard?


Charles Edward Rea: Does the committee give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The table referred to is as follows:]
Storage paid
Crop Year	by Government
1955- 56	 $ 31,486,187
1956-	57	
28,816,7661957-	58	
35,553,5091958-	59	
39,825,3041959-	60	
43,604,073
Total

The total amount of bushels on which these amounts were paid is as follows:
Crop year
Million
Bushels
1955-	56
1956-	57
1957-	58
1958-	59
1959-	60
216.7
194.6
229.7 228.3 238.9
1,108.2


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Chairman, I should like to first make it known that I am not complaining that this payment is being made to the elevator companies. However, like the

hon. member for Assiniboia, I feel that this payment should be made directly to the producers. For a number of years now, the department has been paying directly to the elevator company, and I feel that this system should be changed. In the agriculture committee last year it was only through the insistence of the hon. member for Yorkton that we were able to determine what amount was being paid to each elevator company. I think we should perhaps have a better system of indicating what the government does pay with respect to each producer. What I am going to outline may have that effect. If the elevator companies are going to charge seven cents, eight cents or 16 cents, whatever the amount is for the year in storage charges, I feel that that amount should be deducted from the initial cost when the farmer makes the delivery. In other words, there will be the initial price but then the cost for which the elevator companies will have to be compensated by the government will have to be deducted. In order that the initial payment will not be lower I would say that we should revise the system. I think the interim payment system should be eliminated and in place of the interim payment we should have the initial price.
Over the years, every year we have had a 10 cent interim payment. This is only money which is being withheld from the producer. I should explain also that at the end of the year, rather than make a payment to the elevator company the government would make a payment to the farmer depending on the amount of grain delivered. For example, if a farmer delivered 1,000 bushels and the storage charge was 16 cents per bushel for that year the statement would indicate that 1,000 times 16 cents, which is a storage charge of $160, was being paid to the producer to reimburse him for the storage charge originally deducted by the elevator company.
I have here also a list that I should like to have put on the record, if I may have the permission of the committee to do so. It is a table indicating the number of cents per bushel charged on the total bushels of grain delivered to elevators, and also a table indicating the costs per bushel of all that grain over 178 million bushels. If I may have permission, I should like to have this information also put on the record.


Charles Edward Rea: Does the committee give the unanimous consent to this information being printed in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Supply-Agriculture
[Editor's Note: The tables referred to are as follows:]
Cents per bushel
Crop Year	per year
1955-	56	
8.01956-	57	
7.71957-	58	
8.71958-	59	
9.81959-	60	
10.5
Note: Relating this to wheat stored in excess o 1 178 million bushels the costs are as follows:
Cents per bushel
Crop Year	per year
1955-	56	
14.51956-	57	
14.81957-	58	
15.51958-	59	
17.41959-	60	
18.3


Stanley James Korchinski: I note that my time is running short, Mr. Chairman. However, I should also like to bring to the attention of the committee one other complaint that I have had. It is a complaint that seems to be quite prevalent in many municipalities, and refers to the official date under which an application from a municipality can be received for P.F.A.A. assistance. At the present time under the regulations the date is September 15th. I think this date should be changed. This date should be November 1st. When the act was first drafted this date applied to that southern area of the prairies where their harvest is perhaps over by that time. But in my area our harvest drags on sometimes to November
1.	I think there is no point in having a municipality first make application on September 15th when they have no idea what the average yield will be. In other words, a rather inaccurate prediction is made just so that the departmental officials will come into that municipality. Later, another revised estimate has to be made. I think this date should be stepped up to November 1st. I say this because we have run into several-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. It being five o'clock shall I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house as the case may be?
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of public and private bills, the former having precedence according to section 3 of standing order 15.


Mr. J. S. Speakman (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the unanimous consent of the house for the consideration of order No. 1 under private bills, namely, a bill respecting Canadian Pacific Railway, before any order was called under public bills. As the basis for my request, I might say that on the early passage of this Bill No. S-13 depends

Private Bills
the immediate employment of a fairly large number of men for a three-month to four-month period in the construction of a railway spur eight and a quarter miles in length.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, in view of the circumstances explained by the sponsor of the bill this group is only too willing to co-operate.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to the request made by the hon. member?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-13, respecting Canadian Pacific Railway Company-Mr. Speakman.


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-22 respecting the sovereignty of Canada.
(Translation):
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with the expression of the sovereignty of our great country. Throughout its history, Canada has known a constant constitutional development and has become a sovereign state within the commonwealth of nations.
A state is sovereign when it enjoys supreme authority in its own territory and is subordinate to no other state in the international field. Sovereign does not mean absolute, since all states must submit to public international law.
It can be proudly stated that our country enjoys today the eight main attributes of a sovereign state. These are the right to legislate; the right to make our legislation extraterritorial; the right of diplomatic representation abroad; the right to have Canadian courts of last resort; the right to declare peace; war or neutrality; the right to amend our constitution as we see fit; the right to negotiate and to ratify ourselves our own treaties; and finally the acknowledgment of our sovereignty by the other countries of the world.
Many factors and events have brought about the realization of this maturity. But the most outstanding was the Statute of Westminster, passed on December 11, 1931, and granting our country its sovereignty and independence within the commonwealth.

It is not enough to enjoy Canadian sovereignty that is so often referred to in this house, at the United Nations, in NATO, and everywhere else throughout the world. That actual sovereignty must be reflected by external signs that would proclaim our distinctive Canadian personality.
This national need to express ourselves in a distinctive manner is not in any way detrimental to our relations with other commonwealth members to whom we are united by our common allegiance to the crown.
Mr. Speaker, it is mainly this spirit that motivates the introduction of my bill the reminder of an existent Canadian sovereignty and, as external signs to express it: a distinctive national flag, a distinctive national anthem, and a national sovereignty day.
I realize that this government faces a number of economic problems. However, the bill that I have the honour of introducing is not unrelated to the success of our efforts in all fields. In fact, the achievement of these three objects will promote understanding between Canadians from coast to coast, show that Canadian patriotism is really alive and stir up a national dynamism, likely to increase the efforts required for the development of our great country.
In the course of these remarks, we will deal separately with the first two objects of the bill, although the reasons which commend them to us are practically the same. But a common aspect which should be pointed out immediately has to do with the interpretation of the term "distinctive". Both instances involve the adoption of a flag and of an anthem that distinguish and characterize our national colours and our national aspirations, and that differ from designs or anthems of all other countries.
It is not the first time that this matter comes up in the political forum of Canada. In the past, governments, associations, members and many Canadians have raised this important issue, without getting any definite results.
The status quo of flags in Canada seems to be as follows: from 1760 to 1892, we hoist the union jack and the red ensign. In 1892, Sir John Macdonald, in an effort of national development, is granted the use of the red ensign, with the arms of Canada reproduced in its field, for merchant vessels registered in Canada. In 1911, the union jack is indicated as being our statutory flag to be flown officially over land in Canada. In 1924, use of the red ensign is authorized on all buildings which the Canadian government owns or occupies abroad. On September 5, 1945, the

late Mackenzie King adopts an order in council which imposes the red ensign as the Canadian flag, with the arms of Canada in the fly and the union jack in the upper part, and that until parliament decides otherwise.
Considering the origin and the history of flags, we find that the union jack remains the national emblem of Great Britain, under a royal proclamation of January 1, 1801, and that the red ensign, authorized in England by Queen Anne in 1707 and by Queen Victoria in 1864, constitutes, under section 72 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894, the national flag for all vessels and boats owned by British subjects.
Now, if Canadians really wish to demonstrate the new Canadian citizenship which has been theirs since January 1, 1947, and if those same Canadians want to display a distinctive patriotism, those two flags are no longer suitable as legitimate expressions of their feelings. Besides, the order in council of September 5, 1945 does state that the red ensign will be flown until parliament decides otherwise. That order in council recognizes a temporary situation which we must now correct by something definite, by the adoption of a distinctive national flag for our own Canada.
Since the last war, Canadian opinion in this field has steadily developed and it has now attained a degree of maturity which leaves no cause for doubt.
Why has the time come to act? Because our country needs external signs of its legal and progressive sovereignty. Sir Robert Borden signed, on behalf of this country, the peace treaty of Versailles. In 1923, Mr. Ernest Lapointe signed in Washington what was the first official treaty negotiated by our nation with a foreign country without recourse to the services of a representative of the London government. On December 11, 1931, under the Bennett government, the Statute of Westminster recognized the independence and the sovereignty of our country within the commonwealth. During the last war, Canada was the first country in America to declare war on Germany. Later on, the federal government appointed a Canadian to the position of governor general. Appeals to the privy council of England were abolished and, as I was saying, a Canadian citizenship established on January 1, 1947.
In the field of external affairs, Canada has shown itself to be a distinct power in the military as well as in the economic field. Must we recall its membership as a 90205-6-197
Private Bills
distinct nation in the United Nations, in the Colombo plan, in NATO and within the disarmament committee of ten nations. It has more and more ambassadors and plenipotentiary ministers throughout the world.
The world is learning to appreciate our initiative and our mediation. Such an important situation must not be jeopardized by the absence of a flag. We would otherwise expose ourselves to unfortunate incidents such as Nasser's protestations during the Suez crisis of 1956. Let us recall that the United Nations police force then responsible for the maintenance of peace in Egypt included men from Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Norway, Pakistan and Sweden. All those countries but Canada had a national flag, a distinctive flag.
If our country has grown up so much and if that evident maturity is acknowledged from every quarter, we should then exteriorize that emancipation through a really Canadian and truly distinctive national flag. The pride and future of our country is at stake. Most Canadians have a keen desire to live not for countries where their distant forefathers were born, but for the land which feeds them and will finally receive them.
Such a flag will strengthen the convictions which were at the origin of the confederation of 1867. It will materialize our common aspirations, our parliamentary and individual freedoms, our national understanding and our Canadian patriotism.
The various political parties represented in the federal parliament have already indicated a clear stand in favour of the adoption of a distinctive national flag. Resolutions along those lines were unanimously adopted by the Conservatives at their convention in December 1956, and by the Liberals at their rallies in January 1958 and January 1960. On November 8, 1945, as shown on page 1939 of Hansard, the C.C.F. leader, Mr. Coldwell, had this to say:
I wish to see Canada with a distinctive flag, and in my opinion the red ensign with our coat of arms on it, which I would rather say nothing about, is not a distinctive flag.
Now, if all Canadians need such a flag, if they ask for it in such a way with the support of political parties, if the international community sees in us a child who has reached maturity and his distinctive personality, what are we waiting for? I have every reason to believe this proposal will be welcome and that the house will soon give it the stamp of its approval.

Private Bills
If we adopted a distinctive national flag, we should at the same time have to designate a distinctive national anthem. Because, how could we salute our own flag while singing the national anthem of another country? It would be absolute nonsense.
There is no longer any doubt that our country has reached maturity and that it intends to develop along that line. In 1958, Mr. Vincent Massey, our past governor general, acknowledged this national awareness. This is what he said then:
X feel that we have learned to he Independent and proud of our country. We shall retain our identity as long as we remain true to our traditions while showing our independence.
For many years, two anthems have been sung in Canada-the one entitled "O Canada" was composed by a Canadian; the other, the royal anthem is "God Save the Queen".
For the reasons given above, it is essential that we now select a distinctive national anthem, i.e. an anthem likely to satisfy the aspirations of the greatest number of Canadians and one that would not be the national anthem of another country, by its origin, its composition and its expression.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the "God Save the Queen" that we admire and like to sing on various occasions, is recognized as the national anthem of a friendly country, Great Britain. By its origin, its composition and its expression, it does not reflect the Canadian spirit.
As a matter of fact, "God Save the Queen" has various origins and a European past. History reports that when the French King Louis XIV entered the chapel of Saint-Cyr, the boarders broke into that song, the words of which had been written by the superior, Madame de Brinon, and the music composed by Jean-Baptiste Lully.
Grand Dieu, sauvez le roi,
Grand Dieu, vengez le roi,
Vive le roi!
Que toujours glorieux,
Louis victorieux,
Voit & ses pieds ses ennemis Toujours soumis!
According to tradition, Handel, the famous German composer, patronized by the king of England, visited Saint-Cyr in 1721, obtained permission to transcribe the song, translated it into English and offered it to King George I. Later, the song was slightly changed and became England's majestic "God Save the King".
Some authors have it that the melody of "God Save the King" was at some time or

other, with appropriate words, of course, the national anthem of Prussia, Germany, Switzerland, and even Russia.
All this shows that "God Save the Queen" is deeply rooted in history. It has been the national anthem of England since practically the year 1745, during the Scottish revolution.
But there is nothing typically Canadian about it. That is why time has come to add to a distinctive Canadian flag a national anthem which will stir up the emotions and the feelings of Canadians.
As a third external sign of Canadian sovereignty, the bill proposes a national sovereignty day which would be celebrated each year on December 11, to commemorate the Statute of Westminster.
We must not be afraid to stimulate pride and patriotism in Canada. We must give to all Canadians an opportunity of becoming more aware of our constitutional development, and to express their joy of being Canadians, with all the advantages inherent in Canadian citizenship.
The annual observance of a national holiday would provide this opportunity and special celebrations in the various provinces and in the schools would further stimulate Canadian patriotism among our young people.
In ancient times, people worked hard at inculcating love of country in the minds of the young. Thus, in Athens, the young ephebus, that is the young Greek between 18 and 20 years old, went up on the Acropolis to swear allegiance on his honour to his country.
Such a ceremony could be revived on independence day if young Canadians were invited to take an oath and to pledge themselves to the service of our great country.
Mr. Speaker, before concluding may I be permitted to state the substance of the bill which it is my privilege to submit:
The healthy instinct of independence of a nation is anchored in the hearts of its people. Although certain historical traditions may, for a time, restrict that instinct it cannot be expected that it will be dormant eternally. Any nation with pride in its achievements in peace and war and conscious of its own sovereignty will insist that its status be recognized by other independent nations.
A distinctive national flag, a distinctive national anthem and a national independence day constitute external signs of sovereignty and it is the purpose of this bill to provide these three worthy attributes for our country.
Thus:
Whereas since the 11th of December, 1931 Canada is a sovereign nation, among the members of the commonwealth of nations, with them united by

a common allegiance to the crown, equal in status and in no way subordinate to the United Kingdom;
Whereas the sovereignty of Canada should be made evident by the adoption of a distinctive national flag, the designation of a distinctive national anthem and the observance of a legal holiday on the 11th day of December in each and every year;
Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
1. This act may be cited as the National Sovereignty Act.
2.	Canada is hereby declared to be a sovereign nation.
3.	It shall be the duty of the Canada council to prepare or have prepared, after competition or otherwise, a design for a suitable distinctive national flag free of the emblem or emblems of any other country and to submit the same to the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada within one year of the coming into force of this act.
4.	Notwithstanding any royal prerogative and anything contained in any act, of the parliament of the United Kingdom such design for a national flag, after it has been approved by a joint resolution of the Senate and House of Commons, shall be submitted for approval to Her Majesty the Queen and for the issuance of a royal proclamation under the great seal of Canada respecting such ensign, armorial flags and banners as Her Majesty shall be pleased to appoint.
5.	It shall be the duty of the Canada council to select after competition a distinctive national anthem for Canada and to submit the same to the Senate and House of Commons of Canada within one year from the coming into force of this act.
6.	The anthem mentioned in the previous section shall become the national anthem for Canada after it has been approved by a joint resolution of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada.
7.	Throughout Canada, in each and every year, the eleventh day of December (not being a Sunday) , being the anniversary of the day the Statute of Westminster, 1931 was assented to, shall be a legal holiday and shall be kept and observed as such, under the name of Canadian independence day.
8.	When the eleventh day of December is a Sunday, the twelfth day of December shall be, in lieu thereof, throughout Canada, a legal holiday, and shall be kept and observed as such under the same name.


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, when anyone raises a question in the house and does it in an objective way, as did the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), I think it is the duty of all who rise after him to follow in his steps and to congratulate him for having once more brought before the house such controversial issues as a distinctive national flag, a national anthem and a Canadian independence day.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke mentioned many cases where the government by its decisions had helped our independence make a step forward. As a matter of fact, he said, and I am using his own words 1 think, our constitutional evolution had never ceased.
90205-6-1974
Private Bills
He mentioned the Canadian citizenship, the abolition of appeals to the privy council and the appointment of a Canadian as governor general.
He could have recalled also the mention in both languages, through an order in council, of Her Majesty as the Queen of Canada, as well as the appointment of our ambassadors under the great seal of Canada.
He also referred to the 1931 treaty and the signing of the first Canadian treaty by a minister of the crown, the Hon. Mr. Lapointe, without the representative of the United Kingdom.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke, I want to repeat it again, presented the question as objectively as it was humanly possible to do so, and I wish to congratulate him for that.
I need not explain again in this house the stand of our group, of our party concerning the adoption of a distinctive national flag. However, I do not wish to go on record without mentioning the 22 years of discussion on a distinctive Canadian flag, which did not produce a legislation providing for such a distinctive national flag. But I can say, as the hon. member for Sherbrooke mentioned in his remarks, that in the past several members have proposed legislation about a distinctive national flag.
Many are inclined to believe that when a member introduces a private bill and a discussion is started on that bill it is a waste of time for the House of Commons.
Such opinion is erroneous. On the contrary, I feel that every time matters as important as a national flag, a national anthem and a national independence day are raised in this house, we contribute through discussions as objective as the one just proposed by the hon. member for Sherbrooke, to mould public opinion in our country.
If we did not adopt a flag under the former regime-and I am not alone in deploring the fact, it is deplored by all members-the reason is, in my humble opinion, and the former prime minister indicated it repeatedly, that a flag must be a symbol of unity for all the citizens of a country.
He undoubtedly felt, because he was aware of it, that the public opinion was not ready to adopt a distinctive national flag.
In fact, every Canadian is free and everyone has a right to his own ideas about a distinctive national flag.
We should not criticize those who do not think as we do. On the contrary, we must try

Private Bills
to make them understand our point of view that in an independent country, in a country which has therefore reached maturity in all fields, it is a duty and a right to think of a distinctive flag which will reflect our history, aspirations and independence.
So, I entirely concur in the proposals of the hon. member for Sherbrooke who has put in quite a different way remarks which we have been hearing here for any years.
About the flag, I recall that some 15 years ago, while I was in Ethiopia, in the heart of dark Africa, to teach geography, those young Ethiopians-I am glad to pay tribute to their emperor-were born with the love of their parents' country in their hearts.
And those pupils could not understand that a country like Canada, of which so much is said around the world and which has earned the sympathy and esteem of all other countries, did not have its own distinctive flag.
I used to explain to them what I just told the house, that public opinion was not ready for it yet. But they had a question which almost forced me to silence: "But do not all Canadians have for their country the same love as we have for ours?"
The question, we must admit, was too difficult for me to answer and too difficult for them to understand.
So, I want to say to the hon. member for Sherbrooke, who has introduced this bill, that we are all in favour of a distinctive national flag.
I would even say that the people of Canada are becoming more and more in favour of distinctive national flag.
About a year ago, I was reading in an important magazine that a poll has been conducted among students in the 15 to 21 age group in most high schools and other schools in this country. The results of this poll showed that 70 per cent of our young people are in favour of a distinctive national flag.
I think, Mr. Speaker, this poll showed a very interesting change in Canadian opinion.
With regard to the national anthem, I think there has been less progress than in the case of a distinctive national flag. However, I am pleased that it has been included in this bill and I hope the demand for a truly Canadian national anthem will increase.
Of course, that does not keep us from singing "God Save the Queen", whenever the occasion arises, singing it with all our heart

and soul. But it would also be appropriate to sing a song of devotion to our country and to our forbearers.
Unfortunately, I think it will take a few years more before we get practical results, namely a truly distinctive national anthem.
Like the hon. member for Sherbrooke, hon. members will have to raise the matter often in their constituencies, with children and students and in discussions with their colleagues.
There will probably have to be many speeches made on the matter of a distinctive national anthem, but I am confident we will get it; I am even confident that we will get it before I draw my old age security pension.
With regard to the suggestion of a Canadian independence day, it becomes a corollary, as was so well shown by the hon. member for Sherbrooke, to the matter of a distinctive national flag and of a distinctive national anthem.
I do not want to take up any more of the time of the house. In closing, may I again commend the hon. member for Sherbrooke who has shown remarkable objectivity in launching the discussion of the bill.
Such speeches can only draw the various elements of our population closer together; they can only create mutual sympathy between the two groups composing it.
As the hon. member for Sherbrooke had set the tone of this discussion of his bill, I felt I had a duty to follow his example and express my views, in the hope that others would do the same.
(Text):


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to join the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard) in congratulating the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard). His address to the house was logical and sincere and I would say it had some merit in it. However, I wish to depict the other side of the coin. There are always two sides to every question. I think that when both hon. members who preceded me expressed the view that all Canadians want this and want that, they were taking a lot for granted because all Canadians do not want the flag they have in mind, do not want to change the national anthem, do not want to discard July 1 as our national holiday and replace to with December 11. Therefore when they say that all Canadians want these things they are stretching matters too far.

Private Bills
This is not the first time we have discussed this subject. It has come up before. Certainly, it comes before us in different forms. The wording of the bill or resolution is slightly different but the intention and object are the same, namely, a distinctive Canadian flag. This matter is a perennial one and, in fact, comes before the house almost monthly. I have no objection to that. In a democracy we are free to discuss both sides of a problem. I am not going to say that all Canadians agree with me but I know a lot of Canadians who do and I am going to quote a few of them today.
I have spoken on this subject before and to summarize my stand it is simply this. I am in complete accord with legislation being passed to bring about a distinctive Canadian flag but somewhere on the field of that flag I want the union jack. There are thousands and millions of people who support me in that view and that can easily be proved. I dread this controversy, but maybe it is all to the good. I am sorry that there are some people whose only mission in life appears to be to go down in history as having sponsored something altogether different.
I am glad that the hon. member for Sherbrooke did not say what some have said in the house, that they are ashamed of the flag we have, the red ensign; that they are embarrassed every time they look at it; that it hurts their national pride; that it is a symbol of servitude and colonialism; that it is a foreign emblem and so on. I am glad that the hon. member for Sherbrooke, as I understood his remarks, did not use any of those terms because I and thousands and millions like me are not ashamed. We are not embarrassed. We do not consider the union jack an emblem of a foreign country. There are many thousands and millions in this country who still consider that island as the old land and who feel they are going home when they visit that country.
Those of my race have certain attachments to that flag and that is why we would like to see it appear on any new Canadian flag. We would like to see some portion of any such flag allocated to the union jack because we are proud of it and are proud to live under it.
The bill before us probably goes further than any other measure we have had before the house. We have discussed a flag before but this bill seeks to bring about a new national anthem. Do hon. members suffer any indignation or shame when they sing "God Save the Queen", or is this a step in trying to break
away from the mother of parliaments, from the Queen, from the monarchy to which we are so attached?
The bill also provides for a new national holiday. What is wrong with July 1 which we now observe as our national holiday? What is wrong with that? Should we break all ties with the past; forget sovereignty, forget our heritage and our ancestry? No one is asking us to do that in Canada today. We are attached to the crown, and we in Canada are proud to say "God Save the Queen".
This bill envisages that the government or parliament will legislate and declare this and this to be the national anthem. Are we going to prohibit everybody from singing "God Save the Queen"? These I suggest are probably the first steps to be taken in that direction, like the first steps taken by the people of South Africa. This bill proposes that we rid ourselves of this, and this, and finally do away with everything represented by British justice and everything for which British fair play stands. It is suggested that we have something completely new.
I feel I am echoing the feelings of many people in Canada. I am just as sincere in my thinking as I presume the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) was in his. I do not doubt his sincerity. I feel that he is honest and means well, but does he suggest that we break away completely from everything in the past? If that is what he means I would ask him why we should then adhere to any of our traditions. I cannot for the life of me understand why some people question the existence of our sovereignty, and suggest only that we have an invisible connection with it. What is sovereignty? I have checked the meaning of this word in several dictionaries and find the best definition contained in volume 25 of the "Encyclopaedia Americana". The definition given there is as follows:
In political science the supreme power in a state by which the government is administered.
Further on in that definition we find the following statement:
-the people were the ultimate source of political authority and the same principle was advanced by the French revolution.
I do not understand those people who say that since we have no flag of our own we have no full sovereignty. The hon. member for Sherbrooke discussed this subject in some detail, but I intend to go just a step further. There is not a single foreign soldier on Canadian soil except those who are here with the permission of the government of this country. I suggest that we are completely independent.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Let us prove it.

Private Bills


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: The hon. member says, let us prove it.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Let us show it.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: The hon. member now says let us show it. I would suggest to him that we show it by our actions. I should like those individuals who feel we have no sovereignty to visit the iron curtain countries. Let them take a look at the situation in the satellites. Those hon. members who have been fortunate enough to visit the United Nations have seen what those countries regard as their representatives to the United Nations, and I speak of countries such as Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania and the like. Do these representatives act independently at the United Nations? No, they most certainly do not. I will go even further than that and mention the land of my fathers, the Ukraine and its neighbour Byelorussia. They are members of the United Nations but the foreign ministers, as we know them, of the Ukraine and Byelorussia have never appointed one single representative. They have yet to appoint an ambassador or even open an office in other nations. This is what I call a state without sovereignty.
We certainly have control over our own external and domestic affairs and everyone knows it. A statement to the contrary would cause the horses out west to laugh, and we do not intend to do that. We have representatives at the United Nations and ambassadors in many other countries of the world. Surely, no one could say that our Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), who played such a leading and brilliant role at the prime ministers' commonwealth conference in London just a few days ago, was not the representative of a country with sovereignty. There certainly does exist evidence by which all those peoples of the world know that we are a sovereign nation and I would suggest that those individuals who think otherwise are blind. Surely we do not want to be placed in the position the peoples of South Africa find themselves in today. I am sure they will regret that they entrusted their affairs of state to individuals like their prime minister.
Where is the servitude and imperialism that we have heard about in this house? We have heard that "God Save the Queen" is a foreign anthem. That national anthem is not the anthem of a foreign nation, it is an anthem which we sing because we consider the queen to be the head of our state, and we revere Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as our queen. The hon. member for Sherbrooke asks us to insult her by proposing in this bill that she approve a different flag. Everyone realizes that we have had 2,400 different designs submitted, and

I am sure we will receive 2,400 more. We would be asking Her Majesty to approve a new national anthem and I would suggest that we might receive 2,400 different versions of it.
As I have suggested before, it is impossible to legislate what exists in the hearts of the people; that which lives there must grow there.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, my time is running out but I must suggest that those individuals who propose that we discard our flag, our national anthem, and even our national holiday are proposing something which will not be received by the people of Canada. This proposal suggests we abandon our celebration of July 1, the date of the formation of our dominion. I am sure that the people of Canada will not accept such a suggestion. In this connection I should like to quote a portion of an article written by Peter Dempson, a gentleman of some reputation in our press gallery, in the Brandon Sun. Part of that article reads as follows:
The choice isn't likely to be a surprise. It will probably be the Canadian ensign, the flag that was flown over most federal government buildings since 1924, and under which our armed forces fought in world war II and the Korean war.
I would be interested in knowing who could mistake those forces as the forces of some other country than Canada.
Mr. Dempson states further in his article:
Canada really doesn't need a flag more distinctive than the Canadian ensign. It's known the world over as Canada's flag. It's raised aloft whenever a Canadian or a group of Canadians is being honoured.
Surely this type of statement does not suggest that Canadians want something that has no connection at all with our past and no connection at all with the union jack. I could quote further, Mr. Speaker. With your permission I wish to refer to Torch, the magazine of ex-service men and women. That organization is a large one. You are taking a great deal for granted when you say that all Canadians want something. These men fought under that flag. Here is what they did in 1960 at Windsor. It is interesting to note that the Canadian Legion is pressing for this change.
(Translation) :


Mr. Antoine Frechette (Riviere du Loup-Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the member who has the floor-
(Text):


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Will the hon. member withhold his remarks until I get the translation?


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member repeat his question?

(Translation):


Antoine Fréchette: I would like to ask the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk) if the union jack is represented on the flag of his native country.
(Text):


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Does the hon. member want the union jack? As far as the union jack is concerned, I can take the hon. member to schools in Manitoba and in 75 per cent of them you will find the union jack still flying. They have nothing against the union jack. I should like some indication that your Canadian ensign has met with the approval of the people of Canada. I spoke on this matter before and I am satisfied that you can even have a black flag, a green one, a yellow one or anything you like; but I would ask you to give a place on it to the union jack. That is what I stand for. I think I have answered your question.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I should like to ask a question of the hon. member. Do you not think in your speech you are more British than Canadian?


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I am entitled to my opinion just as the hon. member is entitled to his opinion. I did not question his sincerity and I hope he does not question mine. I am sorry that I differ with him, but I have the right to do that.
Torch "The Voice of the 'Corps' ", states as follows:
At their 1960 dominion convention in Windsor in June they passed a resolution (this was the first time they had formally made reference to the matter) strongly urging the Canadian government to pass an act confirming an order in council of September 5, 1945, which declared the Canadian red ensign to be our national flag.
That comes from men and women who fought under this flag. Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask your permission to let me quote another part of Mr. Dempson's article which is under the heading "The Flag that Stands on Guard". He states as follows:
Recognition in the form of federal legislation isn't really necessary to make the Canadian ensign our flag, for in every sense it is our flag, but to make the whole thing official, the government could introduce legislation spelling out the Canadian ensign as our national flag.
I hope the government does that. I hope so for the simple reason that it would end all controversy, and all these endless debates on a matter upon which we differ. That is true enough.
Mr. Speaker, I can quote individuals. I have received a large number of letters. One out of 25 did not agree with me when I spoke on this question in 1959. I admit that.
Business of the House
However, Mr. Speaker, my opinion is that as long as the people of Canada who are sovereign, who are independent and who are building up a Canadian race-it is true it is on the basis of two basic races- allow anything to disrupt their unity they are not doing this country a favour. My feeling is this. Canadians are not unanimous on this subject. Those that say they are unanimous are just as far off the beam as I would be if I said that. As long as Canadians are so divided and as long as they are sincere, we as legislators cannot ram something down their throats. I agree with the hon. gentleman who preceded me when he said that these discussions are of benefit. They are helpful. But nevertheless they are creating public opinion. The time may come when Canadians will be unanimous, but today they are not unanimous.
I think I will just have time to quote one letter, Mr. Speaker. I have quoted the Legion. I am now quoting a letter from an individual. This book is full of these letters. Any hon. member who wants to see them is welcome to do so. Addresses and, in some cases, even telephone numbers are given. This letter is from St. Mary's of the River, Fredericton, New Brunswick, is dated June 6, 1959, and is addressed to me at the House of Commons, Ottawa. It reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Mandziuk:
Congratulations upon your speech in the house about the flag.
I have a dear friend of Polish birth who feels the same as you do and for the same reasons.
You can do a great deal of good making new Canadians realize that what they value in Canada was created by Britain.
That is under the union jack, and that letter is signed by Mrs. E. W. Sansom. I could read others.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: In closing Mr. Speaker, may I say that I appreciate the opportunity of expressing my opinions. I have expressed them as sincerely as have those arguing for the other side.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Batten:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the house leader if there is any change in the business for next week.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, there will be no change. There will be a supply motion on Monday and Tuesday. The forecast was given last night. It appears in Hansard for Thursday.


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

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

Mr. Badanai: 1.	What is the cost to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of the current series of the 90-minute "Festival 61" T.V. play?
2.	Who were the people responsible for buying this particular program?
3.	For how long is this program contracted for?
Answer by: Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):
I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	The budgeted costs of productions in the current series "Festival 61" have varied between $14,000 and $65,000. The series has presented a number of different types of program, including opera, Shakespearean drama, modern drama, and musical programs. For example, some of the programs have been "H.M.S. Pinafore" presented by the Stratford festival company; a production of "Julius Caesar"; the drama "The Old Ladies"; and a program featuring the Canadian pianist Glen Gould. The costs have varied according to the different requirements of each production.
2.	The C.B.C. is responsible for the purchase of scripts and the production of all programs in the series.
3.	The series is scheduled throughout the current fall-winter season on a weekly basis.

Monday, March 20, 1961