1961-01-25

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege involving an article in the Hamilton Spectator of January 19, 1961, written by a Mr. Bruce Phillips of the Southam news service. It deals with some comments of mine on the establishment of a joint Senate and House of Commons committee on Indian affairs. There is a picture of myself appearing with the article, under which is Mr. Phillips' name.
My question of privilege could be with regard to the attaching of Mr. Phillips' name to my picture, but with equal force Mr. Phillips could have a question of privilege arising out of the attaching of my picture to his name. Perhaps this question is irre-soluble and should remain that way.



INDIAN ACT


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-61, to amend the Indian Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, this bill is for the purpose of removing from section 112 of the Indian Act the group of phrases which had imposed compulsion in the matter of enfranchisement of Indians. It is proposed to remove these particular phrases and leave only such as would provide machinery for the examination of applications which are received.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION


Hon. Michael Siarr (Minister of Labour) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the Minister of Labour, with the
approval of the governor in council, to enter into agreements with provinces to provide for the sharing of costs incurred by the provinces in carrying out programs of vocational rehabilitation for disabled persons: to authorize the minister to undertake the co-ordination of federal activities in the field of vocational rehabilitation and to undertake research in respect to vocational rehabilitation; and for those purposes to provide for the establishment of a council to be called the national advisory council on the rehabilitation of disabled persons; and to provide further for the payment of the chairman's remuneration and of the travelling and other expenses of the members thereof and for such professional, technical, secretarial and other assistance as the council may require.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1959, has any sampling of radioactive material in Bow lake, Ontario, been conducted?
2.	If so, what was the level of each radioactive material so found for each of the samples?
3.	What was the source of these radioactive materials and have any steps been taken to have this practice discontinued or abated? If so, what steps?


Hon. J. W. Monleith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The answer to part 1 of the question is yes. I would also refer the hon, member for Skeena to my reply to an earlier question about this matter, which can be found in Hansard of July 7, 1960 on page 5880.
In answer to parts 2 and 3, I might say that because these questions are part of an issue now before the mining court of Ontario it is considered inadvisable to publish the data involved before this case is decided.


RADIOACTIVE WASTE DUMPING LICENCES
Mr. Howard: 1.	Since Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has had authority to issue licences or permission for the dumping of radioactive wastes have any such licences or permission been granted?
2.	If so, and for each such licence or permit, what is (a) the date of issue; (b) the name and address of the licencee; (c) the purpose; (d) the locale of disposal; (e) the current validity?


Mr. H. F. Jones (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs):: The atomic energy control board rather than Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is the licensing authority in these matters. The strict reply to the question as put, therefore, would be that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has never had authority to issue

Starred Questions
licences for permission for the dumping of radioactive wastes. In view of this reply, the second part of the question would not be applicable.
However, the board which has the authority to take such action has not issued any licences for the dumping of radioactive wastes. In connection with licences issued to persons authorizing them to obtain and use radioactive materials, the board may issue instructions regarding the disposal of such materials after use.


C.N.R. AMALGAMATION PLANS, FORT WILLIAM AND PORT ARTHUR
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Is the Canadian National Railways planning to amalgamate or rationalize in one place, any services or aspects of work, at either Fort William or Port Arthur, which are presently being carried out in each city?
2.	If so, what services, at what time, in which place, at the cost of how many jobs, will be so changed?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: With respect to this question, the management of the Canadian National Railways advise as follows. Effective January 1, 1961, under the new plan of organization in the Canadian National Railways the lakehead division and the Port Arthur division were replaced by a new administrative unit called the lakehead area with headquarters at Port Arthur. There were no staff reductions due to this consolidation, and there is nothing in immediate contemplation by way of service consolidations which would bring about staff reductions.


COMMEMORATIVE POSTAGE STAMP ISSUES
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	From 1936 to 1957, how many commemorative postage stamps have been issued by the Post Office Department to mark an event or a figure which is part of our national history or way of life?
2.	What was the date of issue of each such stamp and the design thereof?
3.	From 1957 to 1961, how many commemorative postage stamps have been issued by the Post Office Department to mark an event or a figure which is part of our national history or way of life?
4.	What was the date of issue of each such stamp and the design thereof?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: The answer to part 1 of the question is 39. The answer to part 3 is 26. Answers to parts 2 and 4 of the question involve lengthy lists which it might be more convenient not to have read at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister is suggesting that the unread part of his answer be printed in Hansard with his oral reply. Is that agreeable to the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

[Editor's note: The information referred to above is as follows:]
2. Date of issue and design of commemorative stamps issued 1936 to 1957.
Date of issue and design-
May 10, 1937, 30, coronation, Their Majesties King George VI and Queen Elizabeth.
May 15, 1939, 30, royal visit, Their Majesties King George VI and Queen Elizabeth.
May 15, 1939, 20, royal visit, national war memorial.
May 15, 1939, 10, royal visit, Their Royal Plighnesses Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret.
March 3, 1947, 4<S, Alexander Graham Bell centennial.
July 1, 1947, 40, advent of Canadian citizenship.
Feb. 16, 1948, 40, marriage of Her Royal Highness Princess Elizabeth.
Oct. 1, 1948, 40, centennial of responsible government.
Apr. 1, 1949, 40, union of Newfoundland with Canada.
June 21, 1949, 40, bicentennial of the founding of Halifax.
June 25, 1951, 30, Prime Minister Right Hon. Sir R. L. Borden.
June 25, 1951, 40, Prime Minister Right Hon. W. L. M. King.
Sept. 24, 1951, 40, centennial of Canadian postal administration-early and modern trains.
Sept. 24, 1951, 50, centennial of Canadian postal administration-early and modern ships.
Sept. 24, 1951, 70, centennial of Canadian postal administration-stage coach and aeroplane.
Sept. 24, 1951, 150, centennial of Canadian postal administration-miniature of first Canadian stamp of 1851.
Oct. 26, 1951, 40, royal visit, Their Royal Highnesses Princess Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh.
July 26, 1952, 40, eighteenth international Red Cross conference.
Nov. 3, 1952, 30, Prime Minister Hon. Sir John J. Abbott.
Nov. 3, 1952, 40, Prime Minister Hon. Alexander Mackenzie.
Apr. 1, 1953, 20, wildlife, polar bear.
Apr. 1, 1953, 30, wildlife, moose.
Apr. 1, 1953, 40, wildlife, bighorn sheep.
June 1, 1953, 40, coronation, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth.
Apr. 1, 1954, 40, wildlife, walrus.
Apr. 1, 1954, 50, wildlife, beaver.
Nov. 1, 1954, 40, Prime Minister Right Hon. Sir John S. D. Thompson.

Nov. 1, 1954, 50, Prime Minister Hon. Sir Mackenzie Bowell.
Apr. 4, 1955, 40, wildlife, musk-ox.
Apr. 4, 1955, 50, wildlife, whooping crane.
June 1, 1955, 50, tenth anniversary of international civil aviation organization.
June 30, 1955, 50, jubilee of province of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Aug. 20, 1955, 50, eighth Boy Scout world jamboree.
Nov. 8, 1955, 40, Prime Minister Right Hon. Richard B. Bennett.
Nov. 8, 1955, 50, Prime Minister Hon. Sir Charles Tupper.
Jan. 23, 1956, 50, Canada's popular sport, hockey.
Apr. 12, 1956, 40, wildlife, caribou.
Apr. 12, 1956, 50, wildlife, mountain goat.
Oct. 9, 1956, 50, Are prevention.
4.	Date of issue and design of commemorative stamps issued 1957 to 1961.
Date of issue and design-
Mar. 7, 1957, 50, outdoor recreation in Canada-swimming, hunting, skiing and fishing (four designs on one sheet.)
Apr. 10, 1957, 50, wildlife, loon.
June 5, 1957, 50, explorer David Thompson.
Aug. 14, 1957, 50, fourteenth congress of the universal postal union, Ottawa-parliament buildings.
Aug. 14, 1957, 150, fourteenth congress of the universal postal union, Ottawa-posthorn and globe of the world.
Sept. 5, 1957, 50, mining industry.
Oct. 10, 1957, 50, royal visit, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip.
Jan. 22, 1958, 50, a free press.
Mar. 5, 1958, 50, international geophysical year.
May 8, 1958, 50, centennial of British Columbia.
June 4, 1958, 50, explorer La Verendrye.
June 26, 1958, 50, 350th anniversary of Quebec.
July 30, 1958, 50, national health.
Sept. 10, 1958, 50, centennial of oil development.
Oct. 2, 1958, 50, bicentennial of first elected assembly.
Feb. 23, 1959, 50, jubilee of air flight in Canada.
Apr. 2, 1959, 50, tenth anniversary of North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
May 13, 1959, 50, Associated Country Women of the World.
June 18, 1959, 50, royal visit, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth.
June 26, 1959, 50, opening of the St. Lawrence seaway.
Sept. 10, 1959, 50, bicentennial of the plains of Abraham.
Starred Questions
Apr. 20, 1960, 50, jubilee of Canadian Girl Guides in Canada.
May 19, 1960, 50, Dollard des Ormeaux, battle of the Long Sault, 1660.


CAMPBELLTON-CROSS POINT BRIDGE, N.B.   TENDERS FOR FEDERAL SHARE
Mr. Robichaud: 1.	Have tenders been called for the federal share of the Campbellton-Cross Point bridge?
2.	If so:	(a) what was the name of each
tenderer and the amount submitted? (b) to whom was the tender awarded?
3.	Is it expected that the work will be completed for the amount tendered?
4.	If not:	(a) have any estimates been made
of the extras to be paid to the contractor? (b) what amount has been paid to the contractor to date? (c) what amount remains to be paid when the work is completed?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Inasmuch as this is a long and complicated answer, might it be made an order for return, Mr. Speaker? Perhaps the hon. member for Gloucester would be satisfied if we took that course.


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Mr. Caron:: Perhaps the question might be allowed to stand in the absence of the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: The matter is actually one for the house to decide, but let the question stand.
Question stands.


LETTER CARRIER SERVICE, URBAN CENTRES
Mr. Argue: 1.	What urban centres in each province with 3,000 points of call or less have been granted letter carrier delivery service since July 7, 1958?
2.	On what date was each such service granted, and what are the number of points of call?


William McLean Hamilton: This question also involves a somewhat lengthy list of post offices, and perhaps the answer might be printed in Hansard rather than being read at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the answer be printed in Hansard at this point, notwithstanding that it has not been read?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The information referred to above is as follows:]
1 and 2:
Points of
Urban Centre	Date	CallSte. Genevieve, P. Q	
1-12-58	2700Alma, P.Q	
4- 5-59	2585Sept-Iles, P.Q	
24-10-60	2761Gatineau, Que	
31-10-60	2547Georgetown, Ont	
28- 9-59	26141394	HOUSE OF	Starred Questions	Points of	Urban Centre	Date	CallWhitby, Ont	... 2-11-59	2663Elliot Lake, Ont	... 2-11-59	2520Grimsby, Ont	... 3-10-60	2555Tillsonburg, Ont	... 31-10-60	2500Aurora, Ont	... 28-11-60	2534Grande Prairie, Alta. ...	... 11-10-60	2651


U.N. CONFERENCE, 1945  CANADIAN DELEGATION
Mr. Cardin: 1.	Were any members of the House of Commons, members of the Canadian delegation, either as official delegates or official observers at the founding conference of the United Nations at San Francisco in 1945?
2.	If so, what are the names of any such members of the House of Commons?


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY AUTHORITY'-SETTLEMENT OF CONTRACTORS' CLAIMS
Mr. Argue: 1.	Have any contractors' claims against the St. Lawrence seaway authority been settled since February 1, 1958?
2.	If so, what is the number, the estimated value, and the amount paid on each contract, the date of completion and the date of settlement, and the contractor's name?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, this question should stand as an order for return.


Mr. Speaker:: Order for return.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY AUTHORITY    BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Mr. Argue: 1.	Are there any vacancies on the board of directors of the St. Lawrence seaway authority?
2.	If so, how many, what positions, how long has each been vacant?
3.	Who are the present members and what are their duties?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 of the question is yes. In answer to part 2, those attending were Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, prime minister and secretary of state for external affairs; Hon. Louis S. St. Laurent, minister of justice and attorney general of Canada; Gordon Graydon; M. J. Coldwell; Mrs. Cora T. Cas-selman.
In addition, the following persons now members of the House of Commons attended the conference: The present Prime Minister, John G. Diefenbaker, as advisor to the Progressive Conservative representative on the Canadian delegation; Lester B. Pearson, who was present as one of the senior advisors and alternate delegates to the delegation; J. W. Pickersgill, as a member of Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King's secretariat.


UNPLACED APPLICANTS FOR JOBS
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, in reply to part 1, the answer is yes.
In reply to part 2, there is one vacancy, that of member, which position has been vacant since March 31, 1959.
In reply to part 3, the present members of the St. Lawrence seaway authority are R. J. Rankin, president, and Dr. Pierre Camu, member. Their duties are as follows. The president shall be the chief executive officer of the authority and shall preside at all meetings of the authority; he shall have the general and active direction and control of the business of the authority and of the general conduct of the affairs of the authority; he shall see that all orders and resolutions of the authority are carried into effect; he shall have general superintendence and direction of all other officers of the authority and shall see that their duties are properly performed.
During the incapacity or absence for any reason of the president, or vacancy in the office of the president, one of the other members designated by the governor in council may exercise and perform all the powers and functions of the president. Dr. Camu was so designated by P.C. 1960-1281 of September 20, 1960.


Mr. Marlin (Essex East): What is the number of unplaced applications for jobs in September, October, November and December, 1960, and the latest available figures during January, 1961?


Mr. R. D. Thrasher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker.
the answer to this form, is as follows: Date
September 15, 1960 October 13, 1960 November 17, 1960 December 15, 1960
question, in tabulated
No. of Unplaced Applicants 346,176 357,677 452,715 640,226

On the orders of the day:


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour or of his parliamentary secretary, who dealt with the answer to starred question No. 69. May I ask either of these hon. gentlemen if the answer could be completed by giving an answer to the request that we be given the latest available figures of unplaced applicants for any period during January 1961? I understand that these figures are given to the minister every week.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the figures that were asked for by the hon. member for Essex East were supplied up to the time they were available in the unemployment insurance commission offices. These figures are used for their own information in the administration of the unemployment insurance commission. Evidently these figures were not available to provide an answer when the question was put.


PERCENTAGE OF LABOUR FORCE UNEMPLOYED
Mr. Chevrier: In what years between 1945 and 1957 was the percentage of the Canadian labour force which was unemployed higher than in 1960?


Mr. E. L. Morris (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is today on official business in Washington, may this question stand?


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Motion stands.
Starred Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PAYMENTS TO FISHERMEN
Mr. Carter: Since fishermen became eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, how much has been paid out each year to fishermen (a) in Newfoundland: (b) in the maritime provinces; (c) on the Pacific coast; (d) engaged in inland fisheries?


Richard Devere Thrasher: Mr. Speaker, in view of the detailed information contained in this answer may I ask that the answer be taken as read and incorporated in Hansard in tabulated form?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree that the answer be taken as read and incorporated in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table referred to above is as follows:1
The amount of unemployment insurance benefit that has been paid in each fiscal year to fishermen is as follows:

(a)	Newfoundland	
1,759,299.00(b)	Maritime provinces	
2,138,492.00(c)	Pacific coast	
856,606.00(d)	Engaged in inland fisheries ..	684,095.00
3,464,883.60
4.174.734.00
1.619.505.00 976,097.00



(April-Dee. only)
3,436,272.50
4.583.592.00
1.957.398.00
1.046.819.00
1,324,265.94
1,337,510.00
563.450.00
374.330.00


FREE PORT DEVELOPMENT, MORTIER BAY, NFLD.
Mr. Carter: 1.	Has the government at any time been made aware that a British company has shown interest in developing a free port or a transshipment port at Mortier Bay, Newfoundland?
2.	Has the government received any representations from this company either directly from the parent company in Britain, its Canadian subsidiary or its agents?
3.	If so, what has the government been requested to do, and what is being contemplated at the present time?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the answer to both parts 1 and 2 is no; therefore part 3 is answered by the answer to parts 1 and 2.


RAILWAY EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Creaghan: 1.	Has the governor in council appointed a secretary as provided for by section 10 of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways Employees' Provident Fund Act?
2.	If so, what is the name of the secretary, the date of his appointment and the salary paid to him out of the said fund?
3.	Has the Minister of Transport appointed two chief officers from the Canadian National Railways, to serve along with the general manager as management members of the board of the said fund?
4.	If so, what are their names, occupations and the date of their appointment?
5.	Did the employees hold an election in 1960 to elect two members to the said board?
6.	If so, what was the date of the said election and the names, addresses and occupations of the successful candidates?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is yes.
The answer to part 2 is Mr. J. L. Seaman, appointed November 1, 1960, at a salary of $1,710 per annum.
As to parts 3 and 4, the answer to part 3 is yes, and the information requested in part 4 is the following: G. H. Betz, regional comptroller, December, 1959; G. A. Blakney, employee relations officer, June, 1957.
With regard to part 5, the answer is yes.
As to part 6 the answer is as follows: January, 1960, Mr. J. C. A. Landry, des-patcher, C.N.R., Montreal, and Mr. John McGee, conductor, Moncton, N.B., elected by acclamation.
13S6

Starred Questions


RENOUS NAVAL DEPOT, N.B.  CHANGE-OVER FROM COAL TO OIL
Mr. McWilliam: 1.	Is a change-over from coal to oil contemplated, in whole or in part, at the Renous naval ammunition depot, Renous, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, will there be a reduction in personnel and to what extent?


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: The answer to the first part of the question is yes; for reasons of economy a hand fired coal burner is being converted to an automatic oil fed unit in a building at the naval ammunition depot at Renous.
The answer to the second part is that this conversion will result in a reduction of four out of a total of 30 heating plant personnel at the depot.


UNEMPLOYED AS PERCENTAGE OF LABOUR FORCE,
Mr. Knowles: What was the number of unemployed for each year, 1936 to 1940 inclusive, measured as an average percentage of the civilian labour force?


Edmund Leverett Morris: For the reason I gave in reply to question No. 70, may this stand?


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Question stands.
SECTION 96a(2), INDIAN ACT


PROCLAMATION
Mr. Howard: What is the present state of the investigation being conducted as a result of resolutions from the Indian bands of Kincolith, Canyon City, Gitlak-damix, Lakalzap, asking that section 96A (2) of the Indian Act be proclaimed to be in force?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: There has been no change in the status of the resolutions submitted by these Indian bands. The original resolutions, which were apparently initiated lay the same person, did not contain sufficient information and had to be returned to the band councils concerned for redrafting. To date, corrected resolutions have been received from only one band, the Kincolith band, and that is receiving the attention of departmental officials.


UNEMPLOYED AS PERCENTAGE OF LABOUR FORCE
Mr. Pickersgill: What was the number of unemployed for each year, 1931 to 1935 inclusive, measured as an average percentage of the civilian labour force?


Edmund Leverett Morris: For
the reason I gave in reply to question 75, may this stand?


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Question stands.

On the orders of the day:


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twil-lingate):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answers given to certain starred questions I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether the minister himself is now personally preparing the statistical answers on unemployment.


Edmund Leverett Morris: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Trade and Commerce is not personally preparing answers. The minister is in Washington for one day, and before the answer is presented to the house it is my duty to present it to my minister.


FEDERAL PRINTING DONE OUTSIDE CANADA
Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	Is any printing done for the government outside Canada?
2.	If so, what, in each case, is the nature of the printing and the reason for having it done outside the country?


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of State):: The
answer to the second part of the question has been received only recently; it will not be ready until tomorrow afternoon. I would ask that the question stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Question stands.



CANADIAN OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION


Mr. Smith (Calgary South): 1.	Were there any specific conditions attached to the proposed grant awarded to the Canadian Olympic association?
2.	Has the government been informed of the scope of the intended survey? If so, what are the factors that will receive consideration?
3.	What individual, or company, is undertaking the survey?
4.	Where are their offices located, and what are their qualifications?
5.	When is the report of the study likely to be made available?


Jay Waldo Monteith: The answer to the first part of the question is, it was stipulated that the sum of $10,000 represented the total liability of the crown with respect to the proposed investigation of possible sites in Canada for the 1968 winter Olympic games, if the cost of the investigation were to exceed that amount.
The answer to part 2 is, included in the survey will be the consideration of such

factors as topography, climate, snow conditions, access and accommodation. The comparative values of possible sites for general recreational activities following completion of the games will also be considered.
The answer to part 3 is that the survey has been undertaken by the Foundation of Canada Engineering Corporation Limited, under the direction of its president, Mr. Per Hall.
The answer to part 4 is that the corporation's Montreal office is in charge of survey arrangements. I understand that its Calgary and Vancouver offices are also involved in the preliminary stages. This firm has carried out engineering studies of various kinds in the past, and its president has had considerable personal experience in the planning of facilities for winter sports.
Finally, the Canadian Olympic association advises that it hopes to have a complete survey report by the end of March or early April.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. R. Taylor (Vancou ver- Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare arising out of his report to the house today. Would the minister consider requesting the Canadian Olympic association to ask the survey company to report on the estimated cost of bringing the alternative sites to Olympic standards, and also on the density of the population in the areas being considered?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, the government saw fit to give a grant to the Canadian Olympic association in an endeavour to assist them in arriving at the most suitable site in Canada in order to suggest to the international Olympic committee where the Olympic games might be held in 1968. I do not think we can go beyond that.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Argue: 1.	Have any contractors' claims against the St. Lawrence seaway authority been settled since February 1, 1958?
2. If so, what is the number, the estimated value, and the amount paid on each contract, the date of completion and the date of settlement, and the contractor's name?
Inquiries of the Ministry


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY AUTHORITY  OUTSTAND- ING CONTRACTORS' CLAIMS
Mr. Argue: 1.	Have any contractors outstanding claims against the St. Lawrence seaway authority?
2.	If so, what are their names, the number of the contract, the estimated value of each, amount paid, if any, and amount claimed, the date of completion of each contract?


WORK ORDERS, SESSIONAL PAPER NO. 170 A
Mr. Argue: 1.	What was the (a) estimated value; (b) actual cost, of each work order as itemized in sessional paper No. 170 A, dated January 14, 1960?
2.	Were any of these work orders cost plus, and if so, which ones?
3.	What is the actual amount of money outstanding on each work order as of January 1, 1961?
4.	Were all these work orders included in the value of the main contract price?
5.	If not, (a) which ones were so included; (b) which ones were extra work at extra payment?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 36-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, submissions, and other documents, exchanged between farm organizations and the federal government since January 1, 1960, in regard to feed mills being allowed to purchase grain outside the quota system.
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: This motion is acceptable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Northwest Territories council, as reported in the press, that it cannot afford the program aimed at recruiting badly needed doctors and dentists for the northland. If so, has he any comment to make on this decision?


Righi Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the item in question, and I would not want to make any comment on the activities of a council with the responsibilities that this council has. However, I will have the question looked into and after communication with the council, if it is appropriate to do so, I will bring their answer to the attention of the house.
1398	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



RED CHINA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister inform the house whether negotiations are going on ivith China for the sale of up to 32 million bushels of wheat? If so, what progress has been made in those negotiations?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, all I can say at this time is that negotiations are in progress, and if any sales result an announcement will be made in due course.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Can the minister inform the house whether the cut of 1J cents per bushel in the price of wheat at Vancouver had to do with these negotiations or was a cut made in the normal course of selling by the wheat board?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Periodically
adjustments have to be made at the various ports to bring prices into line. I think this was a case in point.
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy
River): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a supplementary question. Has the minister inquired and can he inform the house whether the substantial sales made to China by Australia in recent weeks have been on a cash basis or under a credit arrangement between the two countries?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak with final authority in answer to that question, but I assume that as in the case of Canada, they were on a cash basis.



STATEMENT ON WHEAT DELIVERIES UNDER AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River asked me the following question:
May I ask the Prime Minister what has been the amount of deliveries to date under the 400,000 ton agreement made in 1959.
I assume that the hon. member has reference to deliveries in the final year of the three year Canada-U.S.S.R. trade agreement concluded in 1956, under which the government of the U.S.S.R. undertook to purchase
400,000	tons of Canadian wheat annually. The


answer to his question is 200,000 tons. These deliveries were made during the calendar year 1959.
(Translation):



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielfe-L'Assomption-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State. Could he inform the house whether the printing bureau intends setting up stores for the sale of federal publications in Montreal and in other large Canadian cities?


Noël Dorion: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Joli-ette-L'Assomption-Montcalm for sending me notice of his question. Here is my answer:
Since the bookstore on Mackenzie street in Ottawa turned out to be a great success, the Queen's printer has decided to open other stores for the sale of federal publications. Arrangements were made for the rental of premises for that purpose in the city of Montreal and negotiations are about to come off. I must point out that in selling those publications, the stores will avoid entering into unfair or inadequate competition with other bookshops.
As for recruiting personnel for the Montreal store, the civil service commission will arrange a competition in due time in order to select three persons suitable for that type of work.
When the Montreal store is in operation, it will no doubt be advisable to set up others elsewhere, beginning with Toronto.
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could ask the Secretary of State a supplementary question. Has the Secretary of State any fear that this step will be an interference with provincial autonomy?


Noël Dorion: I do not believe that question merits an answer.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay Wesl):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Acting Minister of Justice. In view of the fact

that the use of eggs as loss leaders in Nelson and Trail is having a ruinous effect on the poultry industry, forcing some long established poultrymen out of business and also doing a great deal of damage to small retail business in the area, would the minister give consideration to recommending an investigation into these nefarious business activities in this area by the director of investigation and research under the Combines Investigation Act?


Hon. J. W. Browne (Acting Minister of Justice):: I will take the question as notice and give an answer tomorrow.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture arising out of reports of speeches he has made to farm groups across the country. Has the minister reopened consideration of the policy matter arising out of farmers' and settlers' pulpwood marketing problems and the possibility of support prices for farm pulpwood?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, in discussions with farm organizations in areas concerned with such matters as pulpwood this question has been considered.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question arising out of the necessity of bringing the Canadian farm labourer under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Has the minister given serious consideration to this matter? If so, when can we expect this to be done?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the minister is prepared to declare government policy in answer to the question I will not prevent him from doing so. However, the question is one relating to the announcement of government policy, which is not ordinarily asked for on the orders of the day.


Hazen Robert Argue: We should like to hear the answer.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister received any report from
Inquires of the Ministry the committee that was set up to investigate whether farm labourers are eligible for unemployment insurance?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, we have asked the unemployment insurance commission to give careful study to the possibility of bringing farm labourers under the act as an insured class. The unemployment insurance commission has been giving careful study to this problem, but because of the many difficulties involved in this inclusion they have not as yet reported to me or the government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the minister a supplementary question. Can the minister say whether consideration is being given to the voluntary inclusion, as opposed to the compulsory inclusion, of this class?


Michael Starr: Both aspects are being considered.
(Translation):



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Bourgel (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) a question. Can the minister tell me whether, at such time as he introduces the bill regarding Canadian shipyards, he intends to submit this legislation to a committee of the house so that all concerned may air their views on the matter?
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister whether the government proposes to introduce this legislation before the Easter recess.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, no decision has yet been reached with regard to referring the resolution to a committee of the house. As to the second part of the question, I trust that the bill aiming to help the shipbuilding industry in this country can be introduced in this house in the nearest possible future.
(Text):



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: I should like to address to the Minister of Transport a question of which I have given him notice. Can he indicate what are the reasons for the delay in taking action in connection with three decisions of the board
1400	MOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry of broadcast governors with respect to television applications respecting Sioux Lookout, Ontario, Saddle Mountain, British Columbia and Mount Sentinel, British Columbia, which admittedly involve the pick up of United States stations, inasmuch as these localities cannot pick up existing stations in Canada?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the only delay is that of my hon. friend in asking the question. I am able to advise the hon. member that yesterday the governor in council approved these applications for Sioux Lookout and the other two places mentioned, and that these broadcasting stations are in a position to operate at the present time.


William Moore Benidickson: May I make just a short explanation. I want to indicate that the decision was made by the board of broadcast governors on December 8. As the minister knows, I have made a number of inquiries. Otherwise I would riot have asked the question. I did not know that the applications had been approved yesterday.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries whether he has received and, if so, has accepted a reported invitation from the governor of Alaska to attend a proposed conference on February 15 to 17 to work out a program for restoring the depleted west coast salmon run.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: I want to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. A letter has been received from Governor Egan of Alaska proposing a conference of fishery biologists in the middle of February. The purpose of the proposed meeting is not too clear, and I am taking steps to get further details on the proposal.



FEED MILL AGREEMENTS WITH WHEAT BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosfhern):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture or his parliamentary secretary. Can he tell us how many feed mills in western Canada in the wheat board area have now completed agreements with the Canadian wheat board in order to take deliveries over the quota?
(Mr. Benidickson.]


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has not given notice of his question, the minister may not be in a position to answer.


Edward Nasserden: They have had notice.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister has the information.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I was hoping that my parliamentary secretary would handle this matter.
Mr. Speaker, as of today 167 feed mills have signed agreements with the Canadian wheat board. Board records show that there are an additional 49 feed mills which have operated at one time or another. It is known that some of these feed mills are no longer in operation, and others are confining their operations to selling prepared feeds which they do not manufacture. Canadian wheat board inspectors are checking with all feed mills within their territories in order to ascertain the operating feed mills which have not signed agreements with the board. Operating feed mills which do not sign agreements with the board are, of course, subject to delivery quota regulations.


Edward Nasserden: I have a supplementary question. Will this trade be confined within provincial boundaries, and will the mills entering into these agreements be obliged to submit statements showing the deliveries or sales of grain and grain products?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Under the
wheat board directive the feed mills will be obliged to show their books to the wheat board inspectors twice a year. Under the agreement their operations are confined to within provincial boundaries with, I believe, one exception, namely the town of Lloydmin-ster, on the boundary between Alberta and Saskatchewan.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a supplementary question. Has it been brought to the minister's attention that these feed mills are buying grain under this new policy at 40 cents to 50 cents a bushel below the board's final selling price for wheat?


Mr. Speakman:: Utter nonsense.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: As usual, the hon. member for Assiniboia tries to disseminate information which is not backed up by proven facts. We are trying to collect information from these various feed mills as to the prices paid. There are advertisements in the papers by farmers offering grain for sale much below prices paid by the wheat board, but until we get all the facts on this situation there will be no such statement, which I think is wrong, as that given by the hon. member for Assiniboia.

I should like to point out to the house that the governments of the three prairie provinces, including the government of Saskatchewan, have come out in support of the policy that we have taken on for a year's trial, and that the farm organizations also are writing me and giving assurance that they are behind us in what we are trying to do.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to ask the minister whether it has been brought to his attention that a delegate body of the federated co-operatives has come out as being emphatically opposed to the government policy changing the former policy of their management.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question and answers both appear to be descending, shall I say, from the level of the factual to that of the argumentative, and I think I should not allow that second supplementary question.


Mr. E. W. Brunsden (Medicine Hat):: should like to ask the minister whether he has received from bona fide grain producers in western Canada one complaint with respect to this policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member, equally with the hon. member for Assiniboia seems to be more interested in giving information than in obtaining it.
(Translation):



INQUIRY AS TO DIFFERENCE IN GRAIN PRICES PAID BY EASTERN FARMERS AND WESTERN MILLS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Artha-baska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister aware of the fact that prices paid by eastern farmers for grain are higher than those paid by western mills, and that, therefore, there is some discrimination detrimental to our eastern farmers?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the question of the hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska is really an argumentative one. He has put forth a point of view under the guise of asking whether the minister is aware of something. It seems to me that is not in accordance with the proper practice on orders of the day.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of
Inquiries of the Ministry Labour. Under the authority of the minister, newspaper advertisements are appearing across the country urging Canadians to apply to Canadian banks now for loans for home improvements. I wonder whether the minister would care to comment on the response he has had to date in connection with this campaign. Also, can the minister assure the house that the banks are co-operating fully in this regard?


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the co-operation of the banks rests within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance. Our effort in this field is to promote and bring to the attention of the people of this country that they have the facilities of the banks available to obtain home improvements loans. By doing this we hope to bring about an activity in this field that will help to give employment to Canadians during this winter. It is difficult to ascertain or to get some idea as to the number of jobs that will be created. Our role in this matter is to promote this type of activity.


John Richard Garland: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder, in view of the absence of the Minister of Finance and in view of what the Minister of Labour has said, whether the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance would care to comment on the degree of co-operation the banks are giving in this regard.


Mr. Richard A. Bell (Parliameniary Secretary to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anything to be usefully added to what the Minister of Labour has said.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture arising out of the very interesting statement attributed to him, that the minister was not convinced that the 12-storey Department of Agriculture headquarters on the dominion experimental farm, built of glass, steel and aluminum, would have adequate air conditioning.
My question is this. Is the government going forward with the construction of this large building, since it has been the policy of the government, in the past at any rate, to reserve the experimental farm for its original purposes and not use any part of it for buildings of this type?
1402	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I hate to once again remind the hon. member that he has a reputation for inaccuracy-


Hazen Robert Argue: Answer the question.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -because the experimental farm has been used for purposes other than agriculture in the past.
This is what my position has been. First of all, with regard to any building I will authorize to be built for my department, I will consider the comfort of the people who will be working in such a building. That is No. 1. Second, I will consider the location of the building and whether it has been brought into conformity with the plans of the national capital commission. I will also consider the convenience and efficiency of the department in relation to other buildings housing government departments.
So the answer to the hon. member's question is that as soon as these various components of the problem can be brought down to the point of final decision, an announcement will be made.



PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edwin William Brunsden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. While we all appreciate his zeal and enthusiasm for the winter works program, may I ask him if it was absolutely necessary to have all the men's public washrooms in the centre block painted and varnished on the same day?


Hazen Robert Argue: Especially a cold day.


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, I heard that the hon. member was running to and fro yesterday.
I had not appreciated the cause until this moment. I now appreciate, however, that the plumbers and decorators were more anxious to maintain the decor of the parliament buildings than to consider the comfort of the members of parliament. I can assure the hon. member that this incident will not occur again.
(Translation):



CANADIAN INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Yvon Dupuis (St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Associate Minister of


National Defence (Mr. Sevigny) arising from a statement he made yesterday in this house, to the effect that industries in various provinces of this country are setting aside their expansion plans because they are worried about the future. Could the minister give the names of those industries and could he tell the house what the government intends to do to prevent industries from setting aside their expansion plans?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question of the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) I should say that the first definite information I got on that matter was given to me in private conversations and I respect the confidential nature of that information.
With your permission however, I would suggest, in answer to the hon. member, that he look around his own constituency and he will find that what I said yesterday is true.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, may I complete my question and ask the Associate Minister of National Defence if he has done anything to prevent this flight of industries?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville, I would suggest that he read in this regard the measures announced in the speech from the throne and that he study the supplementary budget; he will find that this government has done a lot through the budget to improve economic conditions in this country, a lot more than what could be achieved through the resolutions passed at the recent convention of the Liberal party.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. In this budget mentioned by the minister, is there anything else than deficits?


Some hon. Members:: Order.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: That information is open to all hon. members of the house.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. C. Coaies (Cumberland):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister in a position to indicate what action is to be taken regarding the death penalty recently imposed on a 14-year old youth?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member's question directed toward the exercise of the prerogative of mercy?


Robert Carman Coates: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I think it is not in accordance with the practice of the house to accept questions directed to the government on that subject on the orders of the day or, indeed, at any time before the exercise of the prerogative.



AGRICULTURE


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the Minister of Agriculture to enter into agreements with provincial governments or agencies thereof for the undertaking jointly with those governments or agencies of projects for the alternative uses of lands that are marginal or of low productivity, projects for the development of income and employment opportunities in rural agricultural areas, and projects for the development and conservation of the soil and water resources of Canada; for the payment to the provinces of contributions in respect of the cost of such projects undertaken by a province or agency thereof; to authorize the Minister of Agriculture to undertake programs of research and investigation in respect of these matters; to provide for the establishment of advisory committees and the appointment of their members, and to provide for other related and incidental matters.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Flynn in the chair.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, in moving the adoption of this resolution I do so with the full realization that it will constitute a major step forward in fulfilling our national agricultural program presented to the house on August 30, 1958, by the Prime Minister. At that time the Prime Minister stated that there was a need for a sound, comprehensive and co-ordinated program to attack specific problems and meet specific needs. He outlined a seven point program and I would like to put on record today what he said on the fifth point, which can be found on page 4347 of Hansard for August 30, 1958:
Fifth, as a means of meeting the small farm problem the government has under consideration ways and means of improving the level of living for farmers on small farms by means of better land use, encouraging the formation of economic family farm units, improving technical training, extending unemployment insurance benefits to certain classes of farm workers, and by extending the vocational and technical training agreement for the benefit of those who wish to enter new occupations.
Agreements Respecting Marginal Lands
This resolution before us today has as its main purpose the improvement of the economic position of those farmers whose land is presently classified as marginal or submarginal. However, it is not only the intention to lift up the economic status of the great number of farmers who live on these uneconomic units; the measure will also have the effect of simultaneously improving the position of farmers possessing more economic units.
Generally speaking, the objective of the national agricultural program is to give agriculture a reasonably fair share of the national income. We believe that this parity of income should not be attained by charity but by providing opportunities for the farmers to help themselves. The Prime Minister stated on August 30, 1958-and I am quoting his words -that our concept of a national policy is based on the belief that the national welfare demands positive action to meet the basic causes of distress and maladjustment in particular industries and regions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Where did he say
that? On what page?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: 
submarginal land use. Their recommendations, found at page 248 of the second report, are well worth reading. I should like to place these on the record for the information of those who study this debate:
Whereas there is a need of elimination of problem areas in Canada where farm businesses are small, productivity low, and incomes inadequate for family requirements: The committee recommends,
(1)	(a) That further research be undertaken to define more clearly the nature of the problem in low income areas and to pinpoint their location.
(b) That a federal-provincial rural development program be instituted to deal with areas of greatest need.
(2)	That in implementing such a program the
provincial governments participate on a co-operative basis:	such co-operation to include the
principle that both provincial and local authorities assume major responsibility for the identification of problems and needs of local areas and the initiation, planning and development of appropriate action programs.
(3)	That the federal and provincial governments co-operate in assisting any such program with financial and technical assistance, said financial assistance to be provided through a cost-sharing agreement.
(4)	That the federal and provincial governments provide for a larger farm-management service and expansion of educational facilities with particular emphasis on leadership to ensure a prompt dissemination of the research results to those farmers who will be most benefited therefrom.
(5)	That there should be some form of co-ordination of federal departments of agriculture; northern affairs and national resources; health and welfare; labour; trade and commerce; fisheries; forestry; and citizenship and immigration with regard to activities under a rural development program.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What about the sixth recommendation?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In reply to the interjection of the hon. member for Essex East, in which he asked about the sixth recommendation, I should like to present this to the committee as an example of the profound interest taken by the hon. member in agriculture. There was a sixth recommendation, and this is what it says in the first sentence:
(6)	That the special committee of the Senate on land use be reconvened at next session of parliament-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right. The hon. gentleman does not want it to reconvene. Would the hon. member permit a question? Is it not a fact that my hon. friend does not want the committee to reconvene at this present session of parliament?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am presenting here what I hope will be one of the major steps in a co-ordinated national program in agriculture. I had hoped that the committee would look at this in a non-partisan way.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Just as the hon. member is doing now.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: For the hon. gentleman to suggest it is a fact that we do not want the special committee of the other place to deal with the question of land use in this session is so far from the truth that it is hardly worth mentioning. If the hon. member were to read on in the sixth recommendation he would find that the committee recommended that they reconvene this session to study such questions as water conservation, drainage, forestry, and so on. This is an extension of the valuable work the committee did last session. After having praised the committee as I believe I did by inference, having read their five major recommendations as the result of the work of last year, it is errant nonsense for anyone to suggest that I in particular do not want this committee to reconvene.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: We shall see.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think, Mr. Chairman, it can be deduced from the terms of the resolution under discussion that the recommendations of the other house have received due consideration.
This resolution authorizes the government to enter into agreements with the provincial governments or agencies thereof for the undertaking, jointly, of three types of operations: (1) projects for the alternative use of land that are presently classified as marginal or of low productivity; (2) projects for the development of income and employment opportunities for rural agricultural areas, and (3) projects for the development and conservation of the water and soil resources of Canada.
In each of these types of projects there should be careful research by either or both the federal and provincial governments. There must be co-operation not only between the senior governments but also between the senior governments and the local people. One of the key points will be the widest possible participation not only by farmers but by every group in our rural communities. In sum total, agricultural rehabilitation and development must be a co-operative enterprise of government, groups and individuals.
I suggest that this should also include the churches.
Many hon. members over the years have asked for an extension of the P.F.R.A. to all parts of Canada. I think it can be said that the third type of operation envisaged in this resolution meets that request.
90205-6-89i
Agreements Respecting Marginal Lands
The sixth point of our national agricultural program deals with conservation. As the committee knows, plans are now being completed for the holding of a "resources for tomorrow" conference in the city of Montreal in October of this year.
It may well be asked at this time what is the relationship between this resolution and our general policies and plans on conservation. Actually there is a very close relationship. There was a meeting of the federal and provincial ministers, who make up the policy subcommittee of the national steering committee of this conference, in Ottawa last December 12 and 13. At that time I explained to the provincial ministers that everything envisaged in this bill would be in harmony with the proposed purposes of the "resources for tomorrow" conference. It is my judgment, Mr. Chairman, that the "resources for tomorrow" conference may expand the terms of reference that we have in mind in this bill, but I seriously doubt whether it in any way will suggest any diminution of its purposes.
Having said these things about the background and purposes of the bill, I should like to go on and outline in general terms how it would operate. Broadly, the intent would be to assess, with the provinces, the agricultural areas which are in need of rehabilitation and to determine the type of assistance which would be most appropriate to achieve this end. Certainly the development of alternative economic uses for marginal agricultural lands will have a large part in the total program. I need mention only two instances of this. One is the encouragement of farm woodlots, of tree farming, of county forests, of reversion into crown lands, and so on, as an example of the thing to be done mostly in eastern Canada. The second example I can give is the conversion of marginal cropping land in western Canada to grass by means of the technique that we know so well out there, namely the community pasture technique. These are only some of the examples of alternative economic uses for land. Others deal with urban expansion, recreation and so on.
Steps of this nature serve three purposes. They provide for better utilization of marginal agricultural land; they provide new sources of income for people in the area, and to the extent that they remove lands from agricultural cropping they will help to reduce surpluses which constitute a serious problem for agriculture.
In addition to developing alternative land uses, the legislation also envisages the development of new income opportunities for people in rural areas. Local industry, recreation and technical training are among the
1406	HOUSE OF
Agreements Respecting Marginal Lands ways and means that will be considered. The development of this phase of the program envisages a large measure of local participation. It is proposed that the federal and provincial authorities would provide guidance to local groups in assessing their own circumstances and developing new sources of income. It is, of course, intended that all services and agencies of the departments of government in Canada which can contribute to this will be brought to bear in the total effort. It is also envisaged that the federal government, in co-operation with provincial governments, universities, educational institutions and individuals will carry out programs of research and investigation in the general field of rural development.
Finally, the legislation will authorize the Minister of Agriculture to enter into agreements with the provinces to carry out soil and water conservation projects for agricultural purposes. The importance of this, I think, is understood very well by all members who have farmers in their ridings.
I should like to make it clear that it is not the purpose of this legislation to reduce the number of farmers. Those who feel that the small farm problem can be resolved by arbitrarily uprooting people from their farms do not, in my view, understand the deep attachment of rural people to their home surroundings. This legislation is designed, rather, to help by various means to improve the income and standard of living of the small and more marginal family farms, and in that way help to improve the over-all position of agriculture.
In recent months I have discussed these broad proposals in very general terms with the provincial ministers of agriculture and the farm organizations, and have found them quite sympathetic to the principles which are involved. Pending the introduction of the bill in parliament I was not able to discuss the proposals in detail and I should like to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that following first reading of the bill, it be laid over so I will have an opportunity to go to the provinces and the farm organizations and discuss it with them in more detail, with the idea that since it is going to require co-operative action with the provinces, and should have the full support of farm organizations, they should be able to comment before we proceed to the final stage.
As I said earlier, the problems that this bill is designed to come to grips with have been known for a long time. I personally heard them discussed over 30 years ago. I well remember hearing one leading figure of the province from which I come make the statement that some day some government would have the courage to tackle the


problems of the marginal farmer. I am very pleased that the agriculture ministers of the various provinces-all the provinces-and the leaders of the farm organizations have indicated their support of the principles of this bill. I know that every member from a farm riding will have knowledge of areas within his riding, or groups of people within his riding, which could be helped and benefited by the type of agreement that we envisage in this program. I hope that during the discussion of the bill those members will bring forward their various ideas on how this bill can be used in their particular ridings so that we may get the ideas at the administrative level on what should be done.
I like to think that at long last the full resources of mind and energy of the best agricultural brains in Canada at all levels will be brought to bear on the problems of the small farmer to help the small farmer help himself, not only at the local level but right down to the individual farmer. Under this bill, the full scope and influence of the Agricultural Stabilization Act, the Farm Credit Act and the Crop Insurance Act can be utilized. I feel that these four acts working together in unison can become a comprehensive co-ordinated attack on the basic weaknesses of the agricultural economy.
Most of the preliminary preparation of this legislation, as is well known, has been under the capable guidance of my predecessor who is now the Minister of National Defence. My task will be the working out of the agreements with the provinces and providing the co-ordination among the various departments at Ottawa to help make this program a success. I want to be able to say that no longer is agriculture looking at its problems in a vacuum, but is now turning its eyes to the broader horizons of opportunity that exist for the use of the land, the water and air which are the natural assets of the farmer. I realize that I am not expressing new ideas, but I do feel very humble that the opportunity has fallen to me to put them into legislative form and at long last get at the task of helping the small farmer to his feet. Their problems have been a blemish on the record of our society for decades, and every member of the house, I hope, will share the satisfaction of making a contribution to such a forward step in the field of agricultural development.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, before the minister resumes his seat I wonder whether I might ask him a question which I think has a great deal to do with the application of this measure and the discussion that will take place subsequently. Can the minister

give the committee some idea of the apportionment of cost as between the federal government and other authorities? Is the federal government planning to bear the bulk of the cost of this program, as has been done in connection with P.F.R.A., or is there to be a 20 per cent provision or something of that nature along the lines of crop insurance? Proportionately speaking, how much of the cost of this whole scheme is the federal government prepared to bear?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, in my discussions with the agriculture ministers from the various provinces this point was raised. I think the best way I can answer the question is to say that as ministers of agriculture we recognize that not only will there be different types of agreements with the various provinces in view of their different problems, but there will also be several types of agreements within each province to meet certain conditions. We also recognize as ministers that under each of these various types of agreements, varying proportions will be paid by the governments. We also recognize that some parts of this legislation will not cost either of the two senior governments a great deal except for advice and the energy to carry that advice to the local group.
The answer I will give is that with respect to some types of agreements I would suggest that the sharing will be on a 50-50 basis, whereas in other types of agreements it may be that the federal government will pay the larger share or contribute the whole cost and work out some self-liquidating device to meet that advance. In other types of agreements it may be that the provinces will bear the total cost or a great deal of the cost because the matter comes within their responsibility. In that event we will co-operate in any way that will help their activities.
In discussing the matter with me the provincial ministers expressed, as I say, great sympathy with the principles involved. Two ministers did raise the question that when it came down to agreements with their provinces they would want to see what the price tag was going to be. I think I have said enough to indicate that with regards to certain types of projects, having in mind the physical ones now, there will be a sharing based on the precedents of the past. With regard to other types involving new agreements, I certainly will have no way of knowing what the basis of sharing will be until we sit down and work out what we want to do and how best to achieve it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, this is my first opportunity to congratulate
Agreements Respecting Marginal Lands the minister on his transfer from the department over which he presided before he came to the Department of Agriculture. I assure him that he will have all the co-operation he will merit. He may be sure that the proposals he makes to the house will be carefully scrutinized, as in the national interest they must be. But subject to these contingencies we extend to the minister our very warmest wishes with respect to the assignment that has been given him in the assumption of these new and heavy responsibilities.
There can, of course, be no criticism of the object of the resolution. However, while the resolution is far-reaching it is couched in very high sounding and vague language. It certainly is not specific, as the reply to the question asked a few moments ago indicated. If we had received from the minister a more detailed explanation of what the resolution seeks to do it would not warrant the criticism which I have thus far made of it. Certainly the minister sought to establish the idea that the philosophy behind this resolution is either one which he himself has conceived or which the government has established. Little reference was made to the work of the committee in the other place. No attention whatsoever was paid to the fact that the very important work launched by the committee of the other place was undertaken as the result of action by the government of Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent and in particular by that right hon. gentleman.
In the statement he has made the Minister of Agriculture also ignores the fact that there are other agencies, both provincial and federal, that have worked on this problem for some time. He has mentioned in passing the work under the P.F.R.A., an organization which has done a wonderful job, and undoubtedly if its scope were extended to take in the whole of the country it could accomplish many of the important activities outlined in the general words of the resolution.
The minister referred to the committee of the other place known as the conservation and land use committee, which made an extremely important and valuable start in compiling information as to actual conditions obtaining in the provinces with a view to recommendations on specific projects that might be undertaken. The minister has mentioned, of course, and quite properly and necessarily so, the co-operation with the provinces that is indispensable in a matter of this sort. However, that co-operation might easily be used by either level of government as an excuse for no action at all. We know of other instances in the history of this government, when projects have depended
1408	HOUSE OF
Agreements Respecting Marginal Lands upon provincial co-operation, and the government has been able to hide behind the inaction of particular provinces to excuse its own inaction.
If the minister had been more specific in the reply he made to the hon. member for Assiniboia with regard to executive responsibility, with regard to the matter of financial responsibility and the distribution thereof, he would have given us some basis to determine when we may expect action from the government with regard to the long term aspects of this problem. The resolution before us, of course, is not designed to meet the current situation, according to my understanding of what the minister has said. It is long term in its implications. Indeed, if it were intended to have immediate effect we would have expected the minister to give assurances that no action would be taken by the government that would add to the great severity which prevails in the country at the present time in the matter of unemployment.
Since the beginning of the session we have been trying to persuade this administration to take effective steps to deal with certain emergency situations, including unemployment and the most serious problems that the industrial sector of the economy is facing. As most of us know, it is suffering from both short term and long term difficulties, which are reflected in the amount of unemployment and which are certainly not going to be overcome by the timid and confused programs presented by the government since the beginning of the session.
The agricultural sector of the Canadian economy also suffers from both short term and long term problems. The current crisis of Canadian agriculture is illustrated not so much by mounting unemployment, as in the industrial sector, but by declining farm income. I would hope that it was not the intention of the government, before the labours of the committee of the other place were completed, to introduce this measure for the purpose of conveying to the farmers of our country that their present plight was going to be dealt with effectively by this kind of measure. I would hope that the minister would not seek to use this device as a means of diverting our attention from the very serious plight that at this very time confronts the farmers of our country. We cannot forget that if we take this position we are encouraged to do so by the very propaganda of the government. We will not forget their recent statement in one of the resumes of their great achievements when they said this:
Recognition on a scale unsurpassed in Canadian history has been given to the difficult problems of our farm communities. Realistic price supports


have been introduced for the first time in our history. Federal aid to Canadian farmers has more than doubled.
This Conservative propaganda is designed as usual to distort the facts and to mislead.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The real test of any farm policy is not the amount of relief received by the farmers; it is to be found in the rate of increase in farm income. This is the only real test of success. When we apply that test, the failure of this government's farm policy appears in its true perspective.
During the last ten full years of the previous administration-that is between 1947 and 1956 inclusive-farm net income was on the average $1,459 million. In 1958, the first full year of the present government's administration, farm net income reached $1,417 million, or $42 million less than the ten-year average under the former Liberal administration. In 1959 farm net income was only $1,260 million, a figure which represents a drop of about 12 per cent in comparison with that of 1958.
I have not the figures of a farm net income for 1960, but the national accounts provide information on accrued net income of farm operators from farm production. Accrued net income gives some indication of farm net income. The estimate for the first nine months of 1960 showed a further decline of 2.9 per cent as compared with the same period in 1959. These are the most reliable figures available at the moment and they show, first, that in the three full years of Conservative administration farm net income has been consistently lower than the ten-year average under the previous administration. Second, since the first full year of Conservative administration farm income has been declining steadily and the drop may reach as much as 15 per cent.
Those facts give a picture which is far different from the picture given to us by the government. We remember the promises made by the government. Those promises are not going to be fulfilled by the legislation based on this resolution. We remember the promise made to eliminate the cost-price squeeze.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member has made a statement and I should like to ask this question, Mr. Chairman. Can he name one promise we made with regard to agriculture that has not been fulfilled or is not on the way toward being fulfilled?

Agreements Respecting Marginal Lands


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is exactly what 1 am doing now. I said the cost-price squeeze promise has not been fulfilled. Hon. members opposite were going to eliminate the cost-price squeeze. Each farmer was going to know one year in advance the price he would get for his products.


James Stanley Speakman: He does know.


Peter Francis Martin: He does not. We were told that surpluses would be disposed of and that a fair share of the national income would be guaranteed to agriculture. Not one of these promises has been fulfilled after nearly four years of office of the present administration.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Peter Francis Martin: That is why the
farmers of Canada are losing confidence in this government. I want to emphasize the fact that the measure introduced by the present resolution will not do anything to solve any of these problems. In its approach to these problems, as well as in its approach to the problem of unemployment, the government is failing completely to meet its immediate and important responsibilities. It asserts that it is trying to solve the problems of tomorrow but it ignores the urgency of today. The farmers and the industrial unemployed are suffering today. The rosy picture of things to come presented by the government is not going to reduce the present misery in any way. The government has failed completely to see the fundamental changes that have occurred in recent years in Canadian agriculture. Our agriculture is not an homogeneous industry where each unit faces the same problems. Basically agriculture today must be regarded to consist of two main sectors.


Mr. Smallwood:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: When I am finished.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Right now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. The first one includes the actual or potential commercial farmers having a farm of economic size, with good arable land. This sector of Canadian agriculture does not need or want government relief. It needs primarily adequate market outlets, good credit facilities, a continuous flow of information from technical and economic research, efficient processing, distribution and marketing services and adequate protection against abnormal fluctuations in costs and prices. The main requirement, of course, is a growing market which can only be obtained by a prosperous industrial economy at home and expanding trade policies abroad. Those farmers are a great asset to our country
and although they are facing serious difficulties today they are not receiving any encouragement from this government, or certainly not any consistent with the assurances which this administration has given them. On the contrary, the farmers about whom I have been speaking are the main victims-


Mr. Regnier:: I rise on a point of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: *-of the restrictive and protective trade policy of the government.


Laurier Arthur Régnier: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I should like to ask the hon. member who has the floor from what report he is reading.


The Deputy Chairman:: If the hon. member for Essex East does not wish to be interrupted, he is not obliged to permit a question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The second sector of our agricultural economy is composed of those farmers located where the land and other resources are marginal or poorer for farming. In our agricultural economy this type of farmer has become the great victim of automation and technological change just as the unskilled worker has been losing his place in our industrial life.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Who wrote that
speech?


Paul Joseph James Martin: To these questions this government does address itself in this measure but in a way that is so vague as to suggest that the most that can be done is to give it support in principle.
The minister referred to the recommendations of the Senate committee. He read out five of them and I prodded him to read the sixth recommendation of the committee on July 13, 1960. Why did he not read out the recommendations of the same committee on July 8, 1959? The first recommendation provided as follows and I quote from page 488:
That the soil survey being co-operatively carried out by the federal Department of Agriculture, the provincial departments of agriculture and the colleges of agriculture be speeded up and expanded not only in order to complete the soil mapping of the whole settled area of Canada, but also of the unsettled areas.
This policy brought in by this government, commendable as it is in principle, is two years late. Why did it not follow the statement or the magna carta of the Prime Minister, whose speech the hon. gentleman referred to and from which he quoted so extensively a few moments ago. Why did not the minister, who now asks for objective assessment of this resolution, refer to the statement made by the former prime minister of Canada who spoke in Toronto on November 20, 1956 on this very matter?

Agreements Respecting Marginal Lands


James Stanley Speakman: And did nothing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member says he did nothing. May I say that he was the one who set up the committee which drafted the basis for this resolution? Mr. St. Laurent, who did so much for agriculture said this:
I am convinced that some of the land in eastern Canada that hard working Canadians are trying to use as farms should go back to forest and water conservation uses and those attempting to live on them resettled in more rewarding surroundings. I therefore suggest that it should be the urgent business of all levels of government and private enterprise, individual and co-operative, to see to it that agricultural production keeps up with our increase in population and thus provides the farming population with a fair share of the national income.
That is what Mr. St. Laurent said in 1956. The result was the setting up of this committee in the other place, which has done such valuable work, first under the chairmanship of a former distinguished member of this house, the former member for Quebec East, and now under Senator Pearson.
The legislation as outlined by the minister today represents in every particular recommendations made by that committee, directly or indirectly. It is also based on the report of the Gordon commission. I refer to that report of December, 1956, at page 28, where the commission recommended certain things, inter alia. It was suggested that the federal government should co-operate in the same way with any other province where similar problems exist, provided they are assured of the co-operation of the provincial governments concerned. The report says:
We suggest that if the people and the governments of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island are interested in co-operating in such a plan, the federal government should assist the governments of these three provinces-
Then I leave out certain words and quote again from the report of the Gordon commission:
We suggest that in any such appraisal of the best land use in this area, particular attention be directed to increasing the forestry potential with a view to increasing the incomes of the people in this part of the country.
Then the report goes on to point out that what it recommends for these maritime provinces, the Atlantic area, would have equal application to the other provinces of Canada.
The minister has today made no references whatsoever to the valuable work of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. He has before him now, I take it, the model bill provided by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture for the consideration of the government.
I would like to know from the minister later on when he speaks whether the project

that he has in mind is not either that identical bill or one that incorporates its provisions. At any rate, no one can deny that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has made a valuable contribution to this problem. But not one word was uttered by the minister today about that contribution or the representations made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
I have before me the brief of 1957 and the brief of 1959 of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture presented to the Senate committee on land use, studying the problem of the small farm unit. I have, likewise, a copy of the model bill. I ask the minister now, does he not think that he would have strengthened his position by referring to the viewpoints of other bodies, of the farm organizations? Does he not think that if he had given credit to Mr. St. Laurent and to the committee of the other place he would have strengthened his position?
He did not do these things because he is the arch-propagandist of the government and wanted to convey the impression in the country that this government, having given a new vision from which he was now departing, in the former department, was now about to create a newer vision still, one that was going to bring heaven and earth to the farmers of our country.
I say that whatever merit there is in this proposal-and there is, of course, fundamental merit in it, vague as the language is-that is because of the work of Mr.; St. Laurent, of his government, of the committee and bodies like the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
The minister said nothing about particularizations emphasized by the federation. The federation pointed out that this kind of a project, to toe effective, must cover certain areas of activity; it must cover research; it must cover community and industrial development; it must cover agricultural education and extension, vocational training, the reestablishment of economically disadvantageous farms and rural people, land and water conservation, and finally recreation and tourist development.
Are we to understand that because the minister did not include all of the recommendations, the legislation that he has in mind is not intended to be as far-reaching as that? If not, the minister will certainly run counter to the representations made by a body of the farmers of this country who have given careful consideration to this vital and important problem.
What does the minister say about the recommendations made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture with regard to

Agreements Respecting Marginal Lands
taking direct measures to relieve the position of the very low income farmers who have a variety of reasons for little hope, unassisted, of escaping from their present depressed economic position?
What does he say about the proposal to help the diminishing number of farmers who remain in agriculture to use their land to the best possible advantage and increase their income earning potential? What does he say about the recommendations made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture which are to be found in their brief of March 21, 1957, at page 2? What does the minister say about the various statements of the problem beginning at page 3 and extending right on to page 5, numbering seven?
What about the proposed solutions, those dealing with soil, land use and other economic and social surveys, and so on? What does the minister say about the proposal with regard to rehabilitation and re-establishment proposed by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture?
Not one word was said by the minister about the proposal for a special credit agency that must be integrated into a scheme such as this. These are matters which the minister-


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I must rise on a point of personal privilege. The hon. member made a flat statement that I did not refer to the credit scheme and so on. If he had listened to my speech, I made that very clear.


An hon. Member:: Your speech was written yesterday by somebody else.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course, Mr. Chairman, you will observe that that is the kind of observation which the minister is entitled to make by way of argument, but it certainly is not a matter of privilege.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I have stated flatly my point of privilege as quietly and as courteously as I can, that the hon. member for Essex East has misinformed the house when he says I did not mention that matter. I told him very quietly and courteously that I did mention it. When I catch him in an untruth, he says it is not a question of privilege.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that this is the second time the Minister of Agriculture has taken up my time with points of order that are not points of order and with questions of privilege that are not questions of privilege. However, I have no objection.
If some of the matters referred to in these two briefs were to be implied in the speech of the minister given a few moments ago, 90205-6-90
he will have an opportunity to clearly indicate them. All I am now saying is that the minister did not refer to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture at all. He made no reference to their briefs, and I am surely entitled to say that the minister has ignored their recommendations and in the plan he has in mind he seemingly has no intention of following their recommendations. I know the minister is impatient; he does not like these things being pointed out to him. But he is the author of his present difficulty, and I am not.
The situation, briefly, is this. The former government under Mr. St. Laurent recognized that something had to be done-


An hon. Member:: Why didn't you do it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: -over the long term to deal with agriculture. Toward that end he caused to be set up in the other place a study that has been made progressively up until this time. That study, according to the other place is not yet finished. It is a study that will in the long term address itself to at least 25 per cent of the farming population of our country, and in other particulars to all of the farmers of our country, in a manner designed to deal with the fundamental crisis that does face agriculture at the present time.
Any measure designed to meet that fundamental situation will receive the support of every member of this house. It will encourage the co-operation of government at all levels, provincial and municipal as well as federal, and all voluntary bodies.
The minister says he does not intend to proceed with this measure right away; that he does not intend to proceed until the provinces have had an opportunity of examining this legislation in detail. I say that having brought forward a proposal such as this, having taken these various steps, the minister must not now, on the occasion of his first presentation of agricultural policy to this house, regard this so-called achievement of his as in any way meeting or satisfying the promises made by the Prime Minister and other members of the government to the farmers of Canada in the elections of 1957 and 1958.
The farmers are now faced with a critical situation in terms of loss of income. The Minister of Agriculture himself acknowledged this when he pointed out the number of farmers in Saskatchewan whose income is less than $1,200 a year-the number of farms in Ontario, the largest province, from which income has fallen to below substandard levels. That is a statement of the situation in our country. The minister, together with the anxious members who sit behind him, must
1412	HOUSE OF
Agreements Respecting Marginal Lands not think that by the introduction of this measure they are going to satisfy the farmers who today are concerned about their income position.
This, like the other legislation introduced by this government before Christmas, is designed in principle to meet the long term need. It overlooks, it evades the present situation. The legislation respecting vocational training, the legislation with regard to small business and the establishment of a productivity council-these were measures introduced by the government prior to Christmas-were all long term in their effects. But hon. gentlemen opposite sought in their design to give the impression to the Canadian people that the government had embarked on a vigorous campaign to alleviate unemployment conditions in our country.
Now, again today, this government by royal commission, this government of procrastination, ineptness and postponement, seeks to convey to the Canadian farmers as it did to the Canadian industrial worker, that it is going to meet their problems by introducing something which has all the earmarks of full acceptability but which is not designed, as the minister's own words indicate, to cope with the actual conditions confronting the Canadian farmer.
I again offer the hon. gentleman my congratulations on being named Minister of Agriculture. I had hoped he would have been able in the first instance to address himself immediately to the crisis currently confronting the farmers of Canada. Since he has not done that, he may be assured that this measure, to the extent that it will help in meeting the problems facing the farmers of Canada in the long term, will receive our full support. But as one who represents in this house many farmers I deplore and regret that once again we are going to be given, this time through the new Minister of Agriculture, a further demonstration of the government's utter incapacity to meet the problems facing the Canadian people.


Mr. Charlton:: Would the hon. member for Essex East permit a question? Did the federal Department of Agriculture between the years 1935 and 1957, during which years the hon. member for Essex East was a member of the government, ever assist the soil survey work carried out for 30 years by the department of agriculture in Ontario?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member, who does me the favour of saying I was a member of the government for all that length of time, has been in this house for about as long as I have, and I should not need to have to remind him that no one has made a greater contribution to agriculture, ministerially, than


the former minister of agriculture who had the responsibility, for example, of administering P.F.R.A. With regard to soil studies, would the hon. member deny that the federal government did assist the province of Ontario in studies of the very kind to which he is referring. Would he deny that the agricultural school at Ste. Anne de Bellevue-


Some hon. Members:: Answer the question.


The Chairman:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am answering the question. Would he deny that assistance was given-Mr. Chairman, you must restrict these primitives here who will not enable me to make a reply. I would also answer the question by saying that soil studies-the former government authorized studies to be made by the agricultural college at Ste. Anne de Bellevue for the purpose of finding out more about soil. Indeed, the federal government under Mr. St. Laurent and Mackenzie King made all sorts of grants to all sorts of bodies for this and for other studies.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that P.F.R.A. was started by the former minister of agriculture and I should like to correct the record on that point-


Peter Francis Martin: I did not say
that. I recognize that an earlier minister of agriculture, Mr. Weir, was among those responsible for its origin, along with Mr. Thompson and a Mr. Spence, a former member of parliament. But in any event the main administration, the real foundation for P.F.R.A. was the responsibility of the government of Mackenzie King and St. Laurent and the administration was carried out by Mr. James Gardiner.


Hazen Robert Argue: I listened with a great deal of interest to the statement of the Minister of Agriculture. Certainly all members of the house will support any program, no matter how long term its nature, which promises to bring some measure of stability to the agriculture industry. The whole question of conservation of land and water use, rural redevelopment and so on is something which has occupied the minds of former governments, all members of this house and all members of the other place for a long time, and we shall await with interest the development of any program directed towards this laudable objective.
The statement made by the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon was very wordy. It contained a lot of fine phraseology, but I think it lacked any great substance and failed to throw any very clear light on what the government is, in fact, proposing to do.

The hon. member for Essex East made a very interesting statement to the committee. No doubt the fact that the Liberal party has such a large array of very competent and highly qualified research assistants has assisted the hon. gentleman.
I do not want in any way to detract from the hon. member for Essex East who shows in this chamber a great capacity to appear well-informed on subjects about which he has very little knowledge. I shall always remember and admire how on one occasion the hon. gentleman spoke eloquently for almost 30 minutes on the whole question of deficiency payments. I thought at the time how much better it would have been if the hon. gentleman had spent one or two minutes briefing himself with respect to the definition of deficiency payments.
I wish to welcome back to the chamber the Minister of Agriculture. He has been here only once or twice since parliament reconvened. He has become a rather transient or travelling minister. On most days during this session I have had prepared questions on agriculture to ask to the minister but he was not in the house because he had very important engagements to fulfil in various parts of this country.
The hon. member for Essex East has referred to the minister as the arch propagandist of the government. This government needs a salesman and the minister is doing his best to sell a very difficult product to the Canadian electorate, namely the record of the government.
I believe the minister is wise in not attempting to push through parliament the bill that will follow this resolution before consulting with the provincial governments. I think a great error was made on a former occasion with respect to the crop insurance bill when the government took a rather highhanded attitude and introduced the legislation, pushed it through and made a provision under which the great bulk of the cost of crop insurance would be borne by the provincial governments and insured farmers and little would be borne by this government.
I hope that in the negotiations that take place in working toward agreements under this proposed measure the government will be generous in its contribution, will give some leadership to the province and will embark upon programs that will assist in agricultural redevelopment and in the improvement of rural life.
The great question facing the farmers of this country is the matter of current income and markets for current products. The measure before the committee this afternoon is a long term one. I do not say that tree planting, tree farming and pulpwood farming 90205-6-90J
Agreements Respecting Marginal Lands do not have some part to play in the agricultural economy but in going about the nation talking to farmers the present minister has become known as the Christmas tree Minister of Agriculture.
When you tell the farmer that the answer to his problems under the latest proposal of the government is that he should plant trees and produce pulpwood he will say, "That is fine for my grandchildren, but what am I going to do to sell my current products at a reasonable price?"
The minister said the government had four agricultural policies. This will be the fourth measure placed on the statute books. The minister said these policies would provide solutions to the problems of agriculture. In the judgment of this group the first and foremost policy this government should adopt and which it has failed to provide is one that would establish parity prices for agricultural commodities.
The government's legislation on the statute books in relation to support prices for agricultural commodities has been in the main a cruel hoax. Following the passage of Bill No. 237, as it was then known, farmers across Canada felt that under that legislation the government would provide parity prices for agricultural commodities. The fact of the matter is, as the record shows, that under this government's price support policies, with deficiency payments and the establishment of averages, the farmer in the main has received lower prices for the chief products that have been supported than he received in the years immediately prior to this government taking office. Instead of receiving improved prices for hogs and eggs the farmer has received lower prices under the program adopted by this government. The first thing this government should do is to fulfil its election commitments establishing parity-not charity- prices, instead of the present policy the government follows which has provided neither parity nor charity as far as the average farmer is concerned.
The second essential thing in terms of agricultural policy which is not dealt with in this resolution is the need to provide markets for surplus agricultural commodities. There is a great challenge facing this government. It is not one of shutting down the small farm which this legislation must inevitably mean as well as the consolidation of farms. This legislation, of course, means that. The challenge is not that of pushing the small farm out of existence to provide an acceleration of economic units. The great challenge is to move the vast glut of surplus agriculture products to market. This is the challenge and the minister in this instance should raise his sights.
1414	HOUSE OF
Agreements Respecting Marginal Lands The government should be undertaking programs to get rid of our wheat, barley and butter.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Would the hon. member permit a question. I would like to ask the hon. member where he was when the Vancouver grain handlers strike was on for three weeks at which time we could have shipped another 10 million bushels of wheat?


Hazen Robert Argue: According to the Canadian wheat board we did not lose any sales. I have the floor, Mr. Chairman. It is this government that was and is responsible. This is a work for the general advantage of Canada. This is the minister who sat with hands folded and did nothing. The minister and the government allowed the strike to go on without exerting authority.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Answer my
question. Where were you?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Where were you?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Was the hon. gentleman in the bulrushes?


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister may reply later if he wishes. The hon. gentleman has a great facility for distracting attention and setting up a kind of sideshow.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is one.


Hazen Robert Argue: The government has failed to deal with agricultural policies relating to support prices and markets for surplus commodities and in view of its abysmal failure in order to distract attention it has set up this sideshow which is nice entertainment. We are appreciative of it but it is only a sideshow in relation to the great problems facing the agricultural communities.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Every farmer wants to know where the hon. gentleman was.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister said he was going to raise his sights with respect to getting markets for Canadian wheat. When he did so he got his sights up to a mark 20 million bushels lower than the accomplishment of the former minister of trade and commerce. This inability of the Minister of Agriculture to dispose of the surplus agricultural commodities in the world today condemns the government's over-all agricultural policy.
The third proposal I suggest in this period of depressed markets is farm storage of surplus farm commodities, particularly grain. I suggest that in conjunction with such a policy there should be guaranteed to the grain producers of western Canada an annual quota of eight bushels per specified acre. If the government fails to obtain markets adequate for producers to fulfil this quota then


they should be paid for grain held on the farm. With respect to the difference between the amount sold and that held on the farm they should be paid farm storage as well. That, Mr. Chairman, would be a great step forward in the development of an over-all agricultural policy.
I would suggest that in this resolution providing for the improvement of agriculture generally there should be a provision for national marketing boards to provide, at the producer's request, stability in the assembling, processing and marketing of agricultural products. The government should cease and desist from the policy of tearing down the stabilized marketing system for grain that has been built up by so many years of sacrifice and at such great cost in energy on the part of the people who were supporting it.
The government is wrong and in error in its policy of allowing feed mills of this country literally to steal grain from producers who are in distressed circumstances at prices lower than the Canadian wheat board-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The Chair has been quite lenient with the hon. member. He has been wandering all over the general agricultural field, and I would ask the hon. member to stick more to the resolution than he has been doing.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, the minister ranged very widely in his discussion. I think you will have to agree that he discussed the whole ambit of the government's agricultural policy. He did not stick to this one resolution. He talked about agricultural credit, he talked about the government's proposed support program, and so on. I am not going to deal at length with other things that I think should be in this program or to deal at length with comments on those other policies. I suggest that since the minister, in introducing this statement, discussed not only the provisions of this motion but other parts of the agricultural program, it is in order for hon. members on this side of the house to make comments, not as the minister did on the adequacy of the government's over-all program but rather on the inadequacy of the government's over-all program.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the hon. member proceeds, I should like to support what he has said on the point of order because it will arise in connection with other hon. members over here. I was listening to the hon. member for Assiniboia very carefully. What he was saying was that instead of doing what is recommened in the resolution, certain other things should be done first.

This resolution begins with "It is expedient". Now, surely, the main point that one is asking on this resolution is whether this is expedient or something else is expedient. It seems to me it would be an abridgment of our traditional rights to restrict the discussion as suggested. In any event, it would be an abridgment of our traditional rights to seek to limit us in the way in which the hon. member says the minister was not limited.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: May I speak on the point of order? I should like to support the stand taken by the hon. member for Assiniboia and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, for this reason. This is one of the major parts of the government's national agricultural program and can be discussed intelligently only if the whole program can be referred to and discussed in toto. I would suggest it would do great harm to the discussion of this bill at the resolution stage, and certainly at the second reading stage, if we limited the discussion to the narrow terms of this part of the national agricultural program.


Charles Edward Rea: May I say just one thing. Of course, under standing order 59(2) speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration. The Chair does not make the rules; the Chair tries to interpret them and the Chair tends to be very lenient in so far as that is possible.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And the Chair is very fair.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think we are all in a very generous mood at the moment. While I agree very much with the Chairman, that the rule must be enforced, there is another well-known practice in this house and that is, if there is unanimous agreement, our own procedure is in our own hands. I think, however, on the point of order the minister is correct, that in dealing with such a large part of the government's agricultural policy it is very difficult not to make reference to other parts or, indeed, to make proposals as to additional projects which should be contained in the resolution.
I was pointing out, Mr. Chairman, that I thought there should be provision for national marketing. I want to make it the fifth suggestion. As part of the government's agricultural program a board of livestock commissioners should be established to provide for scientific grading standards to protect farmers' interests in the market. I think that such a board would receive the support of the agricultural community and could do a good deal to ensure that farmers were given fair
Agreements Respecting Marginal Lands grades for the products they sell and when given a fair grade get an appropriate price for that grade at that time.
As point six I suggest that if we are to provide for the stabilization of agriculture and for rural development in the world as we know it the government should have the support of this house in all of its efforts to have a workable international food pool established under the United Nations. This is another long term proposal, of course. A working international food pool is essential, not just from the standpoint of the co-ordination of the agricultural industry in exporting nations but it is necessary to the welfare of people in all parts of the world.
The seventh suggestion I have to make is that steps should be taken at an early date to provide that some of our surplus food should be made available by appropriate means to low income groups within our society. At a time when there is widespread unemployment there is naturally a growing demand that the government undertake measures to make surplus Canadian food more readily available to Canadians who have inadequate and low incomes.
At this point, I might say I hope that this government will no longer delay action in making available surplus food from Canada to help starving peoples wherever they may be, and I have special reference to starvation in the Congo at this time.
Point number eight that I have listed here, Mr. Chairman, is an improvement and an extension of the provisions of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act which I think are part and parcel of any kind of a rural redevelopment program. I think the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, which has been on the statute books for many years, is the kind of program that, if developed, will meet loss of income through crop failure much more adequately than the crop insurance scheme that is now on the statute books, a scheme that in the very nature of things will be available for many years to come only to a minority of agricultural producers, that minority being those producers who have few crop failures and therefore can afford to pay the lower rates * of insurance.
The need for support for rural income, the need for the development of an agricultural program, is very great. I want to remind the Minister of Agriculture that in his statement about the program he is putting forward there was no reference to the need of assistance to farmers in the development of a system of adequate farm to market roads. The minister may throw up his hands and say: This has no part in a national government policy. I differ. I think it is time we had a national road policy in this country.
1416	HOUSE OF
Agreements Respecting Marginal Lands The United States have had one since 1912 whereby federal money and federal leadership are provided in establishing transcontinental highways and in constructing farm to market roads and roads over which school buses travel.
The cost of roads in rural Canada with its diminishing population is one of the heaviest burdens that exist for farmers today. Taxes for roads are high, and if the government wishes to do something that will assist the small farmer and will assist the development of rural areas I suggest that this is a provision that cannot be overlooked. I know that the minister has studied very carefully, and I congratulate him for it, the reports of the Saskatchewan royal commission on agriculture and rural life, and he knows from these reports that very great emphasis has been placed on the need of establishing an adequate road system for agricultural users.
There is another proposal I wish to make and it is one that has been made by members of this group for many years. There should be more adequate provision by the federal government for educational services in Canada. Roads and education represent two of the very high costs that rural people must pay and these costs increase for all rural people as population diminishes and more economic units are established.
The policy put forward in the resolution will help but by itself it is inadequate and in conjunction with other policies of the government will not, the main policy having already failed, meet the chief problems of agricultural income and agricultural markets. The minister is wise in saying that we should not be asked to proceed with second reading of the bill until the government has had a chance to negotiate with the provinces but I suggest that this leaves parliament in a rather invidious position. We are asked to support the resolution and give approval in principle to the introduction of a certain bill which will be given first reading. After we have gone that far the minister presumably will then begin a journey to various parts of the country to discuss a bill which has not been given second reading involving approval in principle by the House of Commons and which may be amended very materially in the normal course of events.
I think the government should have had more particular conversations with the provinces. I think the government should have discussed with the provinces not only its general policies but in greater detail the kind of recommendations it hoped to make to parliament and that the government should have then introduced and recommended a


bill to the house which had been drafted after having had thorough and adequate discussions with the provinces.
I tell the Minister of Agriculture, and with this I conclude my remarks, that the government should do much better in this legislation than it has done in the crop insurance legislation, that under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act over the years very little of the cost has been placed on the shoulders of provincial governments or on the backs of the farmers. The main cost has been borne by the federal government. The proportionate amount of money spent by the federal government on this program and the willingness of the government to correct its policies with regard to agricultural supports and markets will in the main decide whether or not the future will see established a successful agricultural policy.


Mr. While:: Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the question about procedure and I feel that if I read one phrase from the resolution it will make what I have to say quite in order. I refer to the words: "and projects for the development and conservation of the soil and water resources of Canada".
I want to congratulate the minister and the government upon the introduction of this resolution which can be very far-reaching as far as agriculture is concerned. I must say that I have had quite a number of inquiries regarding the ramifications of the resolution and the bill which will follow. These inquiries show a very deep appreciation of the work envisaged by the minister in this resolution, and so I take pleasure in congratulating him and the government upon its introduction.
What I want to say will have particular reference to western Ontario, old Ontario. I have just been reading some words of the Prime Minister as found on page 44 of Hansard for November 21. At that time he said:
By 1990, unless something is done, Canada is going to run out of wholesome water.
That, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, is only 30 years away. It was my privilege recently to visit Australia and for those hon. members who have not had that opportunity may I say that we do not appreciate to the full the great water resources that we in this country enjoy. The vast interior of that continent is arid or semi-arid, many areas having a rainfall of only three inches or less per year and temperatures for a good part of the time ranging from the 90's to 120. The Australians appreciate water and are making great strides in conserving all that they have.

This applies also to Israel. I also had the opportunity of visiting that land and seeing the great efforts they are putting forth there to bring fresh water to the Negeb desert. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the problems of conservation of water, timber and soil in our country are great. Many years ago a sage, whose name I cannot recall at the moment said: "Show me an eroded soil and I will show you an eroded people".
The county from which I come, namely Middlesex, has less than 7 per cent of its land area in timber. Consequently water conservation has been and is a continuing and, in fact, a worsening problem. Neither has there been enough attention paid to nor have there been sufficient rewards for those farmers who have attempted to retain some bushland. Bush cover is basic to water conservation. Dams are spectacular-I have said this before-and they may be corrective to a degree but they are not fundamental.
While what I have to say is probably pertinent to the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources it also applies to this resolution. There is pending an agreement between the federal government, the provincial government and the Thames valley authority at Fanshawe. This agreement providing for the rounding out and developing of the Thames valley authority conservation project will be signed on Saturday next. It will be signed by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and for the province of Ontario by Mr. John Robarts, the minister of education for the province of Ontario and also the member for London North.
This project which was commenced many years ago resulted in the Fanshawe dam as the first major step. The proposed work now being undertaken will attempt to round out this development scheme and will cost approximately $10 million. This has been welcome news to the area and I emphasize that fact. I also want to endorse the project wholeheartedly. I do not want any misunderstanding about this matter. I want it thoroughly and distinctly understood that I endorse the project. However, in so doing, may I say that there are some remarks I wish to make and some points I wish to bring to the attention of the two ministers.
However, before embarking on this Thames valley project, may I say that there are some local problems which deserve consideration at the federal, provincial, municipal and Thames valley authority level. The Canada Water Conservation Act envisages the wise use of natural resources. When the Fanshawe and Thames valley project began the federal government of that day contributed 37i per
Agreements Respecting Marginal Lands cent to the cost but it was distinctly understood that federal money was not available for municipal water supply systems. However, the result has been that Fanshawe lake has become a city water reservoir. Flood control, while certainly a part of conservation, is not intended to be a flood control system for primarily one municipality. I refer you, Mr. Chairman, to an editorial in the London Free Press of July 30, 1956, which was some time ago. It states in part as follows:
A. M. Snider, chairman of the Ontario water resources commission, has warned the London public utilties that the city has no priority on water from Fanshawe lake-
However, in spite of these warnings and this knowledge there were incorporated in the Fanshawe dam facilities for the withdrawal of water that was impounded, and since that time up to 3J million gallons per day have been taken out of Fanshawe lake and put into the area adjacent where the public utilities commission of the city of London have deep wells. In other words, they are using the area as a filtration system and they are removing, as I said, 3i million gallons of water per day or 2,275 million gallons of water a year. I ask this question: What does the public utilities commission pay to the Thames valley authority for this water?
The story told at the time was that the increased flow of water by conservation methods would provide a greater flow of clean water down the Thames river through the city of London. However, what has actually happened is that the flow has not been increased to any great extent but the water was used, as I mentioned before, as a domestic supply, loaded with sewage in the process and dumped back into the river below the city to the detriment of everyone below.
The polluted Thames is a local disgrace. Local municipalities, local members of parliament and local M.L.A.'s believe that the solution to this problem is a pipe line from lake Huron or lake Erie. For over 50 years the city of London has depended on deep wells adjacent to the city for a municipal water supply. There are 57 wells, over 20 miles of pipe line and a filtration plant built during the past year at a cost of $993,000 or almost $1 million. Back in 1873, during the second session of the second legislature of the province of Ontario, there was passed a bill entitled "An act for the construction of water works for the city of London". Among the provisions of that act I want to bring this particular one to your attention:
5. It shall and may be lawful for the said commissioners, their agents, servants, and workmen.
1418	HOUSE OF
Agreements Respecting Marginal Lands
from time to time, and at such times hereafter as they shall see fit, and they are hereby authorized and empowered to enter into and upon the lands of any person or persons, bodies politic or corporate, in the city of London, or within fifteen miles of the said city and to survey, set out, and ascertain such parts thereof as they may require for the purposes of the said water-works, and also to divert and appropriate any river, pond of water, spring or stream of water therein, as they shall judge suitable and proper-
That provision might have been all right in 1873 when there were a few thousands of people in the city of London. However, today we have a city with a population of 162,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is a fine city.


George Stanley White: By conservative estimates it is expected that the population of London will be 300,000 in the next 20 years. In other words, the present method of securing water is not satisfactory. In other words, water is being stolen from the surrounding farms and it is just about time that this was discontinued.
In addition to this city of London bill, there are several other provincial bills that have set up the water resources commission and others, but they have not corrected the glaring injustice that has been heaped on the surrounding municipalities. There are untold examples I could quote. However, I am going to use this one of which I know from a personal experience. I refer to a well in which the water 50 years ago was within six feet of the top. Today it is 68 feet to the water level. Yet the public utilities commission would tell us that this procedure is not reducing the water table in western Ontario. I am using this example from the county of Middlesex, but the situation applies to practically all of old Ontario west of Toronto. I am not so well acquainted with the rest of the province.
The Ontario water resources commission admit that surface wells in western Ontario will fail in the not too distant future. They also admit that deep artesian wells now owned by farmers are destined to fail if continued and unrestricted exploitation continues. Therefore I think the time has arrived when some action should be taken on the part of the governments concerned, at all levels. Today more farmers in the area are short of water than ever before. Some are drawing water from ponds and lakes; some are buying water.
In addition to this, London's water supply is known as hard water, and some industries and householders are paying more for water softeners and water softening equipment than they are paying for the water they soften. Yet western Ontario is nearly surrounded by


fresh, soft water. There is fresh water and there is soft water. There is lake Huron on the north, lake St. Clair, the river St. Clair and river Detroit on the west, and lake Erie to the south.
The London public utilities commission is now engaged in drilling for water within approximately 15 miles of lake Erie. In other words, they are pretty near out in the lake drilling for water now, but at the same time they are stealing water from surrounding municipalities. I doubt whether 15 per cent of the farm population in my area have deep wells.
The city of London is saying to these farmers, "If we dry your well, we will supply you with water". But supposing a few years hence the farmer drills a well and the water table has lowered to the point where he does not reach water? Are they going to supply it to him? No, definitely not. And if they do supply it to him, they will only supply it at a price.
We should take a look at the history of other lands once fertile, green and forested, which over the centuries have become denuded of trees, short of water, and semi-arid. They are the bible lands, Babylon, Greece, north Africa and the Mediterranean area. If we take a look to the south, to the United States, we see that there one farmer in every four is co-operating in the nation's conservation plans.
In Canada we have polluted lakes and rivers, and the hon. member for Lambton West has drawn this very graphically to the attention of the authorities from time to time. The royal commission on forestry reported in 1947 that in old Ontario over five million acres of waste land should be returned to forest.
According to Rand McNally's standard world atlas, Canada's land area is shown as being only 3 per cent arable, and then we talk rather glibly about our inexhaustible natural resources.
It is in this regard that I welcome, as I said before, the introduction today of this resolution by the minister. Following on what I have already stated, we have now arrived at a time when I believe we should protect the rights of minorities. I would respectfully refer to the other place. This was one of the duties assigned to the other place at the time of confederation.
Legislation that would define the rights to water resources is overdue. The Ontario water resources commission is so far, the only hope, as it is aware of this problem confronting all of old Ontario and is making far-reaching studies in this connection.
I apologize to the house for taking up a little time in dealing with what is in a way

a local problem, but at the same time it affects all of old Ontario. I hope the necessary steps will be taken in the not too distant future to equitably distribute this great natural resource of ours, water.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) I want to congratulate the new Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) for his recent appointment as head of that department. I hope his period of office as such will be a fruitful, albeit a short one.
After three and a half years of Conservative administration, we have just heard the Minister of Agriculture, the second generation of ministers of agriculture in the third session of this 24th parliament under Conservative rule-establish a program which is supposed to save 38 per cent of our Canadian farms from bankruptcy.
After the report we just heard, we may wonder, as do the farmers in this country, whether the new minister has not come down to us from the far north, to give us a shortlived joy, as does a Santa Claus. But whether he comes from one point or another, we are pleased that he discovered the existence of a serious problem with regard to marginal and submarginal farms in this country.
I remember that the former minister of agriculture had also become aware of a serious farm problem, but, after having been at the head of his department for two years and a half, he said, as we may see in Hansard of February 23, 1960 on page 1352 when speaking of the technical evolution which was taking place in agriculture:
This evolution has created entirely new conditions which require new thinking, new approaches and new policies if the new situations which have arisen as a result of this technological revolution are to be met successfully, or if there is to be any hope of meeting them successfully. We have recognized that this is the situation, and we have demonstrated it by the numerous new policies we have put into effect and which we think have a very good chance of solving the agricultural problems which have existed in this country now for many years past.
And he said:
The numerous new policies . . . have a very good chance-
And I shall underline the word "chance", -of solving the agricultural problems which have existed in this country.
At the time he was heading that department it seemed that our farm policy was based, not on principles, but on chance. He has taken his chance, but it was not auspicious, and the former minister later fell out of favour.
Agreements Respecting Marginal Lands
I intend to prove my statement and, to that end, I shall quote what the previous minister said at a conference in Calgary, as reported in the Calgary Herald of September 26, 1960:
(Text):
The minister said the government will soon start a large scale rural development program to help the lower third of Canadian farmers. These farmers, he said, have an annual income of $1,000 or less and the government is now making a study of ways for them to increase their earning power.
Such ways may involve encouraging them to develop the tourist industry in their area, to branch into forestry operation or work in small factories established with the continuing industrialization of the country.
(Translation):
So much for the achievements of the former minister. What can we expect from the second generation of ministers of agriculture? In an effort to salvage the prestige of his government, the new minister has recently made a tour of the country and delivered several stirring speeches. At the farmer's union convention in Guelph he said, for instance, the following, as reported in La Terre de Chez Nous of November 2, 1960.
For goodness' sake, let us stop once and for all pitting eastern farmers against the western farmers, and city people against farm people.
Such was the minister's plea during this the first major speech he made after being nominated to the Department of Agriculture to succeed the new Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness).
And he went on to say:
All of us must recognize that the basic problems of agriculture are an essential and vital matter for all areas of this country, without distinction. The solution to Canada's economic ills is "a deep and comprehensive attack on all fronts at the same time aimed at correcting their weaknesses at their very source."
A few days later, at a federal-provincial conference he made another statement outlining the major points of his program, a program he has put into concrete form by the resolution now under discussion.
I want to point out that at this federal-provincial conference, which was held here in Ottawa on November 9 and 10, 1960, 75 per cent of the subjects that were dealt with had to do with matters related to western agriculture. Eastern farmers' problems were pushed into the background. Yet, there are serious problems in the east; there are problems of family farms. There is the dairy problem. The Minister of Agriculture has not too much sympathy for eastern Canada, and we do not see him there very often.

Agreements Respecting Marginal Lands
At the meeting of the Ottawa valley milk producers, according to a report of the Journal of November 23, 1960, the minister said:
(Text):
Grow trees instead of cereals on marginal and submarginal land-
Just because you have been taught for generations and generations that the tree is the enemy of the farmer and have been taught to save the soil for cereals, it does not mean that is true.
(Translation):
I would not want to repeat what he said a moment ago about those 20 million acres of land in the province of Ontario, 8 million of which are submarginal.
Again about the problems out west, he added:
(Text):
Every million acres taken out of wheat production and put into other forms of production means 20 million bushels less wheat added to our surplus each year.
He said the market for forest products was practically assured because the demand for them was expected to rise by 140 per cent by 1975.
He reiterated the 20 year old suggestion that Ottawa valley farmers could save 10 cents a bushel on western oats if they bought the grain once a year and stored it themselves.
If 50 farmers got together and bought through their local dealer western oats in bulk, saving insurance, storage rates, the price at Ottawa could be 84.6 cents a bushel instead of the 95.2 cents now paid.
One farmer said he bought locally grown oats at 75 cents a bushel.
(Translation):
That goes to prove that the Minister of Agriculture is unfamiliar with the situation in eastern Canada.
His remarks left us wondering what he had in mind. Later on we heard he had said in Saskatoon, as reported in the Western Producer for December 8, 1960, when he again referred to the conversion of Ontario land for reforestation purposes:
(Text):
The minister said much of this land could be converted to woodlots and tree farms and the farmer would get a bigger return per acre than he was doing at present. Mr. Hamilton conceded that growing trees was a slow process but suggested plans were afoot to enable farmers to obtain a good living in the interim.
(Translation):
After making such statements, the Minister of Agriculture stated again, as I said earlier:
For goodness' sake, let us stop pitting eastern farmers against western farmers, and the city people against farm people.
Mr. Chairman, I must point out that eastern farmers have no grievance against western farmers, no more than city people have against farm people. This notion exists only in the minister's mind.

Whenever farm policies favourable to the western farmers have been implemented, their eastern counterparts have rejoiced.
Mr. Chairman, if we look closely at this resolution, we find that the government has merely sought to implement some recommendations advocated by the great Liberal party of the time, headed by the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent.
In fact, in 1957 Mr. St. Laurent asked a Senate committee to investigate the matter of land use. The duties of that committee were as follows:
To investigate and submit a report on land use in Canada and on the steps required to ensure the best possible use of our land for the benefit of this country and the Canadian economy and, especially, in order to increase our farm output and the income of those taking part in it.
That committee on land use has been sitting for four years. Today those recommendations are taking concrete form in the resolution now under discussion.
In principle, the resolution contains all the components of a policy designed to increase the income of marginal farms.
However, if only the practical aspect of the question is taken into account, it is to be feared that this legislation is a mere smokescreen to conceal the government's incompetence. Is not the agricultural stabilization act itself a smokescreen?
Does not the preamble of that act state that:
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.
And what happened since? Whereas the farm produce index reached 245.5 in 1958, on the basis of 100 for the average of the years 1935-1939, it fell to 242.9 in 1959, and 235.2 in August 1960.
Now, if we look at the cost index for goods and services acquired by our farmers, we see that it rose from 259.9 in 1958 to 269.5 in 1959, and 279.6 in August 1960.
Yet, we have heard fine speeches stating that this legislation would restore to our farmers their deserved share of the national revenue.
It is to be feared that, after a three and a half years' experience under a Conservative rule, the expected results fall somewhat short of the enthusiasm expressed by the new minister.

There is, as a matter of fact, enough matter in the resolution to rouse more than enthusiasm. Credit must be given to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, for having submitted a brief to the Senate committee on land use on May 13, 1959.
The government should commend our farmers for the objective work they did in finding realistic solutions for their problems.
However, it is unfortunate that the former minister of agriculture should not have applied the recommendations which were made to him in the last two or three years.
We had to wait until Providence sent us a minister whose qualifications as a seer are greater than his farming experience.
The resolution we are now asked to approve is, to my mind, the second stage of a land improvement program.
I think that the first phase, before introducing such a project, should have consisted in setting up an advisory committee in each province which would, later, have been able to give counsel and advice and make recommendations adapted to local needs.
I did indeed advocate such legislation in this house on February 2, 1959, as we can see on page 578 of Hansard. I said this:
There would he much to say concerning another item of the Liberal program which is indirectly related to the establishment of an agricultural expansion bank. I am referring to the setting up of an agricultural advisory council in each province, on which the federal and provincial authorities would be represented.
Anyway, this recommendation was made by the committee in 1959.
This council would have to study the problems of agriculture within a province and make just and proper recommendations to the federal government.
I cannot agree with the central government enacting legislation for better land use to which the provinces would be required to contribute financially if they were not consulted. On the other hand, according to the experience of the United States in the field of assistance to marginal farms and before adopting such a program, we must define what constitutes a marginal family farm. What are the income possibilities of a family farm? What is the income potential of the members of the family both on and outside the farm? What are the available agricultural resources? What are the possible adjustments in farm operations or use to increase their revenues? To determine the costs of the program we need fairly accurate answers
Agreements Respecting Marginal Lands to all those questions. I believe that a provincial advisory committee on agriculture would have been able to inform the ministers pretty accurately if the government had created one at the right time.
In his speech, the minister did not refer to the costs of this program. He did not tell us what the provincial and federal governments' responsibilities would be. He did not say how those responsibilities would be apportioned. He did not assess the costs of this program to each government; he did not say how the farmers who will engage in retimbering will live before they get any income out of it.
A prominent agricultural expert has told me that farmers who want to retimber their lands should receive a reasonable amount for each retimbered acre until the trees are there.
Certain farmers who will retimber some five or ten acres will have to depend on an already inadequate income to provide for their families.
What will the government do to keep those families on the farm? We would have liked the minister to tell us more about that.
Mr. Chairman, the family farm is an essential part of Canadian economy. We depend on the farm to feed and clothe the ever-increasing population of this country.
Unfortunately, many farm owners lack adequate income to provide their family with a decent standard of living. Yet, it is recognized that when agriculture prospers, the whole nation benefits.
The Canadian farmer has a right to demand a standard of living equal to the level of the general economy to which he has contributed. With the policy of the Conservative government, we did not reach that goal.
Because of the cost-price squeeze, I do not feel that the present policy will improve the condition of the average farmer.
The resolution now before this house will have long term effects. Farmers will have to wait for a change of government before they can benefit from short term policies.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska permit me a question?


Samuel Boulanger: Yes, but beware of the answer.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Can the hon. member tell me what he thinks about the farm policy of the previous government which, when in power,
1422	HOUSE OF
Agreements Respecting Marginal Lands used to serve U.S. potatoes in Hungarian refugee camps in British Columbia?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That question surely does not deserve an answer.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It is one that hurts, isn't it? (Text):


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, I regret I was not in my seat during the earlier part of this debate and therefore missed the opportunity of hearing what was said by the hon. member for Essex East. I always listen with interest to his speeches on agricultural matters. My interest originated some years ago when the hon. member spoke in my constituency during one of the election campaigns of 1957 or 1958. He made a speech which fortunately for me in connection with the next election still lingers in the memory of the people and the farmers of the Peace river country. I believe the text of his message was that the farmers in the last two or three years had never had it so good. I am sure the hon. member will forgive me if I say that his speech recalls to my mind Edwin Markham's poem "The Man With the Hoe". I frequently think of that poem when the hon. member speaks on agricultural matters. I understand I am taking some poetic licence, but the first few lines, as hon. members will recall, go something like this:
Bowed by the weight of centuries he leans Upon his hoe and gazes on the ground,
The emptiness of ages in his face.
And on his back the burden of the world.
I always think that that well describes the hon. member when he speaks on agricultural matters.
This afternoon the hon. member for As-siniboia gave his views on this resolution. I think they consisted merely of a repetition of the threadbare, shop-worn cliches which for so many years he has been attempting to suggest contain the elements which are required by the agricultural industry for its betterment and improvement. For one who aspires to wear the toga of the leader of this new party he is far from giving us information on what are the true facte today.
It is recognized by responsible agricultural statesmen in both Canada and the United States that some of the measures which the hon. member has suggested may, it is true, have some slight or temporary palliative effects, but the true remedies lie much deeper than those. There are far more fundamental changes which require to be made


and this, I think, is certainly accepted by this government in this measure which is a part of the pattern of change which has been emerging step by step and stage by stage, to indicate that the government has steadfastly in front of it the problems, and the solutions of those problems, of the small men of this country, the men who under the last government were the forgotten men.
This is a very important resolution, Mr. Chairman. When you read it and analyse it you find that it proposes measures which, if implemented by legislation, in due course, will have far-reaching, deep and fundamental effects. As I read the resolution I find it can be divided into a number of proposals. It authorizes the Minister of Agriculture:
To enter into agreements with provincial governments or agencies thereof for the undertaking jointly with those governments or agencies of projects for the alternative uses of lands that are marginal or of low productivity,-
That has been dealt with to some extent, and I think it will be dealt with in this debate by other hon. members.
Second-and this is the area that I propose to deal with-the resolution goes on:
-projects for the development of income and employment opportunities in rural agricultural areas, and projects for the development and conservation of the soil and water resources of Canada;-
It is true that at this time there are areas of this country in which, because of impoverishment of the soil, because of the uneconomic size of the farm units, because of world markets and for other reasons the owners and occupants of farms are not achieving the standard of living which we feel they should have. I think we should not forget-and this is where the wisdom of this resolution comes in-that it is equally important to make provision to ensure that the areas which can provide for their owners a reasonable and adequate standard of living are not relegated to the lower brackets.
There is a tendency in any industry involving the development of natural resources for a certain pattern to emerge. If conditions are not good there is a tendency to intensify and concentrate on the production of wealth from natural resources, and the inevitable result is, as we have seen in many parts of the world, the development of a surplus of goods produced from those particular natural resources. Sometimes the natural resources become worn out or depleted, with a consequent lowering of the standards of living of the people engaged in the utilization of those natural resources. It is therefore most essential that we establish a flexible program to ensure stability, and an increase in the standard of living, and to provide for a more variable and sophisticated type of production

to meet the ever changing requirements of the world markets and of the appetites of the people of the world. I feel confident that that is what can be envisaged in this particular part of the resolution to which I am going to direct my attention.
I am also particularly interested in the suggestion that some of these desired results will have to be brought about by means of joint arrangements, with provincial governments, because I live in a district to which this is particularly applicable. The Peace river country is divided among different spheres of jurisdiction, namely the two provinces of British Columbia and Alberta and the Northwest Territories and, of course, the federal government. Many of these territorial divisions were arbitrary, ill-advised and probably established at a time when the people who drew the maps had no conception of what was involved geographically or economically. Consequently our area has suffered not only because of its inaccessibility but because of this division of authority.
I read a news item the other day indicating that there had been some suggestion that a new province should be established in the Northwest Territories. To my way of thinking it would be far more satisfactory and desirable to carve out a new province partly in the province of Alberta, partly in the province of British Columbia and partly in the Northwest Territories but as a realist I know that will not happen. In the belief that we must take the machinery of government that we have and adapt and mould it to fit the times and to suit human requirements, I think that through the medium of this resolution there is a vehicle to achieve the result I have in mind.
We have a very excellent precedent for this sort of thing. In 1933 in the United States there was established what has become well known all over the world as the Tennessee valley authority, popularly known as T.V.A. I have had some interest in this matter for some time because I feel a comparison can be made between what was done there and what I believe should be accomplished in my area and which I am confident this resolution can achieve with the proper measure of co-operation.
In the short time before adjournment, Mr. Chairman, I am going to read two or three extracts from a book written by David E. Lilienthal, who was for many years the chairman of the Tennessee valley authority, in order to indicate that his thinking resulting from his experience can aptly be applied to conditions in our own country. In establishing this authority President Roosevelt sent a
Business of the House
message to congress which I think by proper paraphrasing can be made comparable with the terms of this resolution and what has been said about the resolution by the minister. Speaking of the legislation which created the Tennessee valley authority, the president said as quoted in Mr. Lilienthal's book:
-it enters the wide fields of flood control, soil erosion, afforestation, elimination from agricultural use of marginal lands, and distribution and diversification of industry. In short, this power development. .. leads logically to national planning for a complete river watershed involving many states and the future lives and welfare of millions. It touches and gives life to all forms of human concerns.
If you paraphrase by using the word "provinces" instead of "states", I think the words in this passage can be considered to have application to many parts of our country. The president suggested, as quoted by Mr. Lilienthal:
-legislation to create a Tennessee valley authority-a corporation clothed with the power of government but possessed of the flexibility and initiative of a private enterprise. It should be charged with the broadest duty of planning for the proper use, conservation, and development of the natural resources of the Tennessee river drainage basin-
There are differences and we must adapt them to our conditions. The Tennessee valley authority, of course, was envisaged as a public authority for the development of power. We may well find that in the development of an area such as ours private power may be required, but this project with its integration of the resources of farm, forest, mines and river power is something which I think applies well in our case.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Batten:: May I ask what the business of the house is to be for tomorrow and Friday?


Jay Waldo Monteith: I can only reiterate what the acting house leader said last night, that the budget debate will be resumed tomorrow and if that is completed we will continue with the motion to set up the committee on broadcasting. In any event, we will continue with that on Friday.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the minister in a position to give any indication now of what the business will be for the early part of next week?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, I cannot do that.


[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. Argue: 1.	Has an addition recently been made to the post office in Rouyn, P.Q.?
2.	If so, who were, if any, the architectural consultants employed in the design of this addition?
3.	What was the cost of the addition?
4.	Have any criticisms been received relative to the design or esthetic appeal of the addition?
5.	If so:	(a) what is the nature of these
criticisms? (b) who made them? (c) on what dates?
Answer by: Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):
1.	Yes.
2.	No consultants employed.
3.	Contract amount: $175,400.
4.	Yes.
5.	(a) New building preferred rather than addition, (b) Municipal council, city of Rouyn. (c) May 24, 1960.

Thursday, January 26, 1961