1962-11-30

Mr. Speaker:: I note that the gremlins have been at work again and that there is an unfortunate transposition at the top of page 3 in the order of business as listed on today's order paper. There has been a reversal in the positions of public and private bills, and therefore those items which have precedence from five to six o'clock should be public bills, not private bills as indicated. This transposition appears in both the English and French versions, so the gremlins were quite impartial.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. We as members of the house are governed by certain statutes, the provisions of which we must comply with, and one of those statutes is the Canada Elections Act. Nevertheless we have been informed in the house in recent days that certain candidates in the last election, who are also required to comply with the provisions of the Canada Elections Act, have been appointed to certain positions, and a sessional paper, No. IB, tabled yesterday, indicates that two of these persons, namely Mr. Creaghan, who is now a judge of the county court in New Brunswick, and Senator O'Leary, are in violation of the Canada Elections Act in that they have not filed their election expense returns.
My point of privilege is that the law should apply to all who are candidates in a general election, not only to those who are elected, and that the Prime Minister should have looked into this matter before these appointments were made.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: In so far as the first statement is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I am in agreement, but the Prime Minister has no responsibility to see whether or not candidates comply with the law.


Mr. Pickersgill:: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has raised a question of privilege, and I do not think we can carry on any discussion of the subject matter of the privilege without there being a motion in that regard. Before we could have a general discussion on this point the hon. member would have to make a motion, if the point is indeed one of privilege. I believe the matter he has raised is rather novel, and I would hesitate to give a snap judgment on whether he has a question of privilege or not. It may be a grievance. But again I would reserve decision as to whether there is a question of privilege, because to my mind there can be no question of a discussion thereon unless there is a motion, and there cannot be a motion unless the Chair does recognize that there is a prima facie case of privilege.

On the orders of the day:


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might ask the Prime Minister whether it is his intention or the intention of anyone in the government to report to the recently appointed judge of a county court in New Brunswick the reported infraction of the law, with a view to making sure that the judge, like other citizens, complies with the law.
Right	Hon.	J.	G.	Diefenbaker	(Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, in so far as compliance with the law is concerned, that is a matter for each individual. Certainly what has taken place here today will come to the attention of the judge.



SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL

[Stage Direction]
FELICITATIONS ON 88tH BIRTHDAY ANNIVERSARY
Right	Hon.	J.	G.	Diefenbaker	(Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I ask for the indulgence of the house to make a motion which I intend to present and ask the Leader of the Opposition to second. Today is the birthday anniversary of Sir Winston Churchill-
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: -a member of the privy council of Canada. I saw him first in the fall

Felicitations to Sir Winston Churchill of 1916 from the gallery of the British House of Commons, at that time out of office and in the shadows. I heard him speak there. I heard him again on a number of occasions during the 1930's when his voice, while heard, was not listened to. I heard him following one of his several constituency defeats. Many hon. members in this house heard him in 1942 when he spoke during one of the darkest days of war, when he used those immortal words descriptive of Great Britain and the commonwealth, "Some chicken, some neck".
I saw him last during the occasion of the prime ministers' conference in London. I had quite a lengthy chat with him. If I were to summarize the message which he gave, to which I alluded on an earlier occasion, it would be this, "Freedom must not fear fear" -the same indomitable spirit, the same courage, the same man who in defeat knew no defeat and in victory, while resolute, was always considerate. I think of the description of this man given in 1954 by one of Canada's great orators. Speaking in the city of Toronto these words were quoted by him:
Strange Is the vigour in a brave man's soul. The strength oi his spirit and his irresistible power, the greatness of his heart and the height of his condition, his mighty confidence and contempt of dangers, his true security and repose in himself, his liberty to dare and do, his alacrity in the midst of fears, his invincible temper, are advantages which make him master of fortune. His courage fits him for all attempts, makes him serviceable to God and man, and makes him the bulwark and defence of his being and country.
In that passage Mr. Brockington was quoting the words of a mystic Celtic poet in a little parsonage in the deep countryside of western England. The words were 300 years old. All would agree that mankind would have been poorer had he not lived. Indeed, the flame of freedom might well have been extinguished for generations but for him. Proud to be an Englishman, he belongs to every country which treasures freedom. He has lived to enjoy in the autumn of life the satisfaction that comes to few men, to know that he is loved.
Sir, it is therefore my honour and privilege to move a resolution to be transmitted to him, one of the greatest, if not the greatest, House of Commons man and parliamentarian in all British history. So that he may know he has the affectionate good wishes of the members of this house I move, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition:
That this house extend to the Right Hon. Sir Winston Churchill, K.G., O.M., M.P. its warmest congratulations on this, his 88th birthday anniversary.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure indeed in seconding the motion which

has been moved in such a felicitous way by the Prime Minister, a resolution which embodies the affectionate good wishes and sincere congratulations of this house on the birthday anniversary of Sir Winston Churchill. It is a happy circumstance that we should have in Ottawa at this time, and perhaps in the house this morning, the Canadian high commissioner to the United Kingdom who might possibly be charged by you, sir, with the mission of conveying this resolution in person when he returns to London.
Sir Winston is a man who has been equal to his times and, therefore, is already a man for the ages. He is one of the few men in history who have always been able to match the events they faced. As members of parliament ourselves we think of him, of course, as a great parliamentarian. But we think of him also, and always will, as the chief architect of the victory of free men over nazi tyranny. No one will be able to forget the inspiration of his words and of his person during the darker days of that struggle, and how indomitable his courage was in those days. And when victory was won we remember how far sighted he was in his approach to the problems of peace, how he rose above personal and political misfortunes, how he rose above the prejudice of national fears and looked forward to the day when all free men might be able to unite for progress and peace.
He was also the most human of human beings. I am personally very much aware of this because, like the Prime Minister, I was so fortunate as to have some association with him and, in common with all those who have ever had any association with him, I could add to the store of anecdotes which has gathered around him, for he is a man about whom legends gather and incomparable stories are told even during his lifetime; a man who has dominated history not only by his achievements but by his personality. So we rejoice with him today on his reaching 88 years and we send to him the old, old birthday wish, "Many happy returns".
(Translation):


Mr. Real Caouetle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, we are happy to join with the Prime Minister in extending our good wishes to Sir Winston Churchill who is celebrating today his 88th birthday.
Sir Winston was assuredly one of the most outstanding and remarkable figures for over 60 years. As a matter of fact, he took an active part in two world wars.
As the Leader of the Opposition just pointed out, Sir Winston has become a symbol of integrity, a symbol of courage and a sym-

Tabling of Letter and Resolution bol of industry. He worked without respite the people of Great Britain and the common-for the cause of freedom in the whole world, wealth, and free men everywhere, to put He was the actual leader during the second forth their maximum effort to resist nazi world war, when he fought relentlessly against oppression. We in this country, and people totalitarian regimes of dictators like Hitler all over the free world today, are deeply in and Mussolini.	his debt.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: He worked earnestly to give freedom to the world.


An hon. Member:: He defended his country. (Text):


An hon. Member:: At last.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: It is time you said that.


David Réal Caouette: At last my friends the socialists are agreeing with me at this time. (Translation):
Mr. Speaker, if Sir Winston Churchill's advice had been followed during the war and after, I feel we would not have to face today the communist menace which now threatens the whole world. Sir Winston was a staunch defender of freedom in the world and today, at the age of 88, he is still upholding that cause of human liberties which is also our reason for being gathered here ourselves.
So it is our pleasant duty to join with the right hon. Prime Minister in wishing him a happy birthday and many years of good health. We also hope he will remain a symbol of courage for the present and future generations of the free world and of that world now being engulfed by communist dictatorship for the importance of freedom is something we all recognize.
We wish him a happy birthday and the best of health.
(Text):


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party are most happy to give enthusiastic support to the motion which has been proposed by the right hon. Prime Minister and seconded by the Leader of the Opposition. I think this parliament does well to send birthday greetings to Sir Winston Churchill to tell him of the abiding affection which the Canadian people have for him, and of the continued admiration which this parliament has for his accomplishments over the years.
Sir Winston Churchill's life covers a great span of history; all the way from the charge at Omdurman, through the South African war, through two world wars, but he will be remembered most of all in history as the man whose courage and eloquence rallied
There is always a tendency to forget great men when they are out of office. I am sure it will warm the heart of this great man to know that the parliament and the people of Canada have not forgotten him on his 88th birthday, and that we wish to transmit to him our best wishes and our continuing admiration for the contribution he has made to his day and generation. He will undoubtedly go down in history as the greatest Englishman of this age and one of the great Englishmen of all time.
While we are paying tribute to this great Englishman, representing a fairly important ethnic group in the British commonwealth-


Mr. Herridge:: I should certainly think so.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: - I suggest that it should not be forgotten that his birthday coincides with the birthday of the patron saint of Scotland. This is St. Andrew's day, and we recall that all over Canada there are thousands of Scotsmen. Some are Scots by birth, some by reason of ancestry and many more by process of absorption.
I am sure all those who are Scots or who have had some association with Scottish products will also wish to pay tribute to that gallant little people of the northern part of the British Isles. It is not incompatible that I should associate these two names, as the ideals of St. Andrew and the things for which Sir Winston Churchill worked, fought and lived are closely related. On this day the Scottish people think of their long fight for independence and freedom. In thinking of Sir Winston Churchill we think of a valiant fighter for the rights of man.
We associate ourselves with the motion in paying tribute to a great statesman and a great member of the commonwealth.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the reply of the premier of Manitoba to the letter of January 17, 1962, regarding amendment to section 94A of the British North America Act, as requested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, to which is attached a copy of the resolution of the legislature of

Approval of Life Jackets Manitoba. I would ask that it be printed as part of Hansard in order to complete the record, if that is agreeable to the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the Prime Minister has leave of the house to have this document printed as part of Hansard today.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of documents referred to, see appendix.]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, a joint communique has been issued by the president of Pakistan and the prime minister of India announcing that a renewed effort will be made to resolve outstanding differences between those two great countries of the commonwealth. Recently in this house I expressed the hope that just such an effort would be undertaken. It is a matter of satisfaction that steps are now being taken to this end.
We all recognize that the problems to be faced are great and are surrounded by 15 years of contention. Nevertheless, with the good will which is reflected in the joint communique as a foundation for discussion, there is hope that India and Pakistan will achieve an honourable and equitable settlement, which is their aim. I would only reiterate what I said in this house on November 20, that if there is anything Canada can do to further such a settlement the Canadian government will respond wholeheartedly.



TRANSPORT


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, until a few years ago there was no control or certification of life jackets produced specially for use for small pleasure craft, and no method by which a purchaser could be sure that he was obtaining a properly constructed life jacket. The Department of Transport, however, intervened to correct this situation, first by a scheme based on voluntary co-operation with manufacturers and subsequently by legal action to require that life jackets sold for this purpose bear an approved stamp certifying that they conform to laid down standards.
In dealing with this situation the department had to adopt a course which would satisfy several objectives. Types to be approved must be adequate from the safety point of view. At the same time they must


also be possible of manufacture within reasonable price ranges, since otherwise the owners of small pleasure boats would refuse to purchase; and they must be of such a design that they are sufficiently comfortable so they will in fact be worn at all times.
It must be realized that no life jacket can assure its wearer of safety when in the water equal to that when in a boat. Anyone forced to abandon his vessel becomes subject to a new and unfamiliar set of circumstances including cold, wave action and often panic and unconsciousness. Life jackets are intended to increase chances of survival, but cannot guarantee it.
The primary purpose of a life jacket is to provide buoyancy for the human body and to tend to support the wearer in an inclined backward position when conscious and completely relaxed. The normal life jacket developed for the purpose mentioned will not necessarily turn the wearer on his back in the water from a face down position or prevent the head of an unconscious person from falling forward and being safe from wave action which may result in drowning. Attempts are being made to build in designed characteristics which will help in this connection, but not even the most expensive, elaborate and cumbersome life jacket can be completely guaranteed.
The specifications for life jacket approval are not made by the Department of Transport alone but are developed by a committee of the Canadian government specifications board comprising representatives of the national research council, the Canadian Red Cross, the boating industry, life jacket manufacturers and others. Life jackets before receiving approval also undergo extensive tests to ensure that they will perform in accordance with specification requirements and specified objectives described above. This committee is continually engaged in review of specifications, types and testing.
Of course it is quite impossible to police every one of the many hundreds of thousands of life jackets that may have been manufactured in Canada in the last 10 or 15 years with or without type approval. Indeed, any life jacket will deteriorate with age and according to the treatment it has received. In the final analysis the responsibility for ensuring that a life jacket is adequate and satisfactory for the particular user must rest with the person concerned.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, the importance of life jackets has been accentuated this morning by the Minister of Transport, and I am sure all of us in

the house are pleased with the announcement he has made. With the increasing number of motorboats and outboards motors on our lakes and rivers, it becomes very important to protect the lives of individuals using them. Everything the Department of Transport and others can do toward this end I am sure will be welcomed by everyone.
It was difficult to follow the minister carefully, but it does appear that a very serious effort is being made by the officers of his department to meet a situation which is becoming serious. I am sure the house will rejoice that this is so.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I just want to thank the minister for the lengthy answer he gave to my question of yesterday and to inform the house of the relationship to this question of the hon. member for Kootenay West, who tells me that he started advocating this reform in this house in 1947.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to follow up the answer I gave the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre concerning the drug postafen. As I indicated at that time, postafen is not on sale in Canada. However, officers of my department have been investigating this whole matter and advise that the active ingredient in postafen, namely meclizine, is being sold in products under the latter name and a variety of brand names. A search of our records, which is continuing, has revealed eight such brand names to date. These are bitab 707 and bitab 708, antivert, bitab, bonadettes, bonadoxin, bonamine and promesis.
We are informed that authorities in Sweden have suspected the possibility of congenital malformations being associated with this drug, and that the evidence warrants its being placed on prescription and a warning sent to the medical profession. Pending receipt of further information and the outcome of our current investigation, we believe it prudent to place meclizine preparations on prescription in Canada and to issue a warning to all Canadian doctors and druggists. My department is taking these steps immediately.
This incident, Mr. Speaker, demonstrates once again the complexities of the drug field in this modern age. I believe that it would be more than useful to ensure a thorough study of our current law and practices concerning the introduction, marketing and use of drugs,
Canadian Citizenshi-p Act and with this in mind I plan to give immediate notice of my intention to recommend to the house the establishment of a special committee to consider and report upon such matters.

On the orders of the day:


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the terms of reference of the special committee to which he referred a moment ago on motions be such as to enable that committee to inquire into all the things that we would have been able to inquire into had Bill No. C-3 been referred to a committee? Is there any relationship between the setting up of this committee and proceeding further with Bill No. C-3?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, Mr. Speaker, except that any discussion whatsoever that is desired can be undertaken in the committee which it is proposed to set up. I assume that Bill No. C-3 will be proposed by the house leader for third reading at an early date. We would hope this would be accepted; but, as I mentioned, the notice of motion to set up the special committee will be put on the order paper immediately.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-88, to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act (grant of certificate).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Hubert Badanai: The purpose of this bill is to enable a citizenship court to recommend the grant of a certificate of citizenship to an applicant who is the wife of a Canadian citizen, even though she is unable to speak the English or the French language. As everyone knows, there are several hundred wives of Canadian citizens who, by reason of age or as a result of living in isolated places, have not been able to master the English or the French language, and indeed are unlikely to ever learn these languages sufficiently to qualify when they appear before a judge for examination for citizenship.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
2176	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry CRIMINAL CODE



AMENDMENT OF PROVISIONS RESPECTING PEACEFUL PICKETING

Mr. Thomas R. Berger (Vancouver-Burrard):: moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-89, to amend the Criminal Code.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Thomas Rodney Berger: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to amend the Criminal Code to prevent the section which relates to unlawful assembly, section 64, being used to curb peaceful picketing. Subsection 3 of section 64 provides an exception in the case of persons assembled for the purpose of protecting a dwelling house. This bill provides another exception in the case of persons assembled for the purpose of peaceful picketing.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if under the circumstances you will be generous toward me. I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works, but before doing so may I express to him personally what I think will be widely shared in this house, and that is deep regret, apart from political considerations, that he is about to leave us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Now, having said that, perhaps the hon. gentleman would know there might be a rider attached to my generous treatment of him this morning. Would he be good enough to look into my request that there be built at Belle River the post office I have been asking of him for some time?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Public Works):: Naturally, Mr. Speaker, I thank my old friend of many years in this house for his very generous personal references to myself, and I appreciate the indication on the part of hon. members, all of whom I regard as my friends, that they share that feeling.
As to the other part of the message from the hon. member for Essex East, I shall do my best with the utmost of good will, but of course I cannot be certain I will be able to accommodate him.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, and I want to join with the hon. member


for Essex East in expressing the regrets of members of this group on the minister leaving, and, I am sure, the good will of the house toward the minister. Does the minister think it would assist in laying the foundations for a new political career to arrange for the building of a post office in New Denver in the Kootenays?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I appreciate this expression of sentiment also. I might have thought, however, that the hon. gentleman might be more practically interested in the foundations of the post office rather than in the foundations of my political career which may, on occasion, bring me into conflict with some of the hon. gentleman's own friends; but I shall look carefully into the question of the foundations for the post office.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Is the minister apprehensive about the future of production sharing arrangements with the United States in view of Canada's present position of military unpreparedness?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: If the hon. member for Trinity would look at the results of production sharing he would not ask that question, because the result is something he never thought of.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As a supplementary question, does the minister expect that Canada will receive as great a volume of United States production orders in the next 12 months as in the past year?


Mr. O'Hurley:: Mr. Speaker, I never was a prophet.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arthur Laing (Vancouver South):: wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It relates to information which I sought in respect to correspondence between the government of Canada and that of the United States with regard to lumber shipments, which was promised to me some five weeks ago subject only to the agreement of the United States government. When may I expect the information?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I must apologize to the hon. member. I was planning to speak to him personally about this correspondence. We have not been able to get the permission of the United States government for the production of some of the documents, but I shall be glad to show them to the hon. member personally.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. Can he say whether a decision has been reached with respect to removing the Canadian travel bureau from the department of northern affairs to the Department of Trade and Commerce?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the desire to extend to the greatest possible degree the tourist attractions of Canada, and in order to have available every means to that end, the government has decided that as the Department of Trade and Commerce has trade mission offices throughout the world it would be fitting and proper, in order to encourage tourism into our country from all parts of the world, to transfer the administration of the bureau to the Department of Trade and Commerce, which at one time had it under its jurisdiction. In announcing that decision I of course want to point out that there has been a tremendous advance in the last year and a half in tourism into Canada and in the amount that has been earned by Canadians from it, and the minister of northern affairs is entitled to every commendation for what he has been doing.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hubert Badanai: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the government giving any consideration to more financial assistance to the great lakes institute, which was established to study the causes of water pollution, which now appears to be a serious problem in the great lakes?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I shall take this question as notice.
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of press reports that there is a major difference of opinion among sponsors of the Montreal world's fair as to its theme, could the Prime Minister state whether he endorses Mayor Jean Drapeau's idea that the theme should be "Man and his world"?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member will realize that he is asking a minister of the crown to enter into a controversy that is outside the immediate jurisdiction of the house, and that it is not really proper for orders of the day.
(Translation):




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Associate Minister of National Defence a question concerning the world fair to be held in Montreal.
Is it the intention of the government to introduce a bill to set up a crown corporation in that regard and if so, could the minister tell the house when such a bill would be introduced?


Hon. Pierre Sevigny (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question from the hon. member for Laurier, I wish to say that there will be laid before the house a bill to provide for the establishment of a crown corporation that will be responsible for the administration of the 1967 world fair.
That bill has been prepared by the officials of the Department of Justice and will undoubtedly be submitted to the house within two weeks.
It is rather difficult to say exactly when that bill will be presented because it must be remembered that it deals with a joint undertaking and that there will be consultations between the federal, provincial and municipal governments.
I wish to assure my hon. friend that the bill will be submitted with all possible dispatch.

(Text):



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kooienay East):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs

Inquiries of the Ministry but in his absence I should like to address it to the Minister of Public Works, who is probably better informed on the matter. Could the minister inform the house whether there is disagreement in substance between the federal government and the government of British Columbia with respect to the terms of the draft treaty between Canada and the United States regarding the Columbia river development?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to know at this stage precisely what is the position of the government of British Columbia. Our problem throughout has been the repeated, almost dizzying frequency with which they have changed their position.
All I can say is that at the time the treaty was signed there was no disagreement that was apparent; that every step had been taken to ensure unanimity including the writing of a letter formally to Mr. Williston enclosing the text of the treaty, advising him that the treaty was to be signed and that it would be signed in Washington, and giving him the date, and stating that this would be done, on the assumption that, unless we heard to the contrary from them, it had their approval. That letter was acknowledged by Mr. Williston and no suggestion of objection was raised. So it was presumed, and I think it was a justifiable presumption that it was signed with the knowledge and approval of the government of British Columbia.
Some conflicting statements have been made since by government members out there about the treaty, but generally speaking I think it is correct to say that they are still in accord with the terms of the treaty as drawn up and signed by the two governments.
The main difficulty has arisen with respect to the policy to be followed as to the disposition of the benefits of the treaty. Real efforts have been made to come together on that point. So far this has not been possible, but discussions are continuing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might put to the Minister of Public Works a question supplementary to the one asked by my hon. friend from Kootenay East. I would ask the minister whether there has been any change in the policy of the federal government with respect to the benefits which would accrue under the Columbia treaty.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the benefits are determined by the treaty itself, which was agreed between Canada, British Columbia and the United States. At the time of the signing


of the treaty it was our understanding, based on the discussions which had taken place in the policy liaison committee, made up as it was of ministers of the federal government and ministers of the government of British Columbia, that there was also mutual agreement or mutual policy as to the disposition of those benefits.
It will be, I think, apparent from the course of the discussions and statements that have been made about this policy question since then, that, as we see it, the provincial government changed its policy with regard to the disposition of the benefits. We have maintained in general the policy which we had and which we felt to be the correct one. Sincere efforts have been made, however, to see whether it is possible to find a meeting ground between the two positions which had thus come into conflict, in order that this great project might be commenced at the earliest possible date. It has been difficult, but those discussions are still going on.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Since January 17 will be the second anniversary of the signing of the draft Columbia treaty, and since there appears to be no substantive difference between the federal and provincial governments regarding this treaty, will the government place this agreement before a committee of the house forthwith?



GREY CUP GAME


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my question deals with a national celebration which is to take place not in five years but tomorrow. May I ask the Prime Minister, as one who is participating in this event and as a member from a prairie province, if he would care to take the house into his confidence as to who is going to win the Grey cup?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker I do not think that is quite a fair question. After all, I have to be neutral.



COMBINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might direct a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice or the acting minister and inquire whether there is any knowledge available

Inquiries of the Ministry as to when we might expect the completion further consideration to the request of the of the report on the drug question by the town of Kapuskasing for a low rental hous-restrictive trade practices commission, or the ing scheme?
former members who are working on it.	Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Public


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I shall do my best, Justice): I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, I cannot within the limitations of my authority and give a factual answer, but I will bring this the doctrine of collective cabinet respon-question to the attention of my colleague for sibility, to endow the members of the house an answer at the earliest possible moment. with as many going away presents as I (Translation):	possibly can.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES REPORTED TELEGRAM OF COMPLAINT FROM PASSENGER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschaielels (Maisonneuve-Rosemonl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Is the minister aware of a telegram addressed to T.C.A. protesting against the way he was treated by that corporation? If the minister has not seen it, could he inquire and report to the house?


Léon Balcer: Could my hon. friend tell me on whose part that telegram was sent?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: On the part of the chairman of the Montreal executive committee, Mr. Saulnier.


Léon Balcer: I have not seen that telegram, Mr. Speaker.
(Text):



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS QUEBEC  CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING UNIVERSITY GRANTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister ascertain whether all the correspondence between the present government of Quebec and the federal government concerning university grants has been tabled, and if not would the Prime Minister consider making this correspondence available to the members of the house before the university grants legislation is brought in?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will have that question looked into.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Habel (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Public Works. Would the minister give



REQUEST FOR FINANCING OF EXISTING HOMES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Richard Garland: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the question I have for the Minister of Public Works will find a sympathetic response. I wonder if before his departure from the house, which I may say we all regret, he will consider recommending to his colleagues action that will endear him to a large section of prospective home owners; that is, the extension of N.H.A. lending on existing homes.
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to give it consideration.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister advise the house the approximate length of time required, in days, to arm Canada's air defences in time of crisis, in order to implement the doctrine enunciated by the Prime Minister to the effect that Canada would obtain defensive atomic weapons in time of emergency?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member will recognize that he has laid two or three different arguments in his question. I can anticipate the answer, and I think we will be getting into a debate with the answer.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In view of delicate and urgent considerations of which Your Honour may not be aware, I wonder if the Minister of National Defence would be good enough to take my question as notice and give the house an answer at his earliest convenience.



PUBLICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime

Inquiries of the Ministry Minister a question relating to the representations which many of us have received in the last few days from Canadian magazine publishers on their increasingly desperate revenue situation without any legislative curbs on Time and Reader's Digest activities. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government feels this situation is urgent; and if so, what action it plans to take in the near future.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, reference was made to this subject, as I recall it, in the speech from the throne.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. B. Cowan (York-Humber):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. For the guidance of this house would the hon. gentleman be kind enough, before he leaves for British Columbia, to tell us whether he is leaving because he disapproves of an alliance between the government and the Social Credit party?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to disapprove of, because to my knowledge there is no alliance.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the large number of retired civil servants and widows of civil servants who are living on very low pensions, as revealed in a sessional paper tabled a few days ago, will the government give consideration to further adjustments in the pensions of those who are already retired?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of Finance):: The government is always giving consideration to problems affecting civil servants.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Verdun):: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's expressed desire that Canadians prepare for Canada's centennial in 1967, would the right hon.

gentleman state when provinces and organizations may expect some activity on the part of the national centennial administration?
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): There is continued communication in this regard. I do not think there is anything further I can add at this time.

The house of commitee of supply, Mr. Chown in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Administration branch-
1. Departmental administration including the national co-ordinating committee on agricultural services, $1,003,000.
Mr. Chaplin:: Mr. Chairman-


The Chairman:: Order. I regret to advise the hon. member for Waterloo South that I must interrupt him. I am informed by the clerks that the hon. member for Bellechasse had the floor when we last rose.
(Translation):


Mr. Dumont:: Mr. Chairman, I said last Friday that the Liberals had the same headache in 1957, with regard to the sale of wheat as the Conservatives have today. I said, moreover, that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) as well as the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) forgot the 340,000 eastern and British Columbia farmers, who are great consumers of feed grain.
Incidentally, that grain is priced at $2.25 a hundredweight for No. 1, at Fort William, which will rectify a statement by the hon. member for Acadia. I never said that we would pay feed grain 1 cent a pound. I know too much about farming to make such a statement. What I said was that, even if the western farmers have to pay $2 million in salaries for their Canadian wheat board for storage, transport and other expenses, they only get $2.25 a hundredweight, whereas we eastern farmers are paying wheat No. 3 $3.60 a hundredweight, which makes a difference of $1.35 a hundredweight, whereas transportation is only 15 cents a pound. I want to put this very clearly because the other day, the hon. member for Acadia suggested that I wanted people to believe that feed grain should be sold at a cheaper price.
I am very happy that the western farmers are getting that price because we shall help them on all occasions.
Government aid with regard to transportation is $9.50 a ton. If there were grain elevators in all our sea ports in eastern Canada, I think that the western farmers would sell

their No. 3 wheat $2.25 a hundredweight and with this transport subsidy they receive the eastern farmers would pay $1.35 less for consumer wheat, which means that bread flour, is now paid $7 a hundredweight by consumers in the east. Thanks to this transport subsidy for grain, the eastern farmers would thus pay the same price as those in the west.
At this point, I would like to quote from a letter of one of my voters in St. Francois de Montmagny, Mr. Maurice Boulet, who writes as follows:
To give an example in developing your argument, you can mention flour, which was selling at $2.50 during war time, from 1939 to 1945. Then, we had to feed the armies, Europe, many boats were sunk, and our storehouses were hardly up to the needs. And today, when we have to give away part of our flour to dispose of it, the price has constantly gone up. Flour has now reached $7 and more for No. 1 wheat. Why is the price of grain left to the grain exchange? Is that not the first factor of the raise in the cost of living in Canada? Can the worker or any consumer work for the same salary when he has to pay bread, a food product necessary to life, at an extreme exploitation rate?
Production of wheat and of feed grain is one of our great natural resources, at the very basis of our economic life. Why is it not used for the prosperity of all the population, rather than for the personal benefit of a few profiteers?
With this farmer from my county, I say that we are happy that the western farmers are getting the prices which are paid to them, but we want the present exportation service to be also to the advantage of the eastern farmers. If there are such great differences, there must be exploitation. Which grain company is the Minister of Agriculture protecting? Is it Agro Company, Toronto Elevators, James Richardson and Sons, McCabe Grain Co.? Do all these companies finance the electoral fund of the party? Besides, the Liberal party has the same contributors, and, as an old proverb says: "Tell me who is financing you and I will tell you who is your master."
As stated at page 274 of Hansard for January 15, 1957, a time when the Liberals were in power, the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Argue), who was then a socialist, said:
In your study of agricultural policy-
The hon. member was putting a question to the president of a farm union in the west.
-in other nations do you know of any advanced nations which do less in the way of support prices and other policies for agriculture than is done by our country?
Supply-A griculture
Mr. Hope, to whom the question had been put, answered:
No, I do not know of any country that does less.
There you have what the Liberals accomplished in 1957, and the minister of agriculture of that time said:
What do you want us to do? If you have suggestions to make, make them.
The Conservatives did the same thing when they later came into power. But unfortunately, we are still faced with the same problems. That is why we are convinced that in the next general election, the Canadian people will vote in favour of the Social Credit.
Mr. Chairman, I asked for the construction of elevators which would enable us to store about 13 million bushels of feed grain. We could also store grain in the farmers' silos. Apart from those two storage methods, if we add the grain that could be stored with the merchants, we would have at least 50 million bushels stored in eastern Canada.
I appreciate that 50 million bushels might be negligible, but with regard to exporting the balance, our national leader, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) made an extraordinary suggestion the other day when he asked that one bushel of wheat be given to every Indian. And, once again, the hon. member for Acadia scoffed at that proposal, saying that while there were cows in abundance in India, there was no lack of wheat.
If that is to be taken as an example of the Conservatives' irresponsible way of dealing with the export of wheat, the western farmers, as well as those in the east, will not fail to acknowledge, at the next general election, that there is but one party which has its heart set on disposing of our vast wheat surpluses, for we constitute the only party that really wants the human race to be properly fed.
That goal will only be reached when money is based on production and then, only a Social Credit minister of agriculture will be in a position to say: Produce as much as God will let you, we now want to supply the human race with the food it needs, and there is no lack of men, ships or machines to carry this God-given abundance.
Let us stop insulting God and let us share this wealth in order to make financially possible the exportation of this bread of life. That is more important than making atomic bombs or sending rockets to the moon.
Mr. Chairman, the price of goods is too high for our eastern farmers and because of that, very serious problems have devel-

Supply-Agriculture
oped for which a solution was never found. As a matter of fact, a most unfortunate tragedy happened recently in the Sherbrooke district. The good mother of six children had to help her husband with the chores morning and night and one morning she left the children with no one to watch them. A child woke up around six, played with fire and the house was burned down with all the children inside. The parents had to helplessly watch the tragedy. Moreover, that good mother who was pregnant of a seventh child, from her hospital bed, heard the judge declare:
That it was criminal to leave young children alone at home.
I, for one, Mr. Chairman, would suggest to that judge that it is criminal to put up with a system under which a mother is obliged to work alongside her husband on a farm which no longer pays, in order to help him keep a roof over his family. That courageous couple is obliged to begin anew, sick at heart, to rebuild its family, because it could not afford to appeal to the services of a farmer, being in that category of farmers who only make an annual income of $1,200.
Mr. Chairman, similar tragedies occur every day, because most mothers have to do likewise in order to be able to survive. In fact, they cling to the soil, hoping that one day some clear-sighted legislators may at last realize that the people of Quebec still want to feed mankind.
Alas, too often have we realized that in many places it is the struggle for life. Such a state of near starvation prevailing among others, and which is spared us, except in the case of our present unemployed, should become for each of us a torment bordering on obsession. Two billion human beings are dying of hunger and yet assistance to dairy production is threatened to be stopped.
Just wait. When all children in the world have their daily glass of milk, then we can reconsider our dairy industry policy. To present evils, let us apply exceptional remedies as well as economic prices based on those of federal experimental farms.
At present, the operation of any experimental farm is very costly for the government, but in establishing for eastern farmers prices in line with those of the experimental farm, eastern farmers could very well survive; no farmer would then ask for subsidies; they would be satisfied with reasonable profits because, as the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys said yesterday, we live in a country where there certainly are 30 acres of snow.

It would be time now to instal irrigation systems on the farms in order to avoid the disastrous conditions that resulted in severe drought in the west, which cost the government a lot of money. We could thus retain in the soil the micro-organisms that make human life possible, as it is dependent on the fertility of the soil, in order to have food for that population that will double within the next 50 years.
In Canada, for our unemployed, in Palestine, Algeria, Turkey, India, everywhere looms the spectre of famine, and we know that many mothers spend sleepless nights, making do with a piece of bread and giving the rest to their children in order to allay their hunger and prevent them from uttering that cry that wrings the heart and is too often heard: Mother, I am hungry.
The solution is not the planning that socialists recommend because it has been tried in Russia by Mr. Khrushchev, in China by Mao Tse Tung, and it has proven disastrous. Collective farming does not create the same interest that comes from operating a family farm, in so far as its owner can obtain adequate prices.
Unlike the 118 socialists who sit in this house, we do not call on farmers to go back to agricultural school because we feel that they are experts in the art of tilling the soil. It is not by adopting legislation that we will solve the problem of adequate prices.
What we want is a reform of the monetary system so that each class of citizens will get the income they are entitled to according to their hours of work.
That is why I urge the government to set up immediately an accounting board which would keep in mind the fact that wheat can multiply 60 times in two months and a half. Farmers reap in the fall 60 times as much grain as they sow in the spring. That is precisely the meaning of the Social Credit doctrine: the abundance that God wanted man to enjoy can be stated as one grain multiplying 60 times.
Do we have in Canada an accounting board which keeps this in mind?


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I must inform him that his time is up.
(Text):


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Douglas Mason Fisher: This is in the nation's interest.


Rémi Paul: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent of the committee to proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Translation):


Bernard Dumont: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was saying that the Lord who wanted such bounty to exist thought that men were bright enough to set up a monetary system to channel that bounty toward those who need it; otherwise, he would have caused money to grow in the fields and this would have been a means of distributing the abundance to those in need. I am talking about the wheat which brings an abundant life.
The same thing could be said about trees, which are turned into houses, or about water which produces electrical power. Thus only could we, to the advantage of each and every individual, enjoy the requested abundance, thus only could we share our daily bread with those who are hungry, and therefore thus only could we stop discriminating against a fellow human made of bone and sinew. Thus only could we see the light of dawn and salvation ahead of us.
Members of the House of Commons, let us reply to those who want birth control. Let us assure economic prices to the family farm unit, and we shall see farm production triple two years hence. Our governments at present have a sacred fear of the rising tide of production of some goods which are the very basis of life.
The perennial question is: "Where will the money come from?" And this is the reason why we, Social Crediters, say that money should not be the guiding principle of our lives. Man must put the dollar to his service. Thanks to the magnificent St. Lawrence river, which will bring us western wheat, we, eastern farmers, shall find it possible to build up family production units which will ship back by the same means of communication our production to those who are hungry.
Can we believe the Liberals would have done better if they had people with knowledge in farming, people like Jean-Baptiste Lemoyne? Well, I suggest that that Liberal farmer, at the head of a farmers' union numbering 40,000 members, did not succeed in removing poverty because he did not want to open his eyes on the fate of so many consumers in the world, not to speak of our Canadian consumers who are ill-fed on account of our excessive unemployment today. That former president of the Catholic 27507-3-138
Supply-Agriculture
Farmers' Union had better turn to Social Credit for in the Liberal party he will find nothing but political fraud and he will be the first to be greatly disappointed; honest as I know him to be, he should become a member of the Social Credit party and help us feed humanity.
Let us restore to our people the hope they had in the past of providing foodstuffs for all mankind by allowing economic prices on the family farm as conceived by our forebears. This will only be possible if we compare the cost of a government experimental farm, which would enable our farmers to live happy in their respective surroundings. It will only be possible when we have a monetary reform that will put money back again at the service of man. That is why we, on this side of the house, are asking society to grant us credit for the goods produced and we believe in only one economic truth, Social Credit.
At the present time, farm credit merely offers the possibility of going into debt as long as we shall not be able to lower the price of grain for eastern farmers, while allowing western farmers to make some profits. That is the only solution, because I never saw a shoe salesman selling shoes at less than cost price. Have you ever seen a business operating for 18 years while selling its goods at less than cost price?
Yes, my friends, since 1945, on the day dealers realized that they would receive less subsidies because the war was over, on that day Quebec farmers, after having helped to win the war through their products, were left to their fate and agriculture has known since those years, even under the Liberals, a considerable set-back, and today, through farm loans, you offer a straw to save the man who is drowning.
I told you the truth the other day, Mr. Minister, when I asked for grain elevators at the existing wharves, and even if halfmeasures are applied today, you will have to apply some day the suggestions from this corner of the house to establish order where there is disorder, because it is absolutely necessary to eliminate excessive profits taken by traders, to enable eastern farmers to buy their feed grain at $1 less per 100 pounds. That is the solution of the problem, because at present western and eastern farmers are being cheated, and we must remain masters of our farm heritage.

Supply-Agriculture
To substantiate my remarks, one has only to see Hansard for 1957, when the Liberals were in office, that there was also then a shameless exploitation of the eastern and western farmers. However, no member for Bellechasse rose to ask that such exploitation be stopped. Yet, it had existed for 22 years and our riding is 68 per cent agricultural. That is why I say that if they are financed by the grain companies, the farmers will never be justly dealt with.
A month ago I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), in order to prevent another Cuban crisis in Algeria, to ship our food surplus stored in Lauzon. As the mayor in my municipality, I have asked for supplies, for instance canned pork processed in 1954, for which rent is paid on many warehouses with watchmen, but as it is refused to our poor families, let us ship it, at least, to two million Algerians who will starve to death this winter.
We are the granary of the world. For goodness' sake, let us put a stop to petty politics and act as responsible lawmakers who have a duty to help relieve the hardship of those who suffer.
(Text):


Gordon Chaplin: In rising to speak today on the agriculture estimates I, unlike the hon. member for Davenport, make no pretence of being a farmer or an agricultural expert in any way. In fact I have no qualifications along that line, and have perhaps few qualities that would go to make a successful farmer. However, a major part of the time that has been taken up on the debate on these estimates has been devoted to an attack on the Minister of Agriculture over the contents of a speech he made early this month in Regina to members of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, I believe. It has been represented by opposition speakers that this speech was a breach of cabinet confidence, responsibility and solidarity. It has even been suggested that the minister had been revealing government policy without the approval of his cabinet colleagues.
The opposition no doubt would like to make some kind of constitutional issue of this matter, or some kind of quasi-legal issue that would allow full scope to all the opposition lawyers, semi-lawyers and would-be lawyers with which their ranks seem to abound. If this kind of smokescreen could be generated I submit that it would help to obscure the fact that the minister has been one of the most successful ministers of agriculture that 
we have had in this country. The very vehemence and vigour of the attacks that have been made upon him are in direct proportion to the success he has achieved and the confidence he has established with the farmers throughout this country.
In order to illustrate this fact, Mr. Chairman, let me tell you of an incident which took place during the last election campaign, when a very prominent Liberal farmer in my constituency was talking to me. He made it very clear to me, of course, that he was not voting for me or supporting me but that he was voting for the Liberal candidate as was, of course, most natural and proper under the circumstances. However, he said this to me: "There is no denying the fact that Alvin Hamilton is the best Minister of Agriculture we have had in this country in my time". May I say, Mr. Chairman, that he was not a young man. That is why I feel that certain opposition parties are so anxious to discredit him and to destroy him politically. They know they have no chance of winning the farm support in western Canada so long as he is Minister of Agriculture.


An hon. Member:: What about eastern Canada?


Gordon Chaplin: Let us examine just what it was he said that caused all this furor. First of all he suggested that the wheat pools consider the advisability of selling wheat themselves both in Canada and eventually in the export field. Second, he suggested that they discuss the possibility of setting aside a certain portion of the final wheat payments in order to build up a fund to be used in sharing any loss that might be incurred. These are suggestions that were put forward for consideration. These suggestions do not constitute government policy at this time, but are put forward for consideration by the people who are best equipped to judge their merits. No doubt if they were looked upon with favour in due time the minister would put these suggestions before the cabinet and try to persuade the members of the cabinet to adopt such suggestions as government policy.
Now, the opposition members try to make it appear as if the minister had done something unsavory, something sinister. The fact is that it is just a matter of good communications. Believe me, good communications are of the greatest importance in this country and in the world today. In a world that is clouded by half truths and contaminated with propaganda and lies, it is very refreshing to me to find effective communications between a ministry and the people it purports to serve. This certainly was never true and was not

even possible under the previous administration. There are other ministries within this present government that might even profit from this experience.
The attitude of the Liberals in attacking the minister can be pretty well understood. I think they are logical. They undoubtedly hoped that it would have some strategic or tactical advantage. It was certainly opportunistic in purpose. I think some of them have been having second thoughts. It would not surprise me at all if the Leader of the Opposition regretted very much some of the remarks he made in his opening speech in this debate, particularly in view of the support the minister has garnered in the west and the editorial comment that has come out. The Leader of the Opposition said these suggestions were ridiculous. Then later he found that one of them was not so ridiculous. The Leader of the Opposition has managed to get one foot out of his mouth, and given time no doubt he will be able to extricate the other.


Mr. Argue:: I wonder who wrote this speech.


Gordon Chaplin: I can say this to my hon. friend that I have not the facilities for anyone to write my speeches. I have not the money to have a Mr. Lamontagne on my staff.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if Roy Faibish happened to write it?


Gordon Chaplin: No, Roy Faibish did not write this.
Well, Mr. Chairman, the attitude as I see it of the New Democratic party is not as readily understandable as that of the Liberal party in this matter, because they are the ones who are continually talking about democratic planning. I heard the leader of that party the other day, in the course of a speech in this house, use the word "planning" in almost every sentence. He referred to economic planning and democratic planning and, as I understand it, those are the keys to their whole political philosophy. This has been the major slogan in their propaganda.
Here we have a practical application of democratic planning. Here we have a minister going to the people who are most concerned about this problem and making suggestions to them for their consideration. Here we have democratic planning in its essence, right from the grass roots. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam does not recognize this democratic planning when he sees it. He has been so blinded over the years by his preaching of the doctrine and dogma of socialism
Supply-Agriculture
that he does not recognize real democratic planning when it takes place before his eyes.
I believe the hon. member for Red Deer was quite right in his speech the other night. I think he got the gist of the whole thing when he said during the course of his speech that planning is good, but planning which reaches down from the top defeats the purpose of a democratic society. He said that planning which permits people collectively to work together and plan from the grass roots up is good. I gathered from his remarks that he probably had a better and sounder idea of democratic planning than have some of the mandarins of the New Democratic party.
The Leader of the Opposition in the course of his remarks in the house the other day referred at some length, and I think quite properly, to the changing patterns of trade that are taking place throughout the world, and to the fact that wheat sales are going to be more competitive. I am sure the minister has recognized this fact. It is the recognition of this fact that has led to these suggestions he made to the wheat pool members. A substantial portion of our wheat sales at the present time are going to communist China. I think the minister recognizes that this is a precarious market, and that we would be in a stronger position if we attempted to develop a dozen small markets rather than have too many eggs or rather in this case too much wheat in the red China basket. I feel this is one of the major reasons for the making of these suggestions which, if they were accepted, would strengthen our selling potential and would provide some protection against loss in the development of new markets.
It has recently been stated in the press at some length that China wanted to sell textiles and other manufactured articles to this country to pay for this wheat. When I say "sell" it virtually means the dumping of goods into this country because of the appallingly low wages paid in China. I have always felt that the sale of wheat to red China was a sound policy on the part of the government. I have also felt it was what might be described as windfall business. The Chinese have not bought from us because they like us or admire us. They would not buy from us if they were not forced to do so by conditions in their own country. China has got herself into a desperate plight. Here we have a country that has practised the ultimate in economic planning and has succeeded in bringing upon the unfortunate people of that nation the greatest man made famine in history.

Supply-Agriculture
It follows, therefore, that communist China is not buying grain from Canada because she wants to foster the development of a long term trade relationship between the two countries. On the contrary, she is buying our grain because famine has forced her to do so. In point of fact, China has already undertaken a massive back to the land program and is trying to establish a limited form of private market garden farming. If these moves succeed, and if the weather and elements are kinder, China's food crisis may end and with it the need to import foodstuffs. Even if this crisis does not end, the prospects of China as a long term grain customer are certainly not much brighter. Ever since the projected great leap forward turned into such a staggering mess, the Chinese economy has been in desperate straits. Sales by the Chinese of remelted bullion on the London market suggests that the regime is scavenging up the last scraps of jewellery gold in order to pay for the grain. Stated very simply, no amount of trade concessions on Canada's part can solve China's basic problem, the feeding of 670 million people, and China cannot do that herself.
I have never looked upon the sale of wheat to China in the past as having any moral implications. I have looked upon it as a straight commercial deal, but if China continues her aggressive actions against India and other allied or neutral nations we may have to revise and reverse our thinking along this line. In my opinion this would not be the time to bow to Chinese pressure to open our markets to Chinese products that would sell in Canada, not at an economic price but at a political price.
We have been able to sell wheat to China because we have been competitive both as to price and as to the terms we were willing to accept. Those countries which have wheat to sell besides ourselves are the United States, Australia, Argentina, France, and I believe to some extent Germany. United States policy precludes that country from selling to China, and Australian policy of high protection for its home industries makes it seem very unlikely it would make any deal of this kind. The same applies to France and Germany within the common market.
I believe we can continue to compete with these countries as we have in the past, and I repeat that the present is no time to bow to this type of pressure which would destroy the employment potential of the very important Canadian textile industry. One of the great problems facing us today is to reduce and minimize unemployment. Every member in the house knows that and it has been spoken about on many occasions, but it cannot be

accomplished if we deliberately destroy or impair important segments of our industry.
In closing I would say let us by all means continue to try to sell wheat to China, which, if it is paid for, demands dollars which might otherwise be spent by the Chinese for further armaments which in turn might lead to further military aggression.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of our proceedings this morning references were made to the fact that this is the birthday of Right Hon. Winston Churchill, and that it is St. Andrew's day. I should like to mention that it is also the birthday of the late Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner, who spent such a long and useful life in very high offices serving the people of Saskatchewan and the people of Canada. Much of the agricultural legislation on the statute books of the country, and many of the items with which we will be dealing today, are products of the great efforts of the late Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner.
We are discussing item 1 of these estimates, but most of the discussion so far has dealt with the speech made by the Minister of Agriculture in Regina a couple of weeks ago. That indeed was a strange speech and, in the words of the minister himself, received a reaction for which he was not prepared. He said "Little did I realize how far that discussion would go." In the recent general election campaign the minister painted a very glowing picture of world markets and the prospects for Canadian sales. He is quoted over and over again as saying "You produce it; I will sell it. Produce 600 million bushels of wheat if you can and I will sell it. Use fertilizer, use every possible modern technique to increase production, and I and the Conservative party will have markets waiting for you."
On May 16 the minister is reported as having said in Nanton, Alberta, according to a Canadian Press dispatch "You cannot grow wheat fast enough to fulfil our commitments." Now, however, he has gone out to Regina and told this very important farm organization that we are in trouble with our overseas markets. He says conditions are so bad that all we will be able to export are 300 million bushels. There is no more talk of 600 million bushels and no more talk of "Grow it and I will sell it."
The minister has accused the Liberal party of preaching doom and gloom. The doom and gloom are in the speech which the minister delivered in Regina, and if the minister went out there to shock the farmers of western Canada into discussion, then he was completely successful. A number of us have been saying for some months past that there was very great evidence that we were running

into market difficulties, but when we say that it is doom and gloom according to the members of the Conservative party. Now the Minister of Agriculture has underlined the very serious situation, and that is in contrast to his election campaign statement when he told the farmers "Your ship has come in; I have looked after you." He also said "From now on I am going to spend almost all my time looking after the farmers in eastern Canada."
I do not think we are in a mess because the minister is spending his time in eastern Canada. I do not see any evidence of the work he is doing in eastern Canada, but he has made such a controversial speech about wheat markets that we are spending a great deal of time discussing it. But what is the minister doing about the butter surpluses? What is he doing about dairy policy? He shocked the western farmers and recently he has been shocking the dairy producers right across the country. He threatens the western farmers with falling markets and he threatens the eastern farmers that unless something is done they will have the supports cut out from under butter.
We thought he would be doing something about the feed grain situation in eastern Canada, to provide adequate quantities of feed grain in storage available at all times to customers, but nothing has been done. The only thing that has been done so far in this house that has any importance at all for eastern Canada was the acceptance by the government of an amendment moved from this side of the house insisting that the Farm Credit Corporation make more money available to small farmers.
The minister has nothing for the east, and nothing for the west except a speech delivered in Regina. There has indeed been a tremendous change in the agricultural situation, and the statistics are available. I have in my hand the latest weekly report from the board of grain commissioners up to Wednesday, November 21, and it shows that up to that date export clearances since August 1 were 99.8 million bushels. This was a drop from 125.5 million bushels during the same period last year. The minister said during the election campaign "I will sell every bushel of wheat you can produce" but he has been selling 20 per cent less this year than last year.
The most recent statistics show that up to this date 28 per cent of present sales are to communist countries. All this demonstrates is that even with 28 per cent of the sales to communist countries it has not been possible to hold up the general exports of wheat, which have fallen by 20 per cent. If something should happen to these credit sales we would
Supply-Agriculture
be in a very sorry position indeed because of the very rapid deterioration in Canada's markets and sales to normal customers.
Shipments out of country elevators, the movement of grain from country elevators to the market, have also gone down from 178.8 million bushels last year to 160.3 million bushels in the present crop year, a drop of 18.5 million bushels. Shipments out of the lakehead have taken a very drastic drop. These figures are not just for the fall months of the year, for that portion of the crop year but for the whole of the navigation season. Last year during the navigation season 281.5 million bushels of all grains were shipped out of the lakehead and this year just 205.8 million bushels, a drop of 76 million bushels. That is a drop of almost 25 per cent. This is a pretty dark picture. This is certainly not the rosy picture that the Minister of Agriculture portrayed during the election campaign.
Then to take the information back right to the farm and to the farmers' marketing points, I have in my hand the wheat board statement on quotas as at November 19, 1962. I am not going to refer to all the figures; I merely point out that on the 1 bushel quota this year, which is the lowest quota, there are still 116 marketing points in western Canada. A year ago there were no marketing points on this quota; every quota was higher. This year the second lowest quota, a quota of 2 bushels, had 557 marketing points as compared to 367 last year. In other words there are still 673 marketing points in western Canada, approximately one third of the total, on very low delivery quotas of 1 or 2 bushels per acre. The minister was giving the farmers of western Canada shock treatment in his speech, and the inability of the farmers to sell their grain up to date indicates the very serious position of our markets.
The Leader of the Opposition dealt very effectively with the wheat situation, the reaction of farm organizations and the facts as they affect markets today. The Minister of Agriculture has been trying to overcome that speech. One of the first people to repudiate the Minister of Agriculture was his own Prime Minister. He said that these suggestions in no way represent government policy. Rejections have been coming in since from the president of the Manitoba wheat pool, the president of the Manitoba farmers' union and spokesmen representing the National farmers' union of Canada. It is true that when the Minister of Agriculture went before the Saskatchewan wheat pool organization they passed resolutions which agreed to a discussion to take place in their committees out in the country.
The Minister of Agriculture made two suggestions. One was that the farmers' organizations themselves should set up a central

Supply-Agriculture
selling agency. Farm organizations have had experience of this type of selling in the past. The farmers lost large sums of money and as a better method they have supported the Canadian wheat board. I suggest that they will support the Canadian wheat board and that anything done with regard to a selling agency must be done for the purpose of strengthening the Canadian wheat board, and in no way setting up anything that might be termed an alternate organization.
Then the minister went on to talk about this fund for losses that he had in mind. What did he say? He said, in so many words, that he was running into great difficulty in the cabinet getting additional money for additional credit sales. This is the thing that goes through his speech sentence after sentence. So many ministers in the cabinet have had trouble with the Prime Minister recently. Over the last few months and the last few years the attitude of the Prime Minister toward his colleagues in the cabinet, I suggest, is leading to the destruction of the Conservative party as the government of this nation when the next election comes along. The Prime Minister has no confidence in the Minister of Agriculture. He said this does not represent government policy. Certainly the Minister of Agriculture has no confidence in the Prime Minister. He hid his speech from the Prime Minister; he did not show his speech to the Prime Minister. But he went out and said a lot of things to the farm organizations. He said:
It was not an easy or simple matter to attain approval for these credit levels-
He had a tough time in the cabinet; this self-appointed hero of the west is having such a difficult time with his Prime Minister. He went on:
-and I must advise you that it will become infinitely more difficult to obtain approval for higher levels-
He suggested the setting aside of a portion of the final wheat payment with a view to building up a fund which would be used in sharing any loss which may occur. Then he went on to say:
I wish to make it perfectly clear that I am not suggesting that farmers take the entire risk-
Not all of it.
-of a loss on a credit sale. I have no exact share in mind-possibly this can await reaction in principle to the basic suggestion.
Isn't that something? "You agree to pay the loss and I will decide whether it is to be 50 per cent or 95 per cent of the loss after you have agreed to the principle." That is really powerful negotiation. Then he went on to say:
Believe me, if farmers are willing to approve such an arrangement-

And this was, of course, his whole purpose in doing it:
-it will make my task so much easier if I am able to say to my colleagues that farmers are willing to consider sharing the risk of credit sales.
The great opposition to increased credit sales today, in the words of the Minister of Agriculture himself, come from his cabinet colleagues. I suggest that the farm organizations-and I shall be talking about this after the luncheon recess-have shown in place after place that they reject and repudiate the effort of the Minister of Agriculture to put upon their shoulders the losses that may be sustained from government policy.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Hazen Robert Argue: Just before the lunch recess I was saying it was obvious from the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture in Regina that he was experiencing great difficulty in getting further credit sales past the cabinet. I think this is an indication, as yesterday, when the Prime Minister made a long statement to this house on another matter, that the real prime minister of this country, though he has not the title, sits in the other place. And I do not think that this administration directed from the other place will be any more successful than was the administration in 1896 when a Conservative prime minister operated this country from a seat in the Senate.
Nothing which has been done by this government in recent years has created so much opposition as the recent statement of the Minister of Agriculture. I have in my hand the Regina Leader-Post of Friday, November 23 in which a survey is made of farmers and farm organizations. Not a single farmer referred to in this survey supported the suggestions made by the Minister of Agriculture. As a matter of fact, according to the Leader-Post:
-delegates to a wheat pool meeting in Moose Jaw on Wednesday night went on record as opposing Mr. Hamilton's suggestion that a portion of the final payment on wheat be retained for a credit sales back-up fund.
Mr. G. R. Warrington, wheat pool delegate for Turtleford, had this to say. According to him:
-reactions to the proposals appear "not too favourable" on the credit fund and mixed on the selling agency proposal.
I think that while it is important to criticize any statements which appear not

to be in the best interests of the producers, it is of even greater importance to be positive, and the agriculture industry of this country at the present time needs positive action by the federal government. The Leader of the Opposition was in Saskatchewan a few days ago and had the opportunity to meet the farm leaders and to talk with a number of farm organization members. We feel that the agriculture program which we presented to the Canadian people in the last federal election was a good one. We think it is a good one today. We think there will be important improvements and additions to this program when it is presented in the coming general election. It is the kind of program which should commend itself to farmers and farm organizations. I shall have an opportunity in this coming week to be in Saskatchewan attending the Saskatchewan farmers' union convention, and it is my hope that I can speak with delegates to that convention and ascertain from them any changes which they feel are necessary at this time in their own agriculture program and in the program which is to be presented to parliament in the years ahead.
The Minister of Agriculture attended the Saskatchewan wheat pool convention in Regina and at that convention the wheat pool adopted an agriculture program. This program is printed in the Western Producer and I would hope that the Western Producer would think that comments on policy from the Liberal party are important and deserving of attention, just as it has felt in the past that comments by the Minister of Agriculture, the hon. member for Rosthern and others are worthy of attention. The Saskatchewan wheat pool's first proposal, the first plank in an 11 point program, urged the federal government to bolster grain sales through extension of credit and concessional sales to countries unable to buy for cash. Well, it was the Liberal party which began this program years ago and we certainly heartily endorse this feature of the program. The second paragraph reads:
2. Urged the maintenance of the Canadian wheat a, sl?gIe selling agency for Canadian grain; asked that its authority be extended to buy flax and rapeseed.	*
The purpose of this clause is to strengthen the Canadian wheat board. We on this side feel the Canadian wheat board should be strengthened, and at the earliest opportunity on reaching the treasury benches there would be consultation with the farm organizations as to how the wheat board might best be strengthened. We would not do what was done by hon. members opposite a few months
Supply-Agriculture
ago namely, reduce the jurisdiction and authority of the board. The program continues:
3.	Called for a two-price system for Canadian wheat.
That is in the Liberal agriculture program and has been well spelled out.
4.	Expressed support for the international wheat agreement as the best means of protecting the interests of both producers and consumers.
In the time of the late Right Hon. C. D. Howe, international wheat agreements were presented to this house periodically and this is certainly a proposal which would continue to get the support of the Liberal party of Canada.
The next one is:
5.	Urged the Canadian government to provide greater support for the world food program of the United Nations-
This too, has the full support of the Liberal party. Let it be remembered that it was the Leader of the Opposition who chaired an international commission which had as its result the establishment of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, a major step forward in the accomplishment of this particular objective. So naturally we are delighted to read this proposal in the wheat pool program. Then next:
6.	Supported the elimination of barriers to international trade and urged Canada to take the lead in the reduction of such barriers.
In opposition as well as in government, the Liberal party has gone forward in the direction of freer and freer trade. In this we are diametrically opposed to this government, which has become well known for erecting tariff barriers, quotas, surcharges and every other device used by a Conservative government to reduce trade.
Mr. Chairman, my time is limited, but the next recommendation is to reaffirm its conviction that the grain marketing plant for western Canada should be considered and protected in any program of rail line rationalization. That_ is paraphrasing No. 7, because my time is limited; but it is certainly a proposal which has the support of this party. As a matter of fact we would broaden it to include farmers and other business establishments along railway lines.
8. Gave support to the principles of the agricultural rehabilitation and development administration-
It was the Liberal party who initiated the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, which up to this time has done so much good work in the field of land utilization; so we welcome this proposal. We go one step further and say that P.F.R.A. should be maintained and expanded, and the federal government under

Supply-Agriculture
P.F.R.A. can take the initiative on its own much more easily than it can under ARDA, To continue:
9.	Reaffirmed support for the principle of producer marketing boards for farm commodities.
The plank in the Liberal program in the last election dealing with this question reads as follows:
Encourage national co-operatives and marketing boards, where farmers want them.
I think that is a program which should be worked out in consultation with the farmers and the provinces in order to get the most effective of marketing boards possible. Then, next:
10.	Reaffirmed support for Crowsnest pass freight rates and the maintenance of the special freight rates from Georgian bay to St. Lawrence and Atlantic positions on export grain.
I think that is a non-political plank because all political parties in Canada are opposed to any tampering with the Crowsnest pass rates. The last one is:
11.	Continuation of the prairie farm assistance program and federal-provincial co-operation to provide more adequate crop insurance at reasonable premiums.
Mr. Chairman, prairie farm assistance was olaced on the statute books by the Liberal party. The Conservative government has not seen fit to raise the awards under this act and we feel that further improvements in the future will once again be made by a Liberal government. We feel that the suggestions with relation to crop insurance are proper and necessary if crop insurance is to become more than a slogan or a policy that assists only very small number of farmers. Our agricultural policy, Mr. Chairman, not only supports the wheat pool program but goes beyond these proposals. It goes beyond these proposals in relation to the co-operative movement itself, of which the Saskatchewan wheat pool is an important member. Our agricultural program states-and I read from the pamphlet distributed during the last election-that through the industrial development bank we will provide long term capital for co-operatives, as well as implementing the other plank I have already read, which was to encourage co-operatives and national marketing boards where farmers want them. Another key plank is the assurance to western grain producers of a floor price of $2 per bushel, basis No. 1 northern Fort William, with other grades based in proportion to the floor for No. 1 northern wheat. Again this is diametrically opposed to the policy of the Minister of Agriculture who, in spite of having told the farmers during the last election "I will get you $2.19 per bushel", has never been able to get even $2 [Mr. Argue.1
per bushel, and has now gone to the farmers and said "I want back part of the price in order to insure against losses from credit sales".
If the agricultural program of this country is to work, it must be a national program. It must be a program designed to improve agriculture in all parts of Canada-the dairy industry, the beef industry, the fruit and vegetable industry, as well as the grain and other branches of the industry. We feel that this kind of comprehensive program is needed in the interest of farmers in all parts of Canada.
In conclusion, I underline that in order to make our agricultural industry prosperous and to give the farmers the chance of improving their standard of living, action must be taken by the Canadian government to restore the health of the Canadian economy, to get our economy moving at home, and to go forward in a rapid and aggressive way to increase trade with countries around the world.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to take part in this debate today. Like many western members, I have the privilege and the honour of representing a large agricultural area and constituency, namely, the constituency of Bow River. I think all members of parliament who have represented Bow River have always maintained that Bow River, and those constituencies adjoining Bow River, is the heart of the cattle country of Alberta. Probably, although this may be showing a little prejudice, it is also the heart of the cattle belt of western Canada.
I should like to make two suggestions with regard to the cattlemen themselves. There have been over the last few years serious dangers arising from the breaking out among cattle of a disease known as brucellosis. As we know, areas where there is any danger of a breakout or a suspected breakout are quarantined, and this makes it very difficult to market cattle. This occurred in two areas of Bow River, but the veterinary surgeons employed by the Department of Agriculture and other officials quickly got to work and assisted the ranchers in this regard, and the matter was solved. I have one small suggestion to make-and I am glad to see the minister here today, and also his parliamentary secretary. In Alberta, and I think I can say this in respect of other prairie provinces, we have no veterinary medical school. I think with the continued dangers from various diseases in the cattle industry, such as brucellosis, it would be a great move forward if something could be done to secure help from the federal government, in conjunction with

the provincial government, by way of building a veterinary school in Alberta. Again, naturally I may be prejudiced; but the city of Calgary, part of which is in Bow River and which is the centre of the cattle industry, would then have the privilege of having a veterinary school for western Canada at its new university. I make that suggestion in all sincerity believing, as I say, that we are the heart of the cattle belt of the prairies.
One other suggestion which I made the other day when taking part in the debate with reference to prairie farm assistance was that I trusted the Department of Agriculture would take a serious look at amendments to the act with regard to the question of hail. As I have said before, the destruction caused by hail is different from that caused by drought. Hail descends in strips, and it is nearly always impossible for a farmer to qualify within the 12-section block when he is in an adjacent section and has suffered damage from hail.
I would ask that we take a serious look at the question and bring in these people who suffer losses, like those in Beiseker in Alberta and other places under the act. I appreciate the fact that these people can take out hail insurance. Some of these belts along the foothills have difficulty in complying because this is the hail belt of the prairies. With those two suggestions being made, I wish to say at the outset that I was most happy to hear the hon. member for Assiniboia today speak in such glowing terms with regard to the former minister of agriculture; I refer to the late Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner. Even we Conservatives who have been traditionally Conservative have always felt that he made some contribution. However, it was rather surprising, coming as it did from the hon. member for Assiniboia. I am reminded of Shakespeare, and would just change one word: Frailty, thy name is Argue.
In reading Hansard, it is not necessary to go very far back. It is necessary only to go back to 1957. There I notice the same words, no doubt sung by the same man and sung to the same tune, only he changes the name of the party. As found at page 458 of Hansard of 1957, volume 1, what did he say. He was interrupted by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate. Of course, you know what that does, Mr. Chairman. If you interrupt the hon. member for Assiniboia, that interruption gives him more juice with which to run that motor. After the interruption, this is what he said:
Mending broken Liberal fences, and there are lots of them. They are breaking down all over western Canada. The minister was out there lining up the old Jimmy Gardiner political machine.
You will recall that the other evening when we were listening to that most interesting 27507-3-139
Supply-Agriculture
debate, he accused us of running a Jimmy Gardiner political machine. On that occasion I suggested to him that he had had a nightmare or also, in the alternative, because he had left the socialist party and had moved over to the Liberal party, he was able to get into that file of Jimmy Gardiner which otherwise he would not have been able to look at. This is what he said at this stage, in 1957. It is rather interesting:
It is pretty rusty and in a bad state of repair in many places-
I do not know how their fences are now but I leave it to the house to judge.
-but the minister says it is good for one more run and he is going to make the best use of it he can. If a stranger had come to Saskatchewan last fall not knowing who the Minister of Agriculture was, I am sure that from looking at the Leader-Post and other daily newspapers, he would have thought that the minister was a paid organizer for the Saskatchewan Liberal party and had never been east of Fort William.
In the same speech he also said this. It is always interesting to go back to these old songs:
He says to the farmers: Do not worry;-
This is what he says about Jimmy Gardiner.
-I know you are broke because you have got too much wheat, but sooner or later there will be a couple of dry years and you will sell your wheat and you will then be broke because you no longer have any wheat. In the meantime he goes along, as I say, oiling up his defunct and discredited political machine.
Those are the words that were put to the tune of 1957. The same words were used to a different tune because the orchestra was different. However, it is the same old thing over again. Maybe I should put a little bit more of it on the record. As found at page 459 of Hansard he said this:
The Minister of Agriculture was in Saskatchewan. He did not spend all his time in his home constituency.
The hon. member for Assiniboia did not like that in those days. He did not want Liberals in Assiniboia.
He came down into Assiniboia constituency and other constituencies in western Canada. The Jimmy Gardiner political machine was prepared to go into Assiniboia and to take things over in an important way, because the Minister of Agriculture was quite happy to come to a convention where they chose as their political candidate somebody who has acquired a reputation for transferring from one political party to another.
He was thinking of his great friend Ross Thatcher. My main point in referring to these things is not to ridicule my good friend as I have a great deal of respect for him. We graduated from the same university. However, I say to the committee and to the press of Canada: Do not take this man too
21S2

Supply-Agriculture
seriously because he said the same things about the Liberals as he is endeavouring to say about us today.
That brings me to the next point in reference to his attack on the Minister of Agriculture. I have said this before and I will say it again today. The Liberal party know that it has been an old trick of the trade that, if they can destroy our political leader, they may be able to destroy the Conservative party temporarily, and they are busy at work in that regard now. However, they have taken on a new campaign. They have new motives. They know that if they can destroy Alvin Hamilton, who has done more for the farmers of western Canada than any other minister since confederation, they might be able to uproot some of the Tory members of parliament who now enjoy his confidence.
They have made an attack on the minister. Why have they made an attack on him? The kind of Minister of Agriculture that we have is a man who goes out and listens to the farmers' problems, makes suggestions, talks over the problems, takes their suggestions from the farm organizations, the wheat pools and other organizations to which they belong and from the grain trade generally, hammers out these suggestions, takes a look at them and in many cases implements them. I know that I can speak for the united farmers of Alberta. When I was campaigning they handed me the submissions they had made over the last five years. Many of those submissions contained in that particular brief of theirs have been implemented by this government. I have not the time in which to go into them now because I have many other things to say. However, the fact is that it is proof that the minister is heeding what the farmers have to suggest and is implementing their suggestions where it is politically and financially possible.
I am going to suggest this: I am going to suggest they are trying to make political hay out of the speech the minister made in Regina. I have a copy here and I am going to refer to it in a moment. But the most interesting thing is that they are off tune today because when I lived in Saskatchewan I always believed the Leader-Post was not too unkind to the Liberals. I have in my hand an editorial which appeared in the Leader-Post of November 16, 1962. I trust the hon. member for Assiniboia and others have read it. This is what they had to say. This is in their editorial and they speak for one of the great wheat belts of the prairies, as Regina is on that flat plain which really can produce wheat. This is what they had to say:
Mr. Hamilton's proposals are worthy of a better fate than precipitate condemnation by self-seeking

politicians. They are entitled to a careful examination, and to subsequent implementation if they hold out a prospect of being helpful in extending the markets for prairie wheat.
That is what the Leader-Post had to say about that matter. What did the Globe and Mail have to say? I have taken it from one newspaper of one colour. It may be suggested that this newspaper is a little bit friendly to another political party; but at least these are two papers, one in the west and one in the east. This is just a short editorial. It is so cute that I wish to read it all. It is dated November 27, 1962, and is headed, "Who is Ridiculous?" It reads as follows:
Opposition leader Lester Pearson last week demonstrated an astounding capacity for changing his mind.
I would not suggest that statement would apply to the hon. member for Assiniboia.
He announced that a proposal made by Agriculture Minister Alvin Hamilton that western grain growers form a co-operative sales organization as an agent of the Canadian wheat board-a proposal which he had earlier described as ridiculous-was perhaps not so ridiculous after all. But he still found ridiculous Mr. Hamilton's second suggestion, that the grain growers create a contributory fund to guard against possible defaults in credit sales abroad.
Mr. Pearson's problem is that he is so anxious to oppose any and all government proposals that he damns them before he clearly understands them. This can lead, as it did in this instance, to a necessity to perform humiliating flip-flops. Mr. Pearson comes out of this episode looking far more ridiculous than anything suggested by Mr. Hamilton.
There we have the records of the two newspapers. I say this, Mr. Chairman, that when you look at the speech of the Minister of Agriculture, you find that he went there to discuss problems of grain with one of the largest organizations in western Canada, and he threw out some suggestions. One suggestion no doubt was that they build up a fund, in addition to the credits that have been given by this government so that we could sell wheat to China, so that we could go out and promote the sale of grain. What is wrong with that?
We only have to recall that a few years ago, Mr. Chairman, when I first came into this house there were 700 million bushels of wheat piled up on the farms in western Canada in old houses, in barns and in makeshift bins. The hon. member for Assiniboia speaks in glowing terms of the late C. D. Howe. I am not criticizing him or his policy. He talked at that time of the international wheat agreement, but I thought it was the quibbling over five cents a bushel that took us out of that agreement for a number of years and cost the wheat farmers a lot of money.
I come back to the point that the suggestion was one for promoting sales. Of course, the

suggestion is being made that there is a disagreement between the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture. Surely a minister of the crown can go to a farm organization and say, here are some suggestions. This does not make those suggestions law. I thought it was understood that when we wanted to implement something we did it here in parliament. The minister brought out some suggestions and said, what do you think of them? Supposing the Saskatchewan wheat pool had said, "Absolutely no", what harm was done? On one occasion when the Prime Minister was asked, I understand he merely said this was not government policy. He did not say it would not be government policy; he did not say they were not going to take a look at it. I think he was asking the western farmers to consider what was good for western Canada, and that is the only proper interpretation that can be put on the speech made by the Minister of Agriculture.
This situation reminds me of an evening on the prairies when the sun goes down early and the coyotes howl because their stomachs are burning with hunger. These people in the opposition howl like coyotes because their stomachs are burning for power; that is the interpretation which we can put on their attitude towards the suggestions made by the Minister of Agriculture. The minister merely went to Regina to discuss the problems of the wheat growers with their organizations, so they could both toss these suggestions around and arrive at some solution of our problems.
I want to say something about wheat sales. I got up in my place when the distinguished Leader of the Opposition was speaking, and I asked him a question. I said, "Are you against sales of wheat to China or against the sales of wheat already made to China?" He said, "If you had listened to me you would know where I stand in that regard." I do not know what he said in Halifax or other places, but it is suggested in the newspapers he said he did not support us. Why did he not say right there, if he wanted to be on the record, "Yes, I endorse these sales that have been made." I put a second question to him. "Would you endorse further sales made under present circumstances?" He gave me the same fuzzy sort of answer. I would say to the hon. member for Assiniboia that this fuzziness is not going over in western Canada because the people do not understand it, you do not understand it, we do not understand it and nobody will ever understand it.
Now, what about this other argument of theirs? There is no man who is now living and who was born on a wheat farm who does not know the history of the Canadian wheat board. I said this the last time I spoke in
Supp ly-A griculture
parliament, but it bears repeating. The Liberals would like the farmers in western Canada to believe that the step we took in agriculture lessened the powers of the wheat board. Let us see where they stood on the wheat board over the years. Who introduced the Canadian wheat board? It was established by a Conservative government. Who wanted to get rid of the Canadian wheat board when they were returned to power in 1935? During the recess I took time off to look in Hansard at the debates of that time. Mackenzie King was returned to power and Mr. McFarland was fired. They were going to destroy the wheat board. They blamed the board for the surplus of wheat, for the price of wheat and for everything. They told the farmers, "You are on your own". However, the pressure groups from western Canada supported the board, as did this party in opposition at the time and I must give credit to the C.C.F. of those days for their support. The Liberals, therefore, did not make that move. Any member who was in the house at that time and took part in those debates knows these are the facts.
What about the wheat board? The wheat board was established, certainly, as the agency for the orderly marketing of wheat. It was also the agency under which the first floor price of 87.5 cents a bushel was established. This floor was placed under wheat by the Conservatives. How have the Liberals used the wheat board over the years? I am going to quote from an authority on the Canadian grain trade, Mr. MacGibbon, a former member of the Canadian wheat board. There are some of us who can recall this record because my father at the time was making his living out of producing wheat in the Rosetown-Biggar constituency and he was one farmer who shared in the loss of $600 million as a result of Liberal farm policies at that time.
Let us see what the learned author has to say about the functions of the wheat board at that time. I quote from page 66:
It should be noted, however, that while the government s measures were directed towards giving the wheat producers basic protection, the general wartime controls instituted to keep down prices applied more severely to wheat than to any other commodity.
The Liberals used the Canadian wheat board to put a ceiling on the price of wheat and not for a floor under the price of wheat. This is the indictment I place against the Liberals this afternoon. The hon. member for Assiniboia, when he spoke on this occasion, would have to agree with me then if he does not do so today.
I come to another sad story when we are talking about their glowing agricultural program, and this is why they have not

Supply-Agriculture
much representation from the grain producing area of this country. Hon. members will recall when they went over and made an agreement known as the British wheat agreement. This is what I was talking about when I said it cost the farmers of that day $600 million. Let us see what this author had to say about that. He was working on the wheat board at that time. I quote from page 133:
To opposition charges that the wheat producers had lost $600 million Mr. Howe replied that the government would give consideration to the "alleged" loss when the pool was settled towards the end of the year. There the matter rested officially, hut in the country controversy continued with attempts being made to assess the responsibility for the agreement as between the government and the farm organizations themselves.
As the time approached when a final payment from the Canadian wheat board might be expected a new development occurred. In an address at Regina to the Saskatchewan wheat pool delegates on November 17, 1950, Mr. Gardiner, Minister of Agriculture, said a further payment by Britain under the four-year agreement was still under discussion. "All I am going to say," Mr. Gardiner Is quoted as declaring, "is that I don't think the gap has been completely closed and we will go on with discussions and see if there can be some conclusion arrived at which will be satisfactory not only to the farmers of the west and the government of Canada but the government of Great Britain as well." Nevertheless, discontent was increasing in the west.
What did they do then? I do not know whether or not it was on the authority of the then minister of trade and commerce, but Mr. Gardiner went to Great Britain and discussed the problem. They said, here is the deal for five years and that is the deal with which you are going to stay. It was on that deal the farmers of western Canada contributed, as a nation, $600 million to the war effort of that time. These are the people who would suggest to us that we should get out of office and let them run the country and implement another kind of agricultural program of that nature. I do not believe the western farmers will think well of that situation.
What did the Liberals do about it? They brought in this bill which resulted in a payment of $65 million being made on this debt of $600 million. Even those people who said $600 million was too much all say it was at least $300 million. Whatever figure you want to take, the farmers suffered a loss when they got from that party $65 million.
You may say, what does that all add up to? It adds up to this: At that time the board was selling wheat under the British wheat agreement for $1.15 while wheat was selling in the world market for $3.15. I am sure the farmers are quite willing that there should be some ceiling on the prices of the commodities they produce, as there is on other commodities; but the ceiling which was
[Mr. Woolliams.l
placed on wheat during the Liberal term of office was greater than at any other time in our history. At this point I rest my case so far as wheat is concerned.
I now want to come back for a few moments to the criticism being made of the Minister of Agriculture. When he spoke in Edmonton on October 12, 1960, the Edmonton Journal reported the hon. member for As-siniboia (Mr. Argue) as follows:
National C.C.F. Leader Hazen Argue said Tuesday the appointment of former northern affairs minister Alvin Hamilton as agriculture minister in a federal cabinet reshuffle is a mistake.
The minister had not been sworn into his portfolio before the hon. member for Assini-boia said his appointment was a mistake. The minister had not dotted the first "i" in the first letter he wrote as Minister of Agriculture before the hon. member for As-siniboia was criticizing him. If he says it is still a mistake today, I suggest that no western member of parliament is going to heed the hon. member for Assiniboia, and the newspapers have ridiculed him for saying so. In fact, the Edmonton Journal was a Liberal party supporter.
Another newspaper, the Lethbridge Herald, which is not always so kind to the government, on November 24, 1962, after the fictitious attack by the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Assiniboia, the Liberal party and later the N.D.P. party on the Minister of Agriculture, said in an editorial, dealing with the very thing I am speaking of:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton continues to amaze everyone (including the farmers) by the depth and breadth of his knowledge of agriculture (and farmers).
As a member of parliament representing a large agricultural area I say it does not matter how the Liberals dish it up because the farmers in western Canada are not going to accept the fact that the minister, whatever statement he may have made in Regina- and I have the statement in my hand-made a mistake. He was merely discussing their problems with them. These people in the opposition, just like the prairie coyotes crying in the wilderness, would like to build straw men. On this occasion I do not think they are going to meet with success because practically all the major newspapers in the country say that the Minister of Agriculture acted in a capable manner, properly, judiciously and equitably so far as the farmers are concerned.
As I say, I have the minister's speech in my hand. I have not time to read it all, but this is what the minister said:
Specifically. I wish your organization at all levels to consider and discuss-

He did not say implement.
-in a fully objective manner the possibility of "setting aside" a portion of the final wheat payment with a view to building up a fund which would be used in sharing in any loss which may occur, should there be a non-payment or default from a customer purchasing on a credit basis.
He was not suggesting that they allocate this fund to cover sales already made to China. He meant for future sales programs; and that is important.
There is one other matter on which I wish to take a stand. One political party in Canada is particularly opposed to wheat sales to China because its members feel such sales are wrong. That is one thing I admire about them. They stood up, even during the election campaign, and said they were against sales of wheat to China. But I remind them of the saying "It is better to be fed than red," and that other countries like Australia and New Zealand were also selling wheat, and that Britain and Europe continue to trade with China. Why should we not continue to trade with those countries which have not got enough to feed themselves?
I will repeat their own argument to those hon. members who oppose selling wheat to China: We will never get security and peace in any country where its people are hungry and starving. Any human being with his head firmly screwed on, will fight for his life if his children are hungry; and as we are the bread basket of a large part of the world we should continue to trade with those countries that need our foodstuffs. It was even said by the New Democratic party that food is better than bullets. All Canadians want peace and they believe that all people, no matter on what side of the iron curtain they live, should have the right to live in dignity with their families and friends free from hunger. As a western Conservative member I am proud that the government has seen fit to make those sales, and to trade with China as it does with other nations of the world.


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Chairman, the debate so far has centred around the recent suggestion made by the Minister of Agriculture that there should be additional participation by farm grain handling organizations in the sale of wheat abroad. The importance of the item under discussion has been underlined by the fact that it was the party leaders in each case who led off in the debate. The Minister of Agriculture himself with the consent of the house made two speeches longer than the time limit allowed by the rules, and both his speeches were primarily concerned with wheat.
Supply-Agriculture
I do not intend to devote all my remarks to wheat or dealing with the minister's suggestions that farm organizations should shoulder more responsibility and more risk in future wheat sales, although there are one or two very important considerations which have not been given sufficient attention. One thing which disturbs me more than any other in respect to western Canadian farmers is the image that the minister has so successfully projected, that the farmers in western Canada are getting anything and everything they want from this government, and that they are actually getting more than their fair share of treasury funds and more than their fair share of consideration by the federal Department of Agriculture.
I have in my hand a clipping from the Western Producer of August 2, 1962, which has an article headed "Let's get this straight." It reads:
We are completely fed up with some of the glib assumptions made by the people who, before, during and after the election campaign undertook to size up the prairie vote situation by implying the Conservatives "bought" the farmers' vote with large and unwarranted government "handouts."
Readers may remember some of the "funny" men on election night remarking that you couldn't get in the door of the average prairie farmhouse without kicking aside the pile of government cheques. Another wisecrack-at least we think this is what was intended-was to the effect that every time a farmer opened his mail box at the post office, a few more "handout" cheques tumbled out.
In a moment I shall review some of the facts regarding prairie farm income during the period preceding the election, and also some of the facts with regard to the cost of operations during that same period. But before doing so there are one or two further quotations I would like to make from the same newspaper, so that we can see exactly what the prairie farmers got in the period preceding the election:
November, 1961: a prairie farm assistance payment of about $60,000,000 to farmers who suffered varying degrees of crop failures-
This was not a handout. This was a payment from a scheme of long standing. As the article says:
Not a handout, but a very necessary government-underwritten insurance scheme of long standing.
December, 1961: a wheat board interim payment of ten cents per bushel on the previous year's wheat crop, totalling $39,300,000, part of the actual proceeds of sales made in preceding months.
There is no handout here, but simply a normal payment of the farmer's own money. Then in January of 1962 there was an acreage payment of $42 million at the rate of $1 per acre on a limit of 200 acres. I agree that there was a payment out of the treasury in this respect. In February, 1962 it was announced that the initial price of wheat was to
219S

Supply-Agriculture
be raised ten cents per bushel. In April, 1962 about $125 million was paid out to grain producers. This, again, was the actual proceeds from the sale of the 1960-61 crop. Not a cent of subsidy or handout here.
So, Mr. Chairman, far from being even faintly humorous, the suggestion with respect to buying the farmers' vote in western Canada is a gross misrepresentation of fact and must be dealt with as such. The fact remains that the Minister of Agriculture and all the Conservative members from western Canada have contributed to this false image. They went about the country- and I do not think any one of them will deny it-praising their minister, praising their Prime Minister and in fact instilling in the minds of all people in Canada other than farmers that they were giving them anything and everything they could-at the expense of the rest of Canada, of course.
Even the Prime Minister had this to say, as reported at page 75 of Hansard:
I saw the Leader of the Opposition on election night, Mr. Speaker, when he believed he was going to be occupying this seat. That is before the western farmer came in.
Then this is what he says further down:
That is the best evidence that could possibly be given of the fact that under this government the farmers of Canada have at long last received reasonable consideration.
So they are continuing to perpetuate this image that they are in fact giving better treatment to the western farmers than the other people of Canada. Let us look at some of the facts that have been published by the dominion bureau of statistics with respect to farm income. To be fair to the minister and to the western members opposite I think we should use the figures for the period immediately preceding the election campaign; in other words, from January to March, inclusive, 1962. On page 105 of this publication dealing with cash income from the sale of farm products in Canada by commodity, for January to March, 1962 we find wheat, $66 million, and the year before, $82 million. So it was actually down. I do not blame the minister or the Conservative party altogether for this, because there was a drought and there were fewer bushels. But then we look further down and find that in 1961 the Canadian wheat board paid out $37,750,000 during this three months period. In 1962 it was reduced to only $17,000. Mr. Chairman, I believe there might have been a deliberate attempt on the part of the government to withhold this money for that period so they could pay it out just before the election. The total cash income from the sale of crops during this period was $189 million, as opposed to $270 million before. So certainly no
[Mr. Olson.)
one can honestly say that there was an increase in their farm cash income.
Now let us look at the cost of production during this same period. I have another bulletin issued by the dominion bureau of statistics-I do not see the date on it-which deals with the cost price index of commodities and services used by farmers to April, 1962. The index is based on 100 equal to the 193539 period. In April of 1959 the index of commodities and services used by farmers stood at 273. In April, 1961 it was up to 284, and in April, 1962 it was at a level of 291. I think this indicates clearly that while the cash income had dropped substantially, the cost of operation had gone up substantially. Therefore how can anyone, with justice, say that the farmers were getting a better deal in 1962 than they did before? There is one other thing to which I should like to refer, and that is the speech the minister made in Regina about two weeks ago. I believe that in addition to having created this image that the farmers are so much better off, the fact that he is now asking for some of the payments for wheat to be put into a fund to shoulder some of the responsibility for credit risks is another step in abandoning the responsibility of this government toward the farmers. The minister said this in his speech:
It is not an easy or simple matter to attain approval for these credit levels and I must advise you that it will become infinitely more difficult to obtain approval for higher levels.
I suggest that if it is true that the minister is having these so-called increasing problems, it is a direct result of his own propaganda campaign. Mr. Chairman, I would like to go back briefly to see just what is the historical position of the western Canada wheat farmers in relation to the deals they have had from various governments, and what justification there is for them now to ask the government to continue supporting them to some extent. The hon. member for Bow River said there was a loss of somewhere near $600 million on the British wheat agreement. He said others had considered it was more like $300 million. I did a little work on this, with the co-operation of the dominion bureau of statistics, and I found that in the crop year of 1946-47, 125 million bushels were sold to Britain under that agreement. The 125 million bushels were sold at a price of $1.58 per bushel. The sales outside of the agreement, or the world price, if you like, were at $2.44 a bushel, so there was a loss of 86 cents a bushel, for a total of $107,930,000. In 1947-48 the difference between the British wheat agreement price and the world price was $1.30 a bushel. There were 122 million bushels sold that year, so the prairie farmer suffered a loss of $158,600,000 in that crop year. In the 1948-49 crop year

the difference between the agreement price and the world price was 22 cents a bushel. In that year 128,681,000 bushels were sold, leaving the farmers with a net loss of $28,160,000. In the 1949-50 crop year the difference between the agreement price and the world price was 13 cents per bushel. In that year 110,802,000 bushels were sold, for a loss of $14,300,000.
I want to make one thing abundantly clear, Mr. Chairman. The western farmers did not oppose helping Britain to recover after the war. They participated as Canadian citizens in the billion dollars of debt we cancelled, and they participated as taxpaying citizens in all the other assistance we gave to Britain to help build her economy after the war. In addition, the western farmers contributed $318 million over and above the sums contributed generally by Canadian citizens. I should like to refer back to what a very distinguished member of this house, Mr. Quelch, said in 1953. At page 519 of Hansard he is reported as saying this:
Let me make one point in that regard. The granting of aid to needy nations is the responsibility of the people of Canada, not that of one group. If we are to extend the giving of aid in the future to have-not nations let us see to it that we spread the burden equitably upon the shoulders of all the people of Canada and do not try to place it upon the shoulders of the farmers as was done in connection with the British wheat agreement which costs the farmers of western Canada hundreds of millions of dollars.


Mr. McIntosh:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, if it does not take away from the time I have at my disposal.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Is that the same speech as the one where he said he was in favour of selling to any country inside the iron curtain?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have not read the rest of the speech.
In addition, the government of that day, and it was a Liberal government, arbitrarily forced the western grain farmers to subsidize the price of wheat to the domestic market of Canada. For example, on the wheat which was sold-and it is substantial, I am advised; it averaged about 150 million bushels a year- under the subsidy which the farmers paid to the consumer, the difference between the domestic price and the world price represented an enormous loss. In 1946-47 the average price on the domestic market was even less than the price under the British wheat agreement, and in that year the western farmers lost $159 million. In the 1947-48 crop year the world price was $2.88 cents for class 2 wheat while on the domestic market the price stood at $1.58. So the total cost to the farmers in that year was $195 million. In
Supply-Agriculture
1948-49 this same agreement cost $33 million and in 1949-50 it cost $19.5 million. This comes to a total of $406.5 million, representing the difference between the world price and the price on the domestic market at that time.
Then, the next year, we had the international wheat agreement. If one calculates the total number of bushels sold on the domestic market and multiplies that by the difference between the world price and the arbitrary price set by the government, the farmers subsidized the consumers of Canada to the tune of $155,500,000. If we look at all these things -the amount of money which was lost under the British wheat agreement, the amount of money which was lost through the government, arbitrarily selling wheat on the domestic market at those prices, and the further loss under the international wheat agreement- we find there was a loss to the farmers of $273,565,000, representing the difference between the price under the international wheat agreement and the price on the world market. So, if we add it all up, $592 million and another $562 million, it is easy to find abundant proof that these two wheat agreements have cost the western farmer $1,154 million.
I want to say in fairness to the Liberal party that the main agricultural organizations, the wheat pools and the farmers unions endorsed both these wheat agreements. But they certainly did not expect the Minister of Agriculture to plant the seeds of the idea that he was going to abandon them now. I think it should be abundantly clear that this government, in the light of the things which have happened in the last 15 years should be doing everything to strengthen the position of the farmers, now we have reached the point where it is more difficult to sell in world wheat markets. When those organizations in western Canada endorsed these agreements they did expect some additional support to level out prices when it became difficult to sell grain. I do not want to be too critical but I think we must be careful. I know that some of the urban people in my own constituency, in a wheat growing area, are beginning to believe, because of the Conservative propaganda program, that the farmers are actually getting too much. I hope these figures which I have quoted will dispel those thoughts.
Earlier this year the minister encouraged production. Even a few days ago he still said he could sell all the wheat that would be available for sale. I have brought along another little booklet from the dominion bureau of statistics called the Wheat Review for October, 1962. Obviously our sales so far this year are down, and our supplies at the present time are up. We have 744 million

Supply-Agriculture
bushels of wheat on hand, whereas last year at this time we had 682 million bushels. Last year at this time we had sold 70.8 million bushels and so far we have only exported 53 million bushels. I see, too, on the next page, page 3 of this review, that a year ago at this time we had 607.8 million bushels in carryover and that now we have 395.7 million bushels. There may be some comfort in this, but after all the grain is in I suspect we shall have more stocks than we had last year and certainly sales are not keeping up with last year's sales.
Now I wish to turn to another subject which comes under the Department of Agriculture, the subject of ARDA. We have been told that the main agreement has been signed with all the provinces. We have been told the federal government is ready to pay $50 million into it. Perhaps it is progressing to some extent. But what disturbs me is that some of the Conservative backbenchers from western Canada have been going about blaming the provincial governments for dragging their feet in this respect. This is simply not true. I have a letter here from one of the former Conservative members from western Canada. This is a letter to a newspaper, by the way, and it reads:
The federal government has given its endorsement to the plan. The P.F.A.A. is ready to go to work. It is my hope that our provincial minister of agriculture will see fit to go into action immediately and make the plan a success.
I would point out that it is only a few days ago since this agreement was signed and I happen to know that the province of Alberta submitted some plans for approval under ARDA months ago. As a matter of fact, in September, after some projects had passed the executive council in Alberta, they were submitted, but so far not one has been approved by the department. So who are dragging their feet?
One other point I want to bring out is to express my hope that the minister will expedite that thought in the speech from the throne with respect to building more storage in eastern Canada, and to put some grain in a position where it will be available to some very large and important customers for wheat feed grains produced in the west. I cannot see any valid objection to having the wheat board place some of their stocks in these positions so that they will be available to the feeders in eastern Canada in the off navigation season, as well as when the seaway is open, and to do so at the same price.
One other thing I want to mention briefly is a matter brought up by the hon. member for Bow River with regard to a veterinary college in western Canada. We believe there

is a growing need for this. As a matter of fact, there have been some conferences over the last 18 months which have indicated that there would be greater movement of livestock through auction rings, and so on. Using trucking methods whereby cattle are going in to the auction rings and then back out to the farms more than they did before, the spread of disease is going to be a very serious problem. In addition to this, if we do not have a greater measure of control over some livestock diseases, we may see the day when we get into difficulty with the export of cattle to the United States. So that I would encourage the federal government to make a contribution toward the establishment of a veterinary college in western Canada, and perhaps even to call on the four western provinces to share in the cost of both building and operating this college. I understand that Alberta is studying this proposal at the present time. Therefore, I hope the government will come to an agreement with the four provinces and, with their co-operation will establish such a college. We know now that the veterinary college at Guelph, Ontario, is overcrowded, and a lot of our applicants are being turned away simply because there is not enough room for them.
The Alberta veterinary medical association have made some recommendations in this regard, and if I have time I should like to read them to the committee. They respectfully suggest that the veterinary college be a faculty completely within the jurisdiction of an existing university. This was a specific recommendation in the report of the western Canada veterinary study committee. Second, they recommend that sites other than the city of Saskatoon be seriously considered for the establishment of this faculty. The University of Alberta in Edmonton has an imposing list of attributes which would make it an ideal site for this college. Third, they suggest that we should recommend that a definite grant from the government of Canada be made to the University of Alberta to defray part of the cost of establishing this faculty of veterinary medicine. Mr. Chairman, with these suggestions I wish to thank the committee for its indulgence.


Mr. Honey:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the participation of the Minister of Agriculture in this debate. I have also listened to the contributions to this debate made by members of the government party. However, I must register my surprise and disappointment that today neither the Minister of Agriculture nor any of his supporters has taken time to say anything about the very serious plight in which the agriculture industry of eastern Canada finds itself. I thought that



19B2

[Stage Direction]
this morning the hon. member for Waterloo South, representing as he does an eastern Canada agricultural riding, might have referred to eastern agriculture during the course of his remarks. But he did not do so. He joined with previous speakers on the government side in boasting of the government's record. He talked about the issue of cabinet solidarity with reference to the speech of the minister in Regina, and he made some snide remarks about lawyers and their opinions on the issue of cabinet solidarity.
In so far as he raised that issue, may I say, as a member of the profession to which he referred, that in my opinion the rejection by the Prime Minister of the remarks made by the Minister of Agriculture was in itself a shocking example of a breach of cabinet solidarity as we know it. The hon. member for Waterloo South, instead of dealing with problems in eastern agriculture, spoke instead about the greatness of the Minister of Agriculture and his program, particularly in respect to his efforts on behalf of the western farmers. Again, instead of dealing with the problems of eastern agriculture, the hon. member for Waterloo South in fact made an admission that the wheat deal, as it is called, with China was a windfall for this government. This, of course, is contrary to what we have heard over the last few years from the Minister of Agriculture and his supporters in the government.
This debate has ranged over some three days now, and while the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Assiniboia and members of the Liberal party have referred to some of the problems of the farmers of eastern Canada, as I have said, Mr. Chairman, it is rather disturbing to note that the Minister of Agriculture and his supporters have not found time to make reference in this debate to these very serious matters which affect the farmers of eastern Canada. This is to be expected, of course, particularly when we refer back to the record of this government and to the attitudes taken by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture. To them and to this government the farming industry apparently ends at the head of the great lakes; anything easterly from the head of the great lakes is apparently not worthy of time or energy. How far this attitude has extended can be seen in the remarks of the Prime Minister in the debate in reply to the speech from the throne, when he placed such emphasis on the support the Conservative party had received from western farmers.
Mr. Chairman, I mention this because I have a particular interest in western Canada. I was born on a farm in Saskatchewan and spent the first half of my life on a farm 27507-3-140
Supply-Agriculture
in Saskatchewan. Whatever degree of success western farmers may have attained at this time is most certainly heartening to us all; but the fact remains that a party which strives for national support and which calls itself a national party must surely be a party that does not rely to such a great extent on sectional or regional support. It seems that a party which calls itself a national party should have consideration for, and should take effective steps to deal with, the problems of the agriculture industry on a nation-wide basis, and thereby give some hope and encouragement to the farmers of eastern Canada. The Minister of Agriculture, both during the campaign and in the weeks thereafter, assured eastern farmers that, having solved all the problems of the west and placed the western agriculturists on a level of unprecedented prosperity and in a position where they could look to a picture of unclouded prosperity in the future, he would shortly be ready to devote his unmatched ability and devotion to the cause of agriculture almost exclusively for the good of Canadians engaged in that industry in eastern Canada. As the hon. member for Assiniboia said this morning, having in effect made this promise or representation to the farmers of eastern Canada, that he would now turn his attention to their needs, the Minister of Agriculture subsequently, it would appear, has threatened eastern farmers that unless something is done with respect to the dairy problem, he is going to cut the supports out from under them.
Since the minister has given that assurance to the eastern farmers, nothing constructive has been done. He has made a threat and given a time limit to the dairy industry to correct the overproduction of butter or to suffer the consequences. His department has given the dairy industry no guidance in this connection other than the rather overly simple and consequently very impractical suggestion of shifting from dairy to beef production.
As has been pointed out by Dr. H. L. Patterson of the Ontario department of agriculture, farmers are still paying interest rates of 18 per cent, within a range of 12 per cent to 24 per cent, on the greater proportion of their borrowing. This high cost of credit prevents many farmers from turning to beef production, because of the substantial capital outlays involved.
When a farmer switches from dairy production to beef production he will need double the amount of land and twice as many cows in order to maintain the same income he previously enjoyed. The Ontario department of agriculture estimates the cash yield per beef cow at $109 annually compared with $240 per cow, including the value of the calf, for
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture
a farmer selling milk or processing the dairy produce. The agriculture department of the province of Ontario further estimates that for a farmer having a fluid milk contract quota, his cash yield per cow would be about $400.
Having helped, by means of its policies aimed at political advantage, to place the dairy industry in its present position, I respectfully suggest to the government that it might now take some initiative, that it might show some leadership, in the matter of the solution of the problems with which the dairy industry is faced today.
For the reasons I have already mentioned and for others, it is not as simple as the Minister of Agriculture would have us believe for the dairy farmers to go into beef production. Dairy farming, as with any other branch of the agriculture industry, becomes a way of life and it is not easy to shift. In many cases, because of lack of capital or, as I have mentioned, the high cost of obtaining capital, it is impossible for a dairy farmer to make the shift to beef production as the minister and his department have suggested.
The minister has not as yet given the dairy industry any leadership in the solution of this problem to which I have referred. He has given the industry an ultimatum and he has fostered an impractical suggestion to which I have referred. In the absence of any government policy in these present serious circumstances may I venture a few suggestions with respect to the dairy industry and its present problems.
First, the department might explore the possibility of selling more cheese abroad. It might ascertain whether or not we have an efficient sales promotion program in the United Kingdom. The department might shore up that program wherever it might be found wanting, in order to ensure that as much as possible of the production of the dairy industry is going into cheese.
Second, the suggestion of the minister or the ultimatum, if you like, that dairy producers should reduce production is a negative approach to this problem. Certainly it is not the approach of a positive nature which farmers have a right to expect from the Minister of Agriculture. This suggestion would mean the virtual elimination of many of our small farms. I might remind the minister and the government that this country was built by grasping, clutching, struggling small people who started in a small way.
Mr. Bigg:: When did you discover that?


Russell Clayton Honey: I discovered it, and I have grown up with these people who have been struggling, clutching and grasping. I suggest

to my hon. friends opposite that when they appreciate that the real essence of democracy comes from the people who start in a small way and have to fight for what they get, they will have some conception of government in this country.
As I have mentioned, it is not democratic and at least not in accord with the conception of those who sit on this side of the chamber, that we should ask farmers to close up their farms and move elsewhere. I for one and the party which I represent do not agree that this is a proper solution to the problem of overproduction in the dairy industry.
Third, dealing with the matter of the problems of our dairy industry, might I suggest that we should develop a school milk program. We should, in co-operation with the provinces and the municipalities, ensure that every child in Canada receives the proper amount of milk each day. What a shame it is and what a sad commentary on our agriculture policy to know that in Canada's cities there are today some children drinking pop for breakfast because their parents cannot afford milk. Not only should this program be supported financially by the federal government, but the government should sponsor an educational program to stimulate and enthuse parents of school age children as to the necessity of their children receiving milk each day. Let the minister look to successful programming along these lines in the United Kingdom and in the United States in order that his department may take some steps along these lines that I am suggesting. I might add that these suggestions on the school milk program form a part of the agriculture policy of the Liberal party.
Fourth, let us consider in this context the sale, subsidization or gift, if necessary, of skim milk powder to underprivileged countries.
Fifth, and finally let us consider the establishment of a national marketing board in this industry, in conjunction with the provinces, as well as in other industries. Such a board would direct and forecast production and could assure an adequate supply of dairy products to foreign purchasers. Of course, this is essential in order to establish, to maintain and to expand overseas markets.
Then, leaving the dairy industry, Mr. Chairman, may I proffer this opinion of mine that no segment of our economy is now suffering any greater hardship than the agriculture industry of eastern Canada. The basic problem, of course, is the cost-price squeeze of farm income. In the three year period 1958 to 1961, farm prices of agricultural products have

declined by 3.6 per cent, while the cost of commodities and services purchased by farmers have increased by 5 per cent. I have dealt specifically with the dairy industry and just for a moment I should like to direct my remarks to the problems of the hog producers.
This industry is, of course, disappointed and perplexed with the government's action in reducing the premium on grade A hogs from $3 to $2 per carcass. The premium of $3 was established by order in council dated August 24, 1960. With the advent of this program there was encouragement to farmers across Canada to upgrade the quality of their hogs. No sooner had the producers actually implemented this program than the government, on September 12 of this year, reduced the premium from $3 to $2 per carcass. It was a matter of some surprise to me, Mr. Chairman, and I am sure to all hon. members of this house to hear the Minister of Agriculture say, shortly after the opening of this session, that this reduction was part of the government's austerity program, and that it was a contribution the hog producers were asked to make towards this austerity program. I urge the Minister of Agriculture to reimplement the premium of $3. The hog producers of Canada do not appreciate being singled out as one segment of the economy which is required to make a specific contribution oyer and above the contribution other Canadians are making. The hog producers are suffering the effects of this program, which has been a cave-in, by the gross neglect and mismanagement of this government.
I ^ have tried to deal with the problems having a direct bearing on the dairy industry and the hog producing industry. I ask the Minister of Agriculture to continue whatever efforts he may deem advisable for western agriculture, and to do the best he can for that industry, although it would appear that his efforts in this connection, at least lately, are receiving a somewhat mixed reception. I make no comments specifically on that at this time. I do implore the Minister of Agriculture to raise his sights and look easterly beyond the lakehead, to give some relief from the serious problems which are now facing agriculture in eastern Canada.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Russell Clayton Honey: Yes.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I was following the hon. member very carefully but I am a little confused by his figures concerning the price of pop and of milk. As I understand it, the price of pop is l'i cents an ounce retail. Now, at this figure 40 ounces of milk would cost 70 cents.
27507-3-140J
Supply-Agriculture


Russell Clayton Honey: I do not follow the hon. member exactly but I did mention, as the hon. member will recall that, as far as the milk program for school age children was concerned it was necessary to have a program of education. Whether the children are drinking pop because it is cheaper or whether they are drinking pop because their parents do not recognize the nutritional value of milk, the point is that we must have, in conjunction with this program, an educational program.


Mr. Peters:: I am very pleased that the debate has finally switched from western agriculture to eastern agriculture. As long as it was on western agriculture I was happy to leave it there. There seemed to be a desire on the part of hon. members, and I certainly sympathize with it, to have some continuity in the debate. It seemed rather unreasonable to introduce eastern agriculture into the western agriculture section of the debate if this were not necessary. However, the change has been made.
There is a second side to agriculture that has not received the support, interest or enthusiasm that western agriculture has received. I once asked a gentleman from western Canada to speak at a meeting. When he arrived I asked him what his profession was. He told me he was a school teacher. I asked him if he knew anything about the farm situation. He said, of course, I come from western Canada and I know all about farm problems; nobody would be elected from western Canada who did not. Perhaps this is true, but I think sometimes some agriculturists across the country, and in particular some farmers, wonder if agriculture in western Canada is not synonymous with wheat, and the knowledge you would have to have to be an expert in agriculture might boil down to the knowledge necessary for wheat production. Let me hasten to say that those who are capable of speaking on this subject have a very complex subject to understand.
However, Mr. Chairman, we have other problems which I feel have not received the attention that the problems of western Canada have received. It may be that we in eastern Canada represent ridings that have a mixed economy. In some cases that means an economy that is not totally rural, as it were, but has other factors in it. We may tend, therefore, not to be as interested in one problem in the same way we would be if we were representing only one aspect of the economy. Speaking of eastern agriculture, one should keep in mind the fact that in the federation of agriculture there are something like 83 commodity groups.
I have been interested the last few months in listening to the speeches that have been

Supply-Agriculture
made on agriculture in respect of what the political parties are going to do. I was particularly interested in one remark that was made by the last speaker. He was doing a very good job in speaking about eastern agriculture, but he was unaware of the fact that a resolution concerning the enabling legislation which must be passed to allow effective use of provincial marketing legislation had been before this house last session and the party for which he was speaking had voted against it. I just like to keep the facts straight. He is a new member and therefore may not know about this, but I would charge some of his colleagues in the Liberal party with the duty of informing him. Then, perhaps the hon. member can work on his colleagues and have his party join the rest of us who believe in marketing legislation and who are willing to stand up in the house and vote for marketing legislation when it is introduced.
Recently I had the opportunity of attending a number of farm meetings, and I have been surprised to find one of the suggestions made at meetings in my area is that we should increase the flow of immigration and bring more people into Canada. I suppose one should not use the word "conservative" as applied to certain people but I believe farmers are conservative in their approach to change. They have to examine every proposal that is brought forward and discuss it thoroughly, but when they have finished discussing it they fully understand all the implications of it.
As X say, I was surprised that they wanted to see a large percentage increase in the population of the country within a very short period of time. In fact it was suggested at one meeting that the population should be doubled within ten years. I asked were they interested where the people came from, and they replied no, they did not care as long as they were people. I said there was a problem involved in bringing people into the country without a planned immigration program, but they said they did not care as at present they were producing goods in an unplanned economy. They said they might as well see their produce go to people who would eventually become part of the economy of Canada, and I believe their suggestion merits consideration.
The last brief presented to the government by the farmers' union said there were two things to consider as ways to increase effective demand for agricultural products, one an increase in population and the second an increase in income for the Canadian people. I would suggest we seriously consider these matters, and I go so far as to say that in my opinion immigration is non-existent at present. I am quite sure, without going into

detail, that more people left Canada every day during the last two or three years than there were coming into it. I believe that during that time there were fewer than 1,000 people a week coming into the country, and I would suggest the exodus from Canada was considerably larger than that.
I cannot go so far as to suggest that we should have an open-door immigration program. Maybe I have been here too long because at one time I did suggest that, but now I believe we must plan to maintain the immigrants until they can fit into our economy. There must be a planned immigration program, we must know where immigrants are going, and what type of industry we want them to come into. I believe even the farmers would be very downhearted if the government decided to bring in farmers from all over the world and put them on non-producing farms where they would step up agricultural production to a higher level than it is now.
We in the New Democratic party, and in the old C.C.F. party, have always been accused of being very friendly with labour. We are also accused of being closely associated with agriculture and people have said that these two factions should not mix, that it would be like mixing oil and water. I suggest those people take a look at the brief submitted to the government by the farmers union on November 19 and 20, 1962, at the federal-provincial agricultural conference. As I have mentioned already, they have said the two main factors determining demand for agricultural products are population and income, and they point out:
From this it follows that measures taken to upgrade the low-income groups will help to increase the demand for food. Among such measures are: full employment, minimum wage laws, higher basic income tax exemptions, higher old age pensions, medical care and hospital insurance including sickness benefits, workmen's compensation, unemployment benefits.
In answer to the criticism that farmers and labour cannot come together I would say that no labour group could have written a brief containing more down to earth basic proposals to increase the income of the low income groups in Canada. This is something which should be seriously considered. It is not true, as the minister has said on a number of occasions, that there is a large segment of the economy-the implication being that it is the labour group-opposed to subsidies and assistance given to farmers.
Farmers have close connections with people living in cities and working in factories, and those working in factories have a fairly close association with relations and friends on the farm. For anyone to say these two segments are opposed to each other is not being honest

about the facts, and I believe this will warrant further consideration before the debate is concluded.
I would be very happy if any farming member would stand up and point out where he believes these suggestions recommended by the farmers' union would hurt agriculture and not be of assistance in increasing the income of farmers by increasing the income of the low income labour groups.
The brief went on to say:
A rapid growth in population brings with it a corresponding growth in demand for farm products. We want to point out that on various occasions we have urged the adoption of a large scale, well-planned immigration policy as a necessary premise for an expanding economy. Populationwise, as we have said repeatedly, Canada is an underdeveloped country. This condition, incidentally, is holding back not only the expansion of agriculture, but also of secondary industry.
This is a much more sensible approach than the one presented by the Social Credit party this morning, which sought two things, one regarding diet and the second the printing of more money so that everyone would have more money for more consumption of products. I have not much money and I am probably representative of a large segment of the economy. I consume more food now than I should, and I think that is true of a great number of people. What we need is more people to consume more food, and not have us consume more food. Overeating is one of the problems of the western hemisphere and, Mr. Chairman, if you do not believe it just take a look around the chamber.
With further reference to the discussion this morning it was said we should issue more money and the charge was made that this would not involve planning. I suggest it would, but on the other hand we were accused of planning and it was suggested that in the end it would result in collective farms. The implication, of course, was quite obvious. That was a pretty dishonest statement, because we have collective farms at present introduced by the free enterprise system and not by any desire on the part of planners or on the part of the government. It arises from the very simple expedient of vertical integration. This is corporate ownership, the ownership by large companies wanting to reduce their costs either in the retail field or in the field of disposing of their surplus products such as grain through the feed companies and the money that is put into this.
I am happy to say that this does not work in Russia under one type of system of collective farms, and it does not work very well in Canada under vertical integration. This is something I am very happy about in both cases. We in this party have always been for the family farm. I think the family farm
Supp ly-A gricu Iture
can produce some very remarkable results for Canada. I would like to be personal about this, Mr. Chairman. I spent part of the last election day at my father's farm. One of his cows, bred and raised by my brother on the family farm under the name of the Norhurst registry, was the first cow of the Holstein type ever to receive the award of excellence in northern Ontario. I am quite proud of this. This cow was not raised on the experimental farm where I was raised and where my father was manager; it was bred on a private farm operated by a family which is proud of the achievements it can make in this field.
I was also very proud to hear of this fact a few weeks ago. I do not wish to say anything detrimental about Prince Edward Island, because that province is well known for the production of potatoes, as are other areas. But my area is not that well known in this field and we have not in the past excelled in this area of production. However, I was very happy to know that at the royal winter fair this fall a farm in my area operated by Mr. and Mrs. Allan Ryan of Charlton was able to take the international reserve championship award with Keswick seed potatoes and won the first prize for table potatoes of two different kinds. They also won second prize in a third variety. I only point this out to the Social Crediters because they may not be aware that certain advantages do come from the family farm, and we have worked very hard to see that this is accomplished.


An hon. Member:: We have always supported the family farm.


William Arnold Peters: I am not saying that party has not; I am just saying that we object violently to the suggestion that collective farms under the system that may exist in Russia, or the system that exists in Canada under vertical integration, have support from this party, and I hope they have not very much support from any segment of the economy.
My parents were pioneers in the agricultural field in Canada and in a very short period of time we have established a rural economy in northern Ontario of which I am proud. I think it is toward this end that the government should direct its attention. I have always been very pleased with the things the minister has done. I am often surprised to find that they sound better than they have actually been in practice. I have supported these things on many occasions and I have been accused of supporting them more strongly than some of his own members on occasion. But I think they are worth supporting. ARDA is one of them. However, I am disillusioned every time the suggestion is made that the Conservative party has done


Rémi Paul: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to exercise my right under the rules, not to speak but to correct a misstatement made about my party by the hon. gentleman who has just completed his speech. He said my hon. friend from Durham had misstated the Liberal policy on marketing. I should like to read the policy as set out in the Liberal program and the hon. member can then see that the hon. member for Durham set it out correctly.


William Arnold Peters: You voted against it; that is
what I said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will read what the policy is:
In conjunction with the provinces, a new Liberal government will be ready to provide the framework for farmers to operate, if they wish, either co-operatives or producing marketing boards on a national basis.
That is precisely what my hon. friend from Durham said. Incidentally, I was surprised to hear the hon. gentleman say that farming was synonymous with wheat in western Canada. As one who was brought up on a dairy farm in Manitoba I may say that the dairy farmers, the cattle raisers and all those who manage mixed farms in western Canada are not going to think much of the hon. member's knowledge of western agriculture.


William Arnold Peters: I made the statement that the party to which the hon. member belongs voted against marketing legislation last year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is untrue.


William Arnold Peters: On a question of privilege, I myself moved the motion and all the parties in the house voted against it except my own.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That statement is untrue. The hon. gentleman moved an amendment-


Mr. Jones:: On a point of order. Surely, the chairman should say who should have the floor.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am speaking on a question of privilege.

Supply-Agriculture


Rémi Paul: I think all hon. members will have the opportunity to make a speech or to correct statements made by other members of the committee if they wish. I call on the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege, the hon. gentleman has questioned a statement which I made, and I say his statement is untrue. He moved an amendment to go into supply. It was not legislation at all. He moved an amendment which he knew was of doubtful constitutional validity and for that reason alone we voted against it. The hon. member has been misrepresenting that vote in the country ever since, as is the custom of members of his party.
(Translation):


Mr. Ouellei:: Mr. Chairman, I shall be brief. I have indeed no intention to contribute any remarks to this debate because I feel that hon. members are only accusing each other across the house.
I very carefully listened to all those members who expressed their views here on agriculture. It is not my responsibility to say whether they were right or wrong. We are only asked to pass part of the estimates to cover the requirements for a few months only. We are arguing so violently that one might think we were debating the real estimates.
I am wondering whether, under the pretext of saving agriculture, we are not neglecting the other business of the house while debating without any purpose. Those who complain that a lot of time is lost in this house may not be wrong.
At this stage, I believe all hon. members will agree that we should pass item one of the agriculture estimates, in order to have a few minutes for a discussion on Christmas trees, because if we keep going as we have been doing so far, we will have no time for such a discussion.
Mr. Chairman, I trust that following the remarks of my hon. friends from both sides we could adopt the minister's proposal.
(Text):


Mr. Hamillon:: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska has given us a lead. Under the first item of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture we have done something which I think the Prime Minister pledged to this house. We have given the house the chance to discuss my speech to the Saskatchewan wheat pool at Regina. As I understand the recommendation of the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska, he too would now like to get on with these estimates so that we can talk

about agriculture and the spending of the money this year, because of other matters which we have to do during the balance of the session. I think this has been a fair debate. I know that I could stand up here and make several speeches on things said by the opposition on which I think I could score effective debating points. But I am willing to give them this opportunity, and to let my two propositions to the western farmers be decided by the people who in the long run will have to make that decision, namely, those same western farmers.
Mr. Chairman, if we could now get back to the estimates of my department, I would be glad to read a short statement in the hope that I can get the first item through so that we can get on to the other estimates as soon as possible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, I should like to say a word about that. Just from the point of view of trying to understand what the minister is driving at, is he suggesting that we have concluded the debate on his celebrated speech and that he would now like to have a debate on agriculture generally under item 1? Because if that is his suggestion, we would be quite agreeable to it and be glad to hear his statement. But if he is suggesting that he should make a statement about the general work of his department and have no debate on it, then I can assure him, particularly in view of the lead given by the Prime Minister at the beginning of the session, when he complained bitterly that the Liberals had not spoken about agriculture, that we do not have any intention of disappointing the Prime Minister a second time. There are certain members of our party who wish to discuss some of these general questions, and if it is understood that the minister would now like to make a statement about the general work of his department, I would be delighted to hear it. But I do not think it should be regarded as a form of closure.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate should never talk about closure in this house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why not?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Because he is a member of the party who applied it. We are giving every opportunity to every hon. member to participate. All I am interested in is getting on with the work of the country, and I ask that we now get to the discussion of the agriculture estimates. I said that I would be glad to read a statement consisting of a page and a half of completely factual material, and if hon. members want to discuss it further, they can. But I should like to get on with the business of the estimates.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So would we.


Mr. Ricard:: Why do you not show some evidence of it?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The hon. member for
Assiniboia has apparently not learned when he has taken a trimming.


Hazen Robert Argue: There is no trimming in this. All your freeloaders for that trip are in trouble.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Another "go-lightly" here speaking up.
The main estimates tabled for the Department of Agriculture at $155 million are about $21.7 million less than comparable estimates for 1961-62. However, $19.4 million of this decrease is accounted for by the statutory items related to carrying costs of temporary wheat reserves and payments in connection with the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. Provision has been made for the maintenance of full services to the public in the important fields of grading, inspection, research and development, and in fact to launch certain new activities in the interests of Canadian agriculture. The main reductions in estimates to be voted are in the are of of contributions, grants and subsidies. Total salaries and wages are somewhat lower, reflecting measures taken to contain staff establishments at minimum levels consistent with adequate service to the public.
Staff have been provided in departmental administration to direct the development of the ARDA program, and good progress is being made as reported to this house from time to time. The department's information services have been augmented with specialized writers and editors to improve the dissemination of farm news and to clearly inform the farming public on the purposes and effects of departmental policies and programs. An electronic computer system has been installed to aid in the administration of the agricultural stabilization program and accelerate calculations of research data.
Certain organizational changes are reflected in these estimates. In the research branch, the insect pathology research institute at Sault Ste. Marie has been transferred to the Department of Forestry. The Delhi tobacco substation has assumed the status of an experimental farm and a small experimental farm is being established at Fort William. Of particular significance is the establishment of a food research institute at Ottawa. This institute, with a professional staff of 20, is undertaking important basic and applied research to investigate factors responsible
Supply-Agriculture
for quality in Canadian foods with the objective of increasing acceptability on the domestic and export markets. New uses for conventional foods and development of new products as well as the storage and handling of all food commodities will be major aspects of these investigations.
In the production and marketing branch, the health of animals division is extending meat inspection services to new subdistricts for the animal contagious diseases control program and is intensifying research in animal diseases. A reduction in these estimates has been achieved through a change in policy involving herd testing for listed and accredited herds falling within the brucellosis and tuberculosis area control programs. Since herds covered in the area control programs need no longer be individually tested under the former herd policy, staff previously used for this work have been reassigned to meet more pressing needs.
The capital portion of these estimates, construction of buildings and works and acquisition of equipment, is some $3.8 million higher than in 1961-62 but the normal distribution of these funds has been altered with a higher proportion allocated to the continuing of main projects underway. These include the South Saskatchewan river dam and other important P.F.R.A. projects involving water storage and irrigation. Provision for small dams and dugouts and community projects undertaken to offset the effects of drought has increased significantly in 1962-63, to the extent of $1,284,900, or 84.4 per cent. In the research branch, a major new laboratory of advanced design is under construction at the experimental farm in Swift Current, Saskatchewan. Under the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, the main construction program will terminate in 1962-63 with the practical completion of the Annapolis river dam and other major projects and works affording protection to approximately 80,000 acres of marshland.
Mr. Chairman, this is a summary of the highlights of the estimates for 1962-63, and I should like to remind the committee that the year we are discussing is about half over. I should like to get the estimates through so that we may move on to get to the estimates for the next year as soon as possible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is one question I wish to put to the minister. I feel sure that all members on both sides of the house, after the statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister at the opening of the sitting, would not wish to pass item No. 1 of the minister's estimates until he gives us a careful and detailed statement of the effect of the Glassco-McCutcheon axe on his department. We

Supply-Agriculture
should like to know precisely what inefficiencies were found in his department by the Glassco commission, what has been done already to correct them and what more is planned. I am sure the farmers in particular would wish us to find this out on one of the rare occasions when we get a chance to ask about these things in parliament. When the committee next meets I hope the minister, if he has not the data right ready to give us now, will be prepared to give it on item No. 1 so that it can be discussed and so that we shall know what we are really talking about when we are talking about these estimates.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I should like to correct the hon. member immediately. These estimates under review would ordinarily have been brought before the house last January or February and passed for spending in this current year. However, owing to the delaying tactics of the opposition last session, we were obliged to go to the country and get a decision. I wish to be absolutely clear on this point. These estimates were prepared last fall, a year ago; and the Glassco commission had no more thought of reporting at that time than of flying. I am simply pointing out that to raise such an issue is simply to introduce a red herring which has simply no bearing on what we are discussing today. We are discussing something that should have been discussed ten months ago.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I certainly do not intend to allow that tissue of misrepresentations to pass uncorrected. There was absolutely no obstruction. There was no possibility of obstructing these estimates last spring, as the government chose to have an election instead of bringing the estimates before the house. How could you obstruct something that was not even there last spring? That is the first point. The second point is this. This parliament was elected on June 18. The writs were returned before the end of July. These estimates could have been discussed and dealt with in the month of August if the government had not been afraid of meeting parliament. It is ridiculous for the government to suggest for one moment that anybody else except the government, by its refusal to meet parliament, by its refusal to accept its proper responsibility, is responsible for any delay there is. Two months of the precious time of this parliament were wasted in August and September when parliament could have been meeting, when parliament should have been meeting, when the Leader of the Opposition was demanding that it meet, and when anybody with any regard for the rights of parliament or for self-government would have had it meet. For this government who put the

session off until they ran out of money-and this parliament would not have met yet if they had had more supply; they put it off until they ran out of money, and then had to come crying to us to give them nine twelfths of estimates that have never been voted because of their own negligence, because of their own refusal to call parliament when it should have been called-for this government to talk about other people obstructing, is the most shocking thing imaginable. Only the Minister of Agriculture, who speaks one day as a private individual and depreciates our dollar to 90 cents and another day wants the farmers to assume the responsibilities the government previously undertook could see such a curious reflection in such a distorted mirror. Only yesterday we were told by the Prime Minister that many of the recommendations of the Glassco commission had already been carried out. If they have already been carried out, they affect the estimates for this year, not for next year. If nothing has been done in the minister's department under the Glassco commission-nothing whatever-if he tells us that, then that disposes of the matter, if he tells us as minister and not in some private or personal capacity. We do not know any more in what capacity this minister or indeed any other minister speaks, as they speak with so many voices, depending on the time and the circumstances. We have the Minister of Public Works with one story about the Columbia river, the Minister of Justice with another.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Stick to order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sticking to the point raised by the minister and nothing but the point raised by the minister. As I understand it, what the minister has told us is that the report of the Glassco commission had nothing whatever to do with his department. I would be astonished, judging from the tenor of most of the rest of this report, if the Glassco commission had not looked at the most luxuriant crop that the minister has produced, namely the crop of information experts, and if they had not asked themselves how many of these experts were serving the farmers and how many were serving the Tory party while paid for by the taxpayers. I suggest that the minister read the Prime Minister's statements once in a while. He is so intoxicated by his own speeches that he apparently has not time in which to find out what his colleagues are saying. I suggest that he read what the Prime Minister said, and that he try to keep in step once in a while-just once in a while-just pay a sort of lip-service to the idea of cabinet solidarity on which our parliamentary system of government is supposed to be based.

The minister thinks he can go about depreciating our dollar; he thinks he can go about repudiating the guarantee of credit sales and shifting the burden to the farmer; he thinks he can go about flying in government aeroplanes, making private speeches or think-pieces and still be a member of the government. Ministers must learn that you cannot be both a responsible minister and a hot gospeller at the same time, and that sooner or later you must choose which role you have. I say that we want to know. We do not want the minister's vague suppositions. Maybe, while the minister was flitting around making these speeches, the Glassco commission went into the department by the back door. Maybe they did make some recommendations about his department which have not come to the notice of the minister; or maybe the real prime minister over in the other place, the senator whom we never see, is chopping all sorts of sections out of the minister's department while the minister is in Regina making speeches in his personal capacity. Before we start voting this money I suggest that we know what money it is we are voting.


An hon. Member:: Five o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and that we know what is going to happen in the next little while. I suggest to the minister that when we next come back to these estimates he tell us what effect the Glassco commission has had on his department and what effect he thinks it is going to have on his department. I observe that it is five o'clock.
The Depuiy Chairman: Order. In order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, pursuant to section 8 of standing order 15, it is my duty to rise and report progress and request leave to sit again later this day or at the next sitting of the house, as the case may be.
Progress reported.



AGRICULTURAL REHABILITATION AND DEVELOPMENT ACT


Douglas Mason Fisher: the second reading of Bill No. C-22, to amend the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act (Indian reserves).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple amendment to the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act. It really does not require much in the way of discussion or explanation on my part. The explanatory notes set out clearly the purpose of the bill. It is to apply the benefits of this act to Indians and their reserve lands. Section 64
Agricultural Rehabilitation Act of the Indian Act provides that, with the consent of a council of a band, the minister may authorize and direct the expenditure of capital moneys of the band for any other purpose that in the opinion of the minister is for the benefit of the band.
This bill does not originate federal expenditures as, under section 7(2) of the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act, no agreement under that act has force and effect until parliament appropriates moneys therefor. This amendment only authorizes in posse agreements between the Canadian government and Indian bands. My reason for introducing this amendment to the act, Mr. Chairman, is a simple one. I feel that potentially this is the best piece of legislation that has been put on the statute books for some considerable time. It is still very much tentative, in embryo, and the projection is in the future. However, I think it may have immense consequences and I wish to relate those consequences to a group of people that it seems to me can benefit immensely from it, particularly if they can take part in ARDA programs in a distinctive way rather than just as side groups of some kind. I refer, of course, to band councils on Indian reserves.
In order to make my point, Mr. Chairman, I have deemed it well to put on the record various views on ARDA as expressed by Mr. Davidson, who is the director of the program. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) and I, since Mr. Davidson comes from our area, think he is an excellent man to lead this program. He went to the same school as I did years ago. In a speech on March 10, 1962 to the Canadian tree farmers association at Ottawa, Mr. Davidson said:
You will note I say "resource development and conservation", for not only is ARDA not an agricultural program in the narrow meaning of that word-it is the kind of program that conservationists who love the land and are keenly interested in the relationship of people and the land, have talked about for a long time.
I put it to hon. members and the house: do not consider ARDA as anything narrow and specifically agricultural. It is agricultural in the very widest sense. Mr. Davidson goes on and says that ARDA is a very complex program and is not easily understood. Later on, he mentions some of the basic thinking or philosophy behind it, and he says:
The concepts of multiple use of resources and integrated development of resources which were central to the "resources for tomorrow" conference are also central "to the thinking" on ARDA. The philosophy of both is closely related. The philosophy of multiple use and integrated development of resources has wide application, and although it may sound a little "far out"-it has proven a highly practical and workable concept.
In addition, there are behind ARDA two, perhaps more specific motivations-the problems of rural

Agricultural Rehabilitation Act economic adjustment in the face of rapid technologic changes, and the land conservation ideal-the idea of obtaining the maximum production from our lands, of building a sound relationship between people and the land.
It is primarily that second motivation that I would hope we can get going with our Indian bands and our Indian reserves across the country. Later on, Mr. Davidson said this-and this is the technical reason, if you want to call it that, for the introduction of this amendment:
Let me emphasize, then, that except for research, the federal government under ARDA can do nothing strictly on its own-only in agreement with the provinces. Programs can be undertaken only if the provinces take the initiative with us and join us. The program is in keeping with our co-operative federalism system of government. This is a vital point. And it makes it necessary for me to talk mostly in generalities about ARDA yet, not only because the program is at an early stage but also because although we have had in the past one and a half months discussions with all the provinces, we have not yet signed any agreements with the provinces.
As a matter of fact, agreements have now been signed with the province of Ontario. Now, the emphasis, as the director says, is that the federal government enables agreements to be entered into with the provinces. I feel that this amendment will enable the band councils to enter into agreements with the federal government and take advantage of this particular fund that may be available, and in certain areas and locations they will be able to get an ARDA program going that will integrate completely with the reserves. I also hope that in areas where reserves are a part of a larger conservation whole, they will be able to fit in with the federal-provincial programs in a joint way.
As I said, this is a rather small amendment that I am asking, but it seems to me it is a sensible one. It will certainly extend the philosophy and objectives of this act in a worth-while way. Now, to give some specific examples from my own part of the country, I may say that like a few other members in this house, I have a large number of Indians in my riding. I think the figure is somewhere over 6,000, probably around 7,000. Many of them are in poor economic circumstances. I know their economic standard is much below the average of the rest of the country and the rest of the area. These people, because of their background, are talented mostly in relation to the bush and to all the activities that relate to the bush such as fishing, hunting, cutting trees, park work and things like that.
One of the sad things, when we look at the economic opportunities for them, is the realization of the difficulty we have in getting them to fit into our natural economic units such as pulp and paper companies, and the

mines that are in our area. One of the great hopes is that they can find greater opportunities in the fields where they have skills and talents on their own initiative, through their own band councils. Mr. Davidson in this speech to which I referred says:
I am sure our forest industry needs and wants for tree production more lands with fair soil, under our best climatic conditions, and accessible to mills and markets. Is it possible that it would pay to invest intensively in forest management on these lands, and that they would then produce tree fibre at very competitive prices? I think this is an important national resources question-do these lands warrant large scale public and private investment in very intensive forest management? I think they may and I regard as one of the first research contributions of ARDA, the stimulation of economic and physical research on this question.
1 have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, from my knowledge of forestry that the answer that comes from reserves is going to be yes, and I can give an example of one Indian reserve at Gull bay at the west side of lake Nipigon where quite recently we have been trying to find timber cutting for the band, but because of fire in recent years there is not a decent bit of timber left on their own reserve, or within 20 miles of it. There are approximately 300 to 325 people on that reserve, of which about 100 are able-bodied men ready and willing to work. At the moment, however, the unemployment level on that reserve is somewhere between 75 per cent and 80 per cent, on a yearly average.
I could conceive of that band entering into an agreement under the ARDA program and working out a conservation project which would mean that the whole reserve would come alive again in terms of reforestation or perhaps intensification of tree farming to fit into the Christmas tree market, and the whole thing tied into development along the shore of lake Nipigon.
This is the view I have of ARDA and I think it is worth examination. I believe the hon. member for Fort William can offer another example in connection with the Indian band in his riding on the reservation that nestles along the slopes of mount McKay, where economic opportunity is badly needed. This is an area very well suited for tourist development but that development must be tied in with reforestation and other conservation programs in order to give the city of Fort William and those Indians a tremendous economic asset.
Here again a wonderful role could be played by band councils entering into agreements under ARDA. One may ask why I emphasize the band council, and why not just assume that the department of Indian affairs can go ahead and make some kind of arrangement either with the provincial or

Agricultural Rehabilitation Act
federal government to take advantage of the ARDA program? However this is the key concern I have. There is a paternalism in the relationship between the Indian affairs branch and the Indian reserves. I know it varies in different parts of the country but, to use a rather invidious word, it is a severe paternalism in my part of the country where we badly need a greater sense of responsibility and dynamic approach on the part of the tribes and councils. In other words, responsibility has to be given to them for planning and spending their own funds and other funds within some kind of integrated program that makes sense to them.
It is primarily for that reason, to get away from that kind of paternalism that tells them what to do, that hands out rations, health and welfare services, ships them off to hospitals and provides all sort of palliatives to keep them from starving but does not give them the opportunity to stand forth as free men in their own communities and take care of their own economic destinies, that I move the adoption of this bill. The ARDA program will offer them a chance for prideful effort and something they can take real pride in. It will assist Indian reservations such as those at Gull bay, Heron bay, the one at Nipigon and the one at Beardmore, where their lands have been denuded of forests by burning off or cutting over, to fit into the second motivation that Mr. Davidson put so strongly, and which all of us have come to recognize.
I know some people, including many of my own associates, have laughed at this bill and described this as a sort of Christmas tree thing. That is very easy to do, if one does not come from an area the economy of which is based upon very large Christmas trees. But I have told this house before, and I say it again, that the bread basket of our country is no longer on the prairies. The bread basket that is really significant for our economy is in the boreal forest areas, in our spruce and pine which go into the creation of newsprint and various other paper products. If hon. members doubt my word they have only to look at our industrial, manufacturing and export statistics. They emphasize the need for cheap wood close to the mills and the continued increase in the value of this part of our industry to the whole Canadian economy.
I want to see our Indians tied into this more closely than they are at present, and I submit that an amendment such as this could open the way. It would not in itself be that important if the ARDA people in Ottawa in the Department of Agriculture and the Indian affairs branch people, also in Ottawa and across the country, were not prepared to follow it up, but it would give us a chance
to reach the tribes, the bands and the councils and get them working on something in which they can play a very creative role.
For that reason I would hope the house would find the bill acceptable, and if it feels it needs further investigation and testimony on the part of people active in the ARDA program, then it might be referred to the committee on agriculture for further examination and the taking of evidence. I believe there is nothing partisan in this amendment and that there is nothing politically to be gained from it. For that reason I would hope for the sympathy of the whole house.
Partisanship tends to come in when we are discussing extremely controversial matters where emotions run high, such as the issue of a national flag or matters relating to interest rates. We have none of those particular complications in dealing with this bill. It is a simple one and I would ask for the house's sympathy and approval of it.


Mr. Joseph Slogan (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I would like unreservedly to give my support to the purposes of the bill moved by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). I have some questions to ask about the bill itself, but the manner in which the hon. member explained his purpose in introducing the bill is most laudatory and I am sure all of us who take an interest in Indian affairs would be in agreement with him. However I just wonder how much real thought has gone into the manner in which the bill was drafted.
I have seven Indian reservations in my riding comprising some 3,500 Indians. Some are areas which could be termed agricultural and some are areas which could not be so termed, but at the present time certain facets of this bill already apply.
The one reservation I have about the bill is the fact that the hon. member for Port Arthur is setting out that the council would be asked to co-operate with the provincial or federal government by voting moneys towards ARDA projects. I do not know if the hon. member ever found out how much the bands in his riding have in their capital funds, but I have gone to the trouble of finding out in regard to the bands in my riding. I find some of them have even less than $100, some have a few hundred dollars, and the largest one has about $8,000. Thus one can readily see it would not be very feasible or possible to ask these Indian bands to vote moneys to participate in programs that undoubtedly would require large sums of money. The Indian bands do not have that much, but of course they could get it. The Indian affairs branch could grant this money
2212	HOUSE OF
Agricultural Rehabilitation Act to band council funds and give them a measure of self-government by allowing them to vote these funds.
However at the present time Indian bands or reservations are not precluded from the benefits available under ARDA. For instance I am interested in a drainage project on one of the reserves in my riding, which amounts to $34,000. This project was undertaken by the Indian affairs branch. They consulted the engineers from P.F.R.A. who carried out a study on it; but it did not cost the Indian band itself any money whatsoever. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, that is one real reservation I have about the measure as outlined in Bill No. C-22.
I should like to add my words of praise regarding Mr. Davidson. I have just read a speech he made on November 20 to the federal-provincial agricultural conference. In that speech I think he brought the group up to date on developments under ARDA. Mr. Davidson makes it plain that a large number of these redevelopment or development and conservation projects will be on a regional or area basis. There is nothing now to preclude any Indian reserve from being part of that regional or area development program. I am sure the hon. member from Port Arthur did not have in mind that these ARDA projects would be restricted to a reserve although in some cases they may be. In most instances these projects would be of a type that cover a whole area. As I say, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing now which precludes Indian reserves from being included in those programs.
There is one thing that I have to suggest, and I am sure the hon. member from Port Arthur will agree with it. As he mentioned, most of these programs and the whole idea of ARDA is to get the co-operation of the federal government, the provincial governments, the municipalities and other interested groups such as farm organizations, working together in order to better the livelihood of the people in marginal agricultural and other underdeveloped areas of this country. My suggestion-and it does not have to be put into effect in conjunction with this bill-is that there should be an Indian representative on these committees, especially where there will be projects in which Indian reserves are involved. I would hope that these committees which are set up in the provinces will either include a member of the Indian band or a representative from the Indian affairs department. In my riding at the present time we have a sociologist carrying out some research into various aspects of making the Indian more self-sufficient. Such a person would be of great assistance on these committees and would probably be a good liaison officer


between the band councils and the ARDA committees. It may be even more desirable to have an Indian representative, an Indian chief or some other type of Indian representative. I think this would be a great step forward.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I have been interested in the welfare of the Indian for a great many years. We have seen the expenditures on these Indian reserves multiply and multiply and multiply. There have been many good capital projects undertaken in the expenditures of these moneys. There have, for instance, been introduced on to reserves rotating herds of prize cattle; not just the scrub cattle which many farmers start with. We give them top grade cattle and after awarding these cattle to a certain family they are allowed to have the offspring. Then after a couple of years the cows are passed on. Some of these projects could perhaps be worked under ARDA, but they have already been carried out at no expense whatever to the Indian band concerned. We have supplied haying equipment and have developed pastures, and so forth. Therefore many of these projects are being undertaken at the present time.
I think it is highly desirable to integrate these programs on Indian reserves into the broader programs of redevelopment and conservation that are taking place. I am thinking particularly of drainage and dams, because many Indian reserves are located along lakes and other bodies of water and they have large areas of very good land that is unusable because of flooding, because the land is low lying or because of various other disabilities. These are some of the things that could be done by inviting an Indian representative or a representative from the Indian affairs branch to sit in with ARDA.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word about ARDA itself, because it is another of my pet projects. I remember that not too long ago the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act was restricted to certain areas only of the southern prairie provinces. My constituency was cut in half by it. I felt it was grossly unfair that the benefits which some farmers could get from conservation projects, dams, irrigation projects, community pastures, and so forth, could not be extended beyond this rather arbitrary line which was drawn.
Incidentally this act was introduced in the early 1930's, primarily to combat drought. However, as the years went by P.F.R.A. was extended and the projects under it were extended to the point where it was really unfair to restrict it to any geographical areas of the prairie provinces. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it was very welcome when last year this government extended the boundaries of

P.F.R.A. to all the agricultural areas of the prairie provinces. It is unfair to have an act such as P.F.R.A. which brings great benefits to only a certain geographical area of the country. I think that under ARDA the benefits of P.F.R.A. are going to become applicable to the agricultural areas of Canada as a whole. I think this is one of the ramifications of bringing in ARDA and is something that will be welcomed, especially by the people of Quebec and the other eastern provinces.
I have very little more to say, Mr. Speaker, because-as the hon. member for Port Arthur said-the principle of the bill is very simple. Basically, the principle is that ARDA be applied to Indian reserves. As I have said, I am wholeheartedly in accord with the sentiments and the purposes expressed by the hon. member, but it seems to me that this bill is superfluous to some extent. First of all, the money is not there in the Indian bands to vote; second, capital projects that are undertaken are now paid for 100 per cent by the federal government through the Indian affairs department; third, and I do not think this was meant in the bill, but there was some suggestion that most of these projects are restricted to Indian reserves, although most of them under ARDA are area and regional development projects, and at the present time Indian reserves can fit into those projects very well.
The provinces are taking an increasing interest in this matter. It is not only Indians, of course, who can benefit from the projects. There are the Metis, and we have a great many of them. In the province of Manitoba we have the Legasse report. One thing I have noticed as welfare payments have multiplied on Indian reserves is that the Indians are saying, "We just do not want these handouts. We want to be able to look after ourselves. Give us the opportunity to make our own livelihood". That was really the basis of what the Legasse report suggested, that the direction the government should give both provincially and federally in trying to assist the Indian and the Metis should be to make them self-sufficient and responsible. I think we should increase our efforts in this regard through the Indian affairs branch, through such people as sociologists and others who understand the attitude of the Indian, their desires and their experience, people who can give them the guidance that is necessary and the enthusiasm to partake of these programs.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that as far as this bill is concerned I am wholeheartedly in favour of the basic purpose behind it, which is to extend conservation and development programs to Indian reserves. I support that principle wholeheartedly; but I must say that I have some
Agricultural Rehabilitation Act misgivings about the bill itself because in essence it is asking the Indian bands to help pay the bill. Under ARDA, three different cost-sharing schemes are in operation. Towards certain projects, the federal government will pay one third of the cost. With respect to others it will pay one half or even as much as two thirds. None the less, the burden which will fall on the funds of the Indian bands no matter how small it might be, is likely to prove a definite hardship except in the case of a few reserves where the bands have substantial funds to their credit. I know that in the area from which I come and, I believe, in the area from which the hon. member comes, it would be difficult for the bands to make such contributions out of the funds which are available to them. The money which does exist could, I think, be better spent on other projects and the bands should not be burdened with this expenditure.


Hubert Badanai: I
should like to commend the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) for having introduced Bill No. C-22, which should receive the unanimous approval of this house. I express the hope that the government will allow a vote on it.
The joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Indian affairs met for three years, from 1959 to 1961, and heard the submissions of many Indian bands and organizations, as well as of non-Indian groups. As a result, the final report of the committee was presented in July, 1961, a report in which several specific recommendations were made. However, no recommendation was made which would enable Indians on reserves to participate in the benefits of the farm loan act or its successor, the Farm Credit Act, which, in some reserves where there is an agricultural potential, could have been of great assistance in providing work and wages for many adult Indians who find it difficult to secure jobs outside their own reserves. This bill is designed to make it possible for Indian bands to benefit from the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act.
I believe the provision of financial assistance is only part of the measures which should be taken to improve the economic life of our first citizens. It is generally recognized that they cannot be expected to follow their traditional way of life without additional consideration for their needs, having regard to the present living standards of other Canadians. The Indians are faced with the problem of making a living, as are most other citizens, and in so doing they face serious competition

Agricultural Rehabilitation Act in the Canadian economy. Though the economic position of the Indian people has improved over the years, it is still below par and it should be the aim and responsibility of the federal government to see that discrepancies in opportunity as between the white man and the Indian are removed. This bill offers an opportunity to develop a new means by which they can support themselves and live in a self-respecting manner by developing their agricultural and forestry potential within their own reserves. Some of these reserves were mentioned by the hon. member for Port Arthur and I should like to make reference to those in the Cochrane and Kapuskasing area where there are also large numbers of Indians with great tracts of land which could be developed.
I feel that what is needed is an intensification of educational facilities so as to ensure that every Indian boy or girl may enjoy opportunities equal to those given to young white people. The Indians should have opportunities to improve their vegetable gardens and put more land, of which there is no scarcity, into production. The means of doing so should be made available to them on the same basis as to any other Canadian.
The argument that Indians are backward because they have been left on reserve land is false. It is natural for people of common ancestry or race to want to live in communion with each other. Indians are as natural to Canada as its physical features. No one with a sense of historical values should deprive the original Canadians of the benefits of any legislation which a Canadian government enacts. The Indian Act does not protect the lands of the Indians or attempt to provide for rehabilitation and development. I submit that here is an opportunity for the government to do something tangible outside the scope of the Indian Act.
I am speaking, of course, for all the Indians living in all parts of Canada. This bill, too, would apply to all Indians in Canada wherever they may live, but I should like to single out those who live in northwestern Ontario and have not made as much progress as those living in the southeastern portion of the province or those of British Columbia, the reason being not exactly the fault of the Indians alone.
Extension of adequate long term loans to Indians is a desirable development to enable them to utilize more fully the potential of their lands. The need to promote agriculture on reserves is a real one and every possible means should be used to encourage Indian participation in federal-provincial rural development programs, including leadership training, and a general improvement in the efficiency of farming operations.


The development of roads on. reserves and the inauguration of long range road building plans are closely linked with the rate of progress in the fields of economic development and agriculture. The need for better roads is great, and more consideration will have to be given in providing them directly and through joint efforts with federal, provincial and municipal authorities.
No one can now hold to the belief that the white man is inherently superior to the Indian, nor do we have the ingrained idea that the Indian is naturally of a lower status than the white man. At least these ideas have not manifested themselves in our laws to any great extent, and many of these laws are in our books for the benefit and protection of the Indian people. Some of these laws, however, are now causing resentment and dissatisfaction among the Indian people. This stems from the fact that they have no voice in the formulation of government policies and less than their proper share in the benefits of legislation. To overcome these feelings of resentment and dissatisfaction, the Indians should be given a chance to share the benefits arising from government policy. For instance, they should be able to qualify for loans under the Farm Credit Act and for benefits under any public legislation introduced, for example, in the field of health and welfare. Great strides have been made in education but a great deal more remains to be done and should be done to bring living conditions on the reserve to a point where the Indians can grow to economic and social equality with surrounding communities.
The Indians of today are better educated than they were. They want to make the reserves a better place in which to live and they are willing to do something about it provided adequate opportunities are offered to them. I also think provision should be made in our laws for Indians to participate in tourist promotion. Schemes could be developed to help the Indians on the reserve near Fort William, and there are other areas which could be helped in this way. In Fort William, for instance, there is a mountain called mount McKay, and I think it should be possible to exploit the splendour of mount McKay as a tourist attraction. It may well be a means of reaching the $1 billion tourist industry target that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Dinsdale) hopes to achieve by 1967. Achieving this stupendous sum should be the centennial's greatest objective. But to do so we need more than a world fair; we also need a concerted effort to enable Canada to offer attractions in every part of the country, and I submit that the development of this mountain by the Ojibway tribe of lake Superior,

for example-and there are others-might easily become one of the major attractions for people from across the border and for many Canadians.
I commend this project for the consideration of the government. At the same time it would also provide a source of employment to the people of the reserve which would, in part, compensate for some of the neglect of the past. Some people claim that the isolation in which people on the reserves live is in part responsible for their feeling of neglect. Isolation perhaps can be blamed for part of this neglect, a neglect which in this day and age should not be allowed to continue any longer. Notwithstanding this neglect by the white man, the contributions of the Indians to our national growth and development have been considerable. Thousands of them served in all theatres of activities during the two world wars. Indians also did war work in factories, on railroads, and on farms during the hostilities. They also made magnificent contributions to the arts-in paintings, woodcarvings, and in the athletics field. Few realize that the Indian has contributed to the white man's world of food. We have had from them beans, squash, white and sweet potatoes and maple sugar, yet our governments have been slow to recognize our responsibilities towards our Indian population, let alone any appreciation of them.
Mr. Speaker, approval of this bill, which would ensure participation in benefits available to all other Canadians, would be a small measure of belated appreciation. I urge every hon. member to vote for the bill. A vote for it is a vote for justice. It is a vote which would encourage a great people to appreciate the blessings, sometimes held doubtful, which the white man brought to the North American continent some four centuries ago.
(Translation):


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Agricultural Rehabilitation Act refused the right to commercial fishing. The Indian in our reserves has the right to fish on lake St. John only if it is for his own subsistence.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In view of the interest aroused by the hon. member's speech, I hope he can prove that it is his own.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is only referring to a few notes.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, those are notes handed to me by the hon. member for Roberval before he left.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, I hope the speech we are hearing is that of the hon. member for Lapointe and not of the hon. member for Roberval, because it is quite out of order to read a speech, let alone another member's speech.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, at Pointe-Bleue, in the constituency of Roberval, there is an Indian reserve. Go and see the conditions under which those Indians live most of the time and you will realize that such a situation ought not to be tolerated in our country.
That is why I say that when the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) puts before the house a bill which would provide better living conditions for the Pointe-Bleue Indians, in the Roberval riding, I think it is the duty of every member of this house to support such a bill wholeheartedly.
Besides, if those Indians were given assistance to develop their own culture, a new tourist centre could thus be built up in that region and that would be of tremendous assistance for the whole population of the Saguenay and lake St. John area.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out it is high time that we do something for the first citizens of this country, that is those who were here before the white man ever set foot on this land.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that we will support the bill introduced by the hon. member for Port Arthur.
(Text):


Mr. G. L. Chatterion (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) on the admirable intent, aims and objectives of this bill as he has outlined it. I agree with those aims. I have some reservations, however, as to whether this bill is the best instrument by means of which to obtain those objectives.

There are two counts on which I have some doubts as to the efficiency of this bill to attain that purpose. The first is about the matter of having to treat the Indians differently. Just before I left my riding a few weeks ago I had a meeting with some of the Indian chiefs. I might point out that I have about a dozen reserves in my riding. These Indian chiefs were concerned with this aspect of being treated differently, and discussed two examples of this treatment.
One of these was with regard to the sale and consumption of liquor; the other one was with regard to an elementary school in this particular reserve which was reserved for the use of the Indian children only. What these chiefs were concerned about was that these children, having associated with Indian children only, on leaving the elementary school and then going to a high school where there are many white people, cannot be assimilated satisfactorily. So the Indians themselves in my area, in any event, are concerned with being treated separately. The proposal put forward in Bill No. C-22, would make the Indian reserve and the council in effect a separate power and we would have to deal with them separately and differently from the other citizens in the region in which the reserve is located.
With regard to that same point may I say this. In my area, for instance, we have what we call a regional plan prepared by the capital regional planning board. This regional plan forecasts the future land use and growth in the area over the next 25 years. The regional plan includes also the Indian reserves. This bill could make it possible for the reserve to be developed separately and independently of the development of the whole area. In the Saanich peninsula, for instance, it is quite possible that in time ARDA might come in. I certainly agree with the hon. member for Port Arthur that ARDA has tremendous possibilities. In my area, for instance, it is possible that in time ARDA might come in by way of assisting in an irrigation scheme. In this area during the months of July and August we have only about two and a half inches of rainfall. It would be difficult to treat Indian reserves within this area differently from the rest of the community. I see a danger of this bill having that effect.
The second point on which I have some reservations is the cost which the Indian councils and bands themselves must bear if this bill passes. Under the present general agreement between the federal government and the provinces, the federal government pays a share of the net cost to the province. Under the present general agreement the

federal government's proportion of the cost varies between 50 per cent and one third of the net cost to the province. Under the present general agreement the province would pay the cost that would normally accrue to the Indian reserves. However, under this proposal in Bill No. C-22, the Indians themselves, through their own bands, would be obliged to pay their share. Certainly in my area I do not think they have the necessary money available. Hence I think this bill would be less beneficial to the Indian band than is the present ARDA. Under ARDA it is quite possible to undertake a rehabilitation scheme in an Indian reserve as forming a part of the region.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask the hon. member a question?


George Louis Chatterton: Yes.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Is the hon. member assuming that this bill would block off these other grants for programs?


George Louis Chatterton: The point is well taken. I was going to come to that matter. Under this bill I think there might be a tendency for the provincial government to say, "Here is another alternative the federal government can employ". In other words the federal government can make a separate agreement with the Indian band rather than an agreement with the province, with the province assuming the share of the Indian band. Keeping in mind the purpose of the bill, I think perhaps there might be another way of attaining the same objective, namely by way of special arrangements between the federal government and the provincial governments when Indian reservations are involved, and that maybe in those special cases the federal government's share of the cost to the province may be increased. I do not know whether or not this matter is being considered. However, I suggest that it might be a better solution to the problem than that which the hon. member for Port Arthur has outlined, and I think it would possibly be more acceptable to the Indian bands. Certainly it would be more acceptable to those in my area. As the situation is now, there are in my area bands which I do not think would be able to put up the amount of money that would be required, asuming that the same ratio of federal participation applies as it does now with the provinces. They will not be able to put up their share for any worth-while capital improvement or rehabilitation program in the area.


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Business of the House


George Louis Chatterton: I wanted to say this. I agree wholeheartedly with the intent of the hon. member's bill, I commend the objective. I think perhaps we should get together with the minister and I think the minister should get together with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Bell). Perhaps this additional share which the federal government might bear could be contributed to ARDA by the Indian affairs branch. That might be the better solution. Coming back to the question of regional development, may I say that the situation would be regrettable. I know that the regional planning board would object if the federal government steps in directly with the provincial government and undertakes a separate development plan for one little area within the region for which an over-all general plan exists.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


An hon. Member:: Kill the bill.


George Louis Chatterton: The objectives are commendable. However, I think the same objectives can be obtained in some other way by agreement with the federal government and special agreements with the provinces.


An hon. Member:: Kill the bill.


Mr. Robichaud:: That is the third time you have said that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. For the edification of certain members who have been making some comment, may I say that a number of other hon. members had indicated their anxiety to speak on this bill. Hence they are perhaps doing a little bit of speculating on their own.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire from the house leader whether there is any change in the business for Monday and next week as announced last evening.


Mr. Churchill:: Perhaps I will put the items on Hansard again.


Lionel Chevrier: I think that procedure is advisable.


Gordon Minto Churchill: They are the same as they were. We start off on Monday with the resolution concerning the Freight Rates Reduction Act which is No. 15 on today's order paper. That item will be followed by Bill C-59, dealing with public harbours. Then we shall take the resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport dealing with the Aeronautics Act.


Lionel Chevrier: What number is that?

Business of the House Mr. Churchill: That is No. 23 on the order paper; then, No. 29 on today's order paper, a resolution also in the name oi the Minister of Transport dealing with a proposed railway line in New Brunswick. Following the custom, the Freight Rates Reduction Act, the one dealing with public harbours and the railway line in New Brunswick, would be referred to a committee. Then, if they are completed on Monday we would go back to Bill No. C-64 dealing with the Coal Production Assistance Act which was introduced just the other day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What number is it?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is No. 10. I cannot give the full business for next week, but on Tuesday we are likely to start with the resolution dealing with the Atlantic development board, which is No. 26 on the order paper. Unless something intervenes of which I am not aware, on Thursday we would attempt to complete the discussion on Bill No. C-87, No. 13 on today's order paper, the national economic development board. Other items will be fitted into the program as the week progresses.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.


[Stage Direction]
Province of Manitoba Office of the Premier Winnipeg
November 27, 1962. My dear Prime Minister:
I wish to refer to your letter of January 17, 1962, and to my interim reply of January 24 indicating that the request of the government of Canada for the concurrence of the province of Manitoba in a suggested amendment to section 94(a) of the British North America Act, to permit the inclusion in a contributory graduated old age pension plan of certain benefits, would be brought before the Manitoba legislature at its forthcoming session.
On July 27, 1962, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba forwarded to the under secretary of state of Canada a copy of the resolution adopted on March 28, 1962, by the Manitoba legislative assembly signifying concurrence in the request of the government of Canada for the proposed amendment. I am attaching a copy of this resolution for your information.
Yours sincerely,
Duff Roblin.
The Rt. Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, P.C., Q.C., M.P.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
East Block,
Ottawa 4, Ontario.
Certified copy of a resolution agreed to in the legislature of Manitoba on Wednesday, March 28, 1962, on motion of Hon. Mr. Christianson.
Whereas the government of Canada has advised the government of Manitoba that it is prepared to recommend to the parliament of Canada the enactment of legislation to improve the Canadian social security system by, inter alia, providing for
(a) graduated old age pensions on a contributory basis for those who can afford additional provision for their old age and who have not undertaken it under private plans, contractual or otherwise; and
(b) the payment of benefits under certain circumstances
(i)	to the widows and children of contributors who die; and
(ii)	to former contributors who became permanently disabled;
And whereas it appears that parliament cannot validly enact legislation for the purpose mentioned in clause (b) of the next preceding paragraph unless an appropriate amendment is made to the British North America Act, 1867;
And whereas it is desirable that the parliament of Canada should be enabled to enact legislation for the purposes aforesaid;
Therefore be it resolved:
That this house concurs in an address being made by the government of Canada to Her Majesty the Queen requesting the enactment by the parliament of the United Kingdom of legislation to repeal the present section 94A of the British North America Act, 1867 and to substitute therefor the following section:
94A. It is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to
(a)	old age pensions; and
(b)	pensions and other benefits incidental to, or conducive to the better operation and administration of, a scheme of old age pensions;
but no law made by the parliament of Canada under the authority of this section affects the operation of any law enacted by the legislation of any province in relation to any of the matters specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section
And be it further resolved:
That in the opinion of this house, it is desirable that, failing the enactment of the amendment to the British North America Act, 1867 hereinbefore approved, the parliament of Canada should enact legislation to establish a plan for the payment of contributory old age pensions as mentioned in clause (a) of the first paragraph of this resolution.
Certified to be a true copy:
Charland Prud'homme, Clerk of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.