1962-01-26

Mr. Speaker:: By leave of the house may I make reference to an unusual circumstance. We frequently have distinguished members of other legislatures with us in the House of Commons but I think this is the first occasion on which we have had no less than six presiding officers of Canadian legislatures with us in the gallery. I do not know whether hon. members will regard this as a good thing; it depends upon the view they take of speakers.
I once heard Lord Attlee at a dinner at which there were a great many Speakers of the commonwealth present trying to find a collective term to describe them. He chose "a spout of Speakers".
I assure hon. members that our distinguished guests are here this morning to observe and not to admonish. On your behalf I take the opportunity of welcoming to the House of Commons Hon. William Murdoch, Speaker of the Ontario legislature; Hon. H. A. Veniot, Speaker of the Nova Scotia legislature; Hon. Mr. Richard, Speaker of the New Brunswick legislature; Hon. A. W. Harrison, Speaker of the Manitoba legislature; Hon. J. R. McLean, Speaker of the Prince Edward Island legislature and Hon. Peter Dawson, Speaker of the Alberta legislature. In addition, we have Hon. Frank Connors, member of the legislative council of Quebec representing the president of the council; Mr. Oswald Parent representing the speaker of the legislative assembly of Quebec; Mr. F. A. Dewhurst from Saskatchewan who, if reports can be believed, may soon become the Speaker of the Saskatchewan legislature; Mr. W. McKay, clerk of the Prince Edward Island legislature is here. British Columbia and Newfoundland are not represented because their legislatures are in session.
These gentlemen are here to attend the meeting of the Canadian area council of the commonwealth parliamentary association which comprises all of the Canadian branches.
May I also extend our welcome to the wives who are accompanying the members of the council.



PRIVILEGE


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
26207-1-16i
The matter arises out of an exchange between the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) and myself during yesterday's debate. This is the first opportunity I have had to secure the texts of the speech in question and therefore to set the record straight. The passage to which I refer appears at page 191 of Hansard. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, I had been challenged by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) to give an example of an occasion when the Leader of the Opposition had said one thing in Quebec which he had not said in other parts of Canada. Starting at the top of page 191 of Hansard I am reported as follows:
I have not got the exact text before me, but this remark has been widely quoted. It is to the effect that if a Liberal government were in office it would regard it as one of its responsibilities to bring about an end to the co-operative cost sharing programs between the dominion and the provinces. This is what-


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member proceeds-and apparently it takes some explanation to make his point-will he indicate what is the point of privilege he raises?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The point of privilege is that the Leader of the Opposition made a statement reflecting on my veracity or my accuracy. I was not able to refute it at the time. I am now in a position to refute the statement of the Leader of the Opposition. Since this matter has been reported in the press as well as having been raised in debate I think that, on a question of privilege, I am clearly within my rights in requesting an opportunity to clear it up.


Mr. Chevrier:: Mr. Speaker-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am speaking on a point of privilege and I continue as follows-


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I rise-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: I observe that the hon. member for Laurier is rising in his place. Is he rising to speak to a point of order?


Lionel Chevrier: I am rising to speak to a point of order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think a question of privilege has priority.


Lionel Chevrier: Speaking to a point of order-


Edmund Davie Fulton: A question of privilege has priority over a point of order unless you, Mr. Speaker, rule otherwise.

Question of Privilege


Mr. Speaker:: I think probably the hon. member tor Laurier would be rising to question whether a matter of privilege arises. Of course, that is something that must be decided, namely whether the matter raises a prima facie question of privilege. That is a matter for the Chair to decide. If the point the hon. member wishes to make is that the statement made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition misinformed the house, there is a possibility that a question of privilege could arise and the Minister of Justice would have the opportunity to make his submission in order that it may be seen whether it amounts to a question of privilege.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I put the matter on both bases.


Lionel Chevrier: I was rising, Mr. Speaker-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I put the matter on both bases, namely that my veracity was attacked and that the house was misinformed by what the Leader of the Opposition said.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I hear the minister I would be willing to test my views as I have expressed them.


Lionel Chevrier: Your Honour was expressing my intention very clearly and much more emphatically than I could have done. My point is that this is not the manner in which to proceed to do what the Minister of Justice intends to do. What he should have done, in accordance with the rules of the house and as Your Honour has explained to the house on many occasions, was to have risen afterwards with the text in hand and to have then made the correction. What he intends to do now is not, strictly speaking, a matter of privilege. He intends now to correct a challenge to which he was put yesterday and which he was unable to accept. He wants to do so now as a matter of privilege and I submit to you with deference, sir, that he has no right to do that at this time under the rules of the house. He may do it in debate if he wants to on another occasion, which is in accordance with the rules by which we abide in this house, but certainly he cannot do it in the manner in which he is attempting to do it now.


Mr. Pearson:: On the point of order, since my name has been mentioned-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think I need not hear the Leader of the Opposition on the point of order. Would hon. members allow me a minute?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The reply I was going to make to the hon. member for Laurier-


Mr. Hellyer:: The Speaker asked you to
allow him a minute.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the minister allow me a minute? Since a point of order has been taken I should like to say a word about it before we go further with the alleged question of privilege. The point is made that this is a matter of personal explanation which is permissible, of course, where a member has been misquoted or his remarks have been misinterpreted and this arises in the course of debate. There is a reference in Beauchesne, citation 113, in these words:
Members often raise so-called "questions of privilege" on matters which should be dealt with as personal explanations or corrections, either in the debates or the proceedings of the house. A question of privilege ought rarely to come up in parliament. It should be dealt with by a motion giving the house power to impose a reparation or apply a remedy.
And further down the page:
But a dispute arising between two members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege.
That is the normal practice and unless the Minister of Justice considers that the breach of privilege which he asserts goes beyond a matter of difference as to facts and involves misconduct on the part of the Leader of the Opposition, which would arise if there were a deliberate misleading of the house, then he seems to come within the citation. But it is possible for privilege to arise where a member has given wrong information to the house. If he has misled the house knowingly, then of course that would probably be the subject of a motion, referred to a committee and dealt with as a matter affecting the privileges of the house. Having said that, I will hear the minister further.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I take it that I have the same rights as the minister to deal with this matter after he has spoken.


Mr. Speaker:: I have disposed of the
point of order. Certainly, the Leader of the Opposition will have the right to deal with the matter which is raised.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I pointed out that my veracity or accuracy had been attacked and that the house had been misled and in terms which I think, sir, as I read the relevant passage, the house will agree can only be described as deliberate. I intend to show-


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Lionel Chevrier: Your Honour has not ruled
that the Minister of Justice could go into the merits-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I have indicated what I consider are the guiding principles. I propose now to hear the minister.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I had read the passage from Hansard down to the point where I had remarked:
This is what the Leader of the Opposition said in the province of Quebec. I challenge him to say where he has ever said anything even remotely resembling that in any other part of Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; the minister has quoted me and I would ask him to give the source of the quotation or the speech I made in Quebec about which he is talking. I ask him to do that, because he has made this statement.
I think I can fairly summarize here by saying that I said I did not 'have the text before me but that the Leader of the Opposition had been widely quoted to that effect. The Leader of the Opposition then continued:
May I speak to the point of order? Will the minister, not having any source on which to base the remark except some unnamed press report which he cannot identify and the date of which he cannot specify, at least say that his reference is to the speech I made in Quebec city about two months ago?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, that is it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We can clear this up. The speech I made in Quebec city and that part of it which dealt with the subject about which the minister is talking, was also made the week before in Winnipeg.
My recollection is that the word "verbatim" was used there.


Some hon. Members:: It certainly was.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But it does not appear in Hansard so I make no further comment on that matter. The Hansard report continues: "


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear". Then, I find this:


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think we will have to send for the record.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You had better.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then, we can set this matter straight. I hope to have it before the conclusion of my remarks.
As I explained, sir, I was not able to obtain the record before the conclusion of my remarks or indeed even before the conclusion of the sitting of the house yesterday.


Lionel Chevrier: That is why there is no question of privilege.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This is the first moment at which I am able to raise the matter. I have now, however, secured copies of the text of an address by the Hon. L. B. Pearson at the Campbell testimonial dinner, November 2, 1961, Winnipeg, Manitoba and of the text of an address by the Hon. Lester B. Pearson, leader of the Liberal party of Canada, at the federal nominating convention, Quebec East, Monday, November 6, 1961. I should say also,
Question of Privilege
sir, that in case this was not the only speech the hon. member delivered in Winnipeg at that time I endeavoured to secure the text of any others. I also have had the press checked for that period. I could find no other evidence there was any speech delivered at that time other than this one, with or without text, and certainly no reference to the subject matter in dispute in the Winnipeg press.
Now, sir, I have gone through the Winnipeg text and in order that the position may be perfectly clear I think I should place on the record the paragraph-


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order, sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I think if the minister were to conclude by stating that the speeches are not identical that would complete his case. I would think it would be improper to try to establish the facts of the case at this time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I can conclude very shortly, then, because I should like to read a sentence which appears in the Quebec speech-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Edmund Davie Fulton: This is the sentence in question and that is why I am going to read it.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for Essex East is rising on another point of order, I will hear him of course, but I have disposed of the problem which presented itself at the beginning of this question of privilege.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Quite, but you have given the Minister of Justice ample opportunity to state his alleged question of privilege. That question has not been stated, and the minister is the last man in the house who should violate the rules.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):: The hon. member for Essex East being the first?


Mr. Speaker:: One of the rules is that members shall have an opportunity to present the facts before the house, and I trust the minister will be able to complete his presentation of the facts.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, sir. It is true that both speeches contain passages dealing with the problem of dominion-provincial relations but the Quebec speech text contains this sentence:
As a matter of fact we believe the federal government should withdraw from the field of joint programs which are of a permanent character once these programs are well established across the country.
That sentence does not appear anywhere in the Winnipeg speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Question of Privilege


Edmund Davie Fulton: Nor is it represented in effect in the Winnipeg speech.


Paul Joseph James Martin: (Essex East) On a point of order-


Edmund Davie Fulton: That sentence was not in the Winnipeg speech either verbatim or in effect.


Mr. Speaker:: I have heard the minister at considerable length in what I think was a sympathetic and proper effort to determine whether he was asserting a matter that involved a privilege of the house. It seems to me there is a dispute about the facts. Unless the minister proposes to make a charge, or asks leave to make a motion, I do not think that what he asserts is prima facie question of privilege.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A travesty of justice.


Mr. Speaker:: This is a question as to the exact words that are used in debate, a question which often arises. I now give the minister the opportunity, if he wishes to do so, to complete his case in that way, and also leave to make a motion. If he does not, then I think I should at least give an opportunity of explanation to the Leader of the Opposition.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think that possibly a motion would be going a bit far, and the matter would be satisfactorily disposed of by an apology to the house by the Leader of the Opposition.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, you challenged the minister to present a motion. Naturally he is backing away from that.


Mr. Jones:: You are exposed before the whole country now.


Edmund Davie Fulton: An apology will suffice.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think it is appropriate that the hon. member whose name has been brought into question should be permitted to give his explanation, but I hope he will limit it to that. What is involved, as I have indicated, is a dispute over the facts. If he wishes to comment on the facts, that is his privilege.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do wish to clarify the facts which have been confused and misrepresented by the minister. In the first place, the minister suggested I took a word out of Hansard, that I cut "verbatim" out of the blues. The minister suggested this, and in an interjection an hon. member opposite deliberately stated I had taken it out.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard).


Lester Bowles Pearson: That statement, Mr. Speaker, is a lie, or an untruth if you prefer that word;

and if the member who made the intervention would raise that as a question of privilege I should be delighted.


Mr. Speaker:: I would hope the hon. member who has the floor would withdraw the word "lie" and use the word "untruth". There would be a serious question of privilege arise if an hon. member charged another hon. member with lying. We can always appreciate that I did not hear the intervention now in question.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The remark was that I took a word out of Hansard before it appeared. Having been charged with that-and that would be an offence-I have the right to say that that, statement is a lie. It is an untruth. That is a matter of fact and it can be proved by the examination of the blues to see whether it is true or not. I say that statement is not true.


Mr. Speaker:: That satisfies the proprieties, of course. I thought the Leader of the Opposition was accusing a specific hon. member of lying.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No. I was merely saying that the statement, whoever made it, to the effect that this was done, was a lie. That is exactly the same as saying a statement is untrue. The Minister of Justice accused me yesterday of making a statement which was untrue and nobody asked him to withdraw that statement.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I did not use the world "lie". I will if you like.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister's statement
that there was anything different said in Quebec, or rather, as he said on another occasion, that I said nothing elsewhere along the lines of the statement I made in Quebec- that statement, I claim, is untrue.


An hon. Member:: Read Hansard.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have the text before me. In my Quebec speech I said: "As I said last week in Winnipeg, these programs must be made more flexible." I made that statement in my Winnipeg speech, I could read the paragraph dealing with this point if I so desired. I also have the text of a statement I made in Guelph and I would be glad to quote from that to support my position that I did not make a statement in Quebec that I was not willing to repeat in any other part of the country. The minister has been unable to establish his wrong and misleading allegation to the contrary.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I think we should not allow these proceedings to become a debate. There will be opportunities to pursue the matter later on, I daresay.



MR. JUNG    REFERENCE TO REMARKS IN DEBATE ON JANUARY 25

Mr. Douglas Jung (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have to rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday afternoon when I was in my office the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier) made a reference to me during the course of his speech in which he dealt with certain aspects of the investigations into illegal Chinese immigration. This is what he said. I quote from page 204 of Hansard:
The government has dragged through the mud the good reputation of tens of thousands of loyal Canadian citizens of Chinese descent, and I very much regret that one of the members of parliament has been aggressive and active in helping to smear people of the same origin as himself.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


An hon. Member:: What can you expect?


Douglas Jung: Mr. Speaker, at no time have I done anything to smear my fellow Chinese, nor have I ever entertained any such preposterous thoughts. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton), the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mrs. Fairclough) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) himself, have all received very extensive representations from me regarding the Chinese immigration regulations and also the investigations into the irregular entries. These representations from me have been so numerous that persons less generous and less sympathetic would long ago have lost patience with me.
Also, my speeches on the subjects are contained in Hansard and I invite anyone to say that there is anything in them which can be construed as smearing the Chinese in Canada. Far from smearing them, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member has had ample opportunity to deny the charge which was made during his absence. He should normally have taken objection when the matter arose in the house, but he has taken the first opportunity, I take it, and I have heard him. I think this matter should not be pursued. It is a matter which the hon. member rightly resents and explains, but it does not raise a question of privilege on its face.
I do not think this question falls to be decided, as I take it the hon. member is satisfied to make his explanation.


Douglas Jung: Mr. Speaker, under ordinary circumstances I would have been delighted to ask the hon. member to withdraw those remarks, because I think they are an imputation on my character and on my activities as a member of parliament.
Commonwealth Educational Conference
However, because he has already said it I see no point in asking him to withdraw the remark because it is already on the record.
I am taking this opportunity to say that this is not the first time I have been attacked on account of my racial background and I doubt that this will be the last. I want to say that I am proud of my racial background, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Jung: -and I am prouder still of being a Canadian. I hope I will never lower myself to make the same remarks about others as those remarks made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: I have a brief statement to make concerning the second commonwealth educational conference which was convened in New Delhi on January 11 and is ending today.
It will be recalled that the idea of a formal scheme for commonwealth educational co-operation was first put forward by Canada at the 1958 Montreal conference of Commonwealth trade and economic ministers. Following that initiative by Canada a commonwealth educational conference was held at Oxford, England, in July 1959 where the commonwealth education program was launched. Since that time it has developed most successfully and has met to a most rewarding degree the lofty expectations of its founders. Canada has played an important part in the implementation of the program which the government regards as a strong force for better understanding and for continued close relations among members of the commonwealth.
I have here a list of the students attending universities in Canada under this scheme and of those from Canada attending commonwealth universities abroad. Perhaps that list could be printed at the end of my statement. I would point out that there are now 184 scholars from other parts of the commonwealth in Canada and 61 Canadians studying abroad. The reason for the difference in numbers is, of course, that there are not the university facilities in many of these commonwealth countries which we are fortunate enough to have in Canada.
At this recent meeting in New Delhi, Canada was represented by a full delegation
236	HOUSE OF
Commonwealth Educational Conference headed by our High Commissioner in London, Hon. George A. Drew, who also led the Canadian delegation to the first conference at Oxford and has followed the development of the commonwealth education program with a close and expert interest. The delegation also consisted of representatives of Canadian educational institutions and of national educational organizations which included provincial representation.
I have here a list of delegates which, perhaps, could also be printed at the end of my statement. Hon. members will realize that it comprises a very distinguished group.
The delegation participated effectively in all matters of common interest which came under discussion. Many recommendations were put forward for the continued development of the commonwealth education program and for improvements in its operation. These recommendations will now be submitted to member governments for consideration with a view to implementation.
I am sure hon. members will be glad to learn that the Canadian government has extended an invitation to hold the third commonwealth educational conference in Canada. This will probably be held in the year 1964. The offer is being recommended for acceptance by the delegates meeting in New Delhi.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs leave to have the lists of names incorporated in the record at the end of his statement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure the house is interested in this report by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The conference held in New Delhi was an important one and, as the hon. gentleman says, it will have the effect of promoting a greater measure of co-operation and understanding in the commonwealth which we all regard as an essential instrument for stability and peace.
The minister has said that the third conference will be held in Canada in 1964. He will not misunderstand me if I say there is, therefore, a possibility that the hosts to that conference will not be the present government. However, that is a matter to be decided by events. We all heard with great interest that the delegation which represented Canada at New Delhi was composed not only of Canada's high commissioner and other representatives of the government, but that provincial governments and departments of education were represented, as well, together with outstanding educationists. This is, of course, as it should be, in view of the fact that the provinces have a juridical basis for their concern and interest in education. We thank the minister for his report.


Mr. H. W. Her ridge (Kootenay West): Speaking for the C.C.F. party, which attaches great value and importance to the commonwealth and its increasing role in world affairs, may I say that we welcome the statement made by the minister with reference to this conference. It is further evidence of Canada's willingness to participate in the development of educational opportunities within the commonwealth.
I believe we are in a most fortunate position in Canada. Our tradition of twin cultures enables us, in particular, to assist those persons who come from the African states and whose official tongue is French.
[Editor's Note: The lists referred to by Mr. Speaker and by the Secretary of State for External Affairs follow.]



CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN COMMONWEALTH EDUCATIONAL CO-OPERATION

[Stage Direction]
(a) Scholars from other commonwealth countries studying in Canada:
Australia	 8
Basutoland	 1
Bermuda	 1
Britain	 19
British Guiana	 2
British Honduras	 2
Ceylon	 8
Fiji Islands	 2
Gambia	 1
Ghana	 9
Hong Kong	 1
India	 28
Kenya	 6
Malaya	 6
Malta	 1
Mauritius	 4
New Zealand	 10
Nigeria	 6
North Borneo	 1
Pakistan	 19
Rhodesia and Nyasaland	 6
Sierra Leone	 4
Singapore	 3
Somaliland
(selected prior	to 1960)	 1
South Africa
(selected prior	to 1961) .... 10
Southern Cameroons	 2
Tanganyika	 1
Uganda	 4
Virgin Islands	 1
West Indies	 16
Zanzibar	 1
Total
237

(b) Canadian students studying in other commonwealth countries:
Australia	 11
Britain	 44
New Zealand	 3
India	 2
Malaya	 1
Total	 61

[Stage Direction]
New Delhi, January, 1962
Honourable George A. Drew, High Commissioner for Canada, London, leader of delegation.
Mr. M. Cadieux, Deputy Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs, vice-chairman of delegation.
Mr. B. Scott Bateman, Deputy Minister of Education, province of Manitoba, past president, Canadian education association.
Dean G. F. Curtis, faculty of law, university of British Columbia, chairman, Canadian commonwealth scholarship and fellowship committee.
Dr. J.-Gerard DeGrace, Joint Deputy Minister of Education, province of New Brunswick, president of "L'Association Cana-dienne des educateurs de langue Francaise".
Msgr. Jacques Garneau, secretary-general, Laval University, member, Canadian commonwealth scholarship and fellowship committee.
Dr. Marion Grant, Acadia University, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, member, Canadian commonwealth scholarship and fellowship committee.
Dr. F. C. A. Jeanneret, chancellor, University of Toronto.
Reverend H. F. Legare, rector, University of Ottawa, president, national conference of Canadian universities and colleges.
Mr. Gerald A. Mosher, principal, Gorse-brook school, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Mr. Freeman K. Stewart, executive secretary, Canadian education association, member, Canadian advisory committee on teacher training and supply.
Representatives of the following federal government departments were also included: Department of External Affairs Department of Labour (vocational training branch)
Department of northern affairs (education division).
Canadian Coastguard Service


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: The government has decided that the main Department of Transport fleet of ships will in future be known as the Canadian coastguard. The decision to adopt the new name for the fleet was taken in recognition of the tremendous expansion it has undergone in the past several years in the scope of its operations, in the number of vessels and in the standards of operation that have been achieved. This fleet has been known as the Canadian marine service.
At the same time it has been decided to adopt a new colour scheme for its vessels and a distinctive insignia for their funnels. The ships will have red hulls with white superstructure and funnels instead of the former black, white and yellow combination. A moderately stylized red maple leaf and band on the white funnels will make them easily recognizable at a distance as Canadian coastguard vessels.
The use of red for the hulls is of significant practical utility, particularly for icebreakers, as they will be more easily seen from vessels they may be escorting and by pilots of our own helicopters under conditions of poor visibility. The same need for visibility and ready identification applies to the Canadian coastguard vessels which are on search and rescue duties.
New types of uniforms will be issued which will provide comfortable and smart clothing appropriate to the conditions of the service. These uniforms are modelled on the wartime battle dress and berets are to be provided.
The essentially civilian character of the fleet will remain unchanged. Pilot vessels and canal craft will continue to be operated as separate units by the appropriate divisions of the department.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I think all hon. members of the house would agree with the statement made by the minister, which in effect is a sort of streamlining of the vessels which operate under his department. I am sure the men, officers and others who work on and operate these ships will be delighted with the announcement the minister has made.
I should just like to add that perhaps the minister should give consideration to a statement made by the former minister of public works, now the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that the government of Canada would soon be having a merchant

Proposed Legislation
marine once this government took office. The minister might well give consideration-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: -to that and perhaps announce a decision to that effect to the house in the near future.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, several years ago when the Department of Transport was under the auspices of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) we looked forward to this step. There were some indications that we were going to have real wavy navy in the marine service. We welcome the steps that have been taken.
There is no indication in the minister's statement, of course, that this is going to lead to the kind of coastguard service that the United States provides. We look forward later in the year to some kind of announcement by the minister which would indicate that the search and rescue operations of the Canadian marine service will be expanded, particularly on the great lakes.



REPRESENTATION ACT


Mr. W. F. Matthews (Nanaimo) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-46, to amend the Representation Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Walter Franklyn Matthews: Mr. Speaker, I explained this bill verbatim last session and I do not think a second explanation is at all necessary at this time.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


Douglas Mason Fisher: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-47, with respect to the readjustment of representation in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, this bill has been before the house in three previous sessions. It merely seeks to arrange that a redistribution commission can be set up to govern and adjust the constituencies of this parliament.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question arises out of a statement reported to have been made yesterday in Toronto by Mr. Graham Towers, former governor of the Bank of Canada, to the effect that Canada's economic performance of the past five years has been unsatisfactory and that per capita gross national product today is smaller in real terms than in 1957.
My question is to the Minister of Finance. Has he any comment to make on this matter?
Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think it is quite clear that the question is one beyond the scope of oral questions on the order of the day. Furthermore I would advise the house that, if the minister replies, there is no time limit on his speech.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very glad to make comment on this matter because it is quite clear that the Leader of the Opposition has followed a practice of selecting a little piece out of an extended speech made by the gentleman concerned and then bringing this before the house as though it were the whole speech.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Read the whole speech.


An hon. Member:: Like Winnipeg.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are many things that are dealt with in the speech in the reports that are available to everyone in this morning's press. I would have thought that it would have been of interest to the Leader of the Opposition that Mr. Towers is reported as saying:
Canada's currency was overvalued for most of the period, although considerable relief has resulted from the fact that the dollar now sells at a discount of 41 per cent compared with the U.S. dollar, compared with an average premium of a little more than 3 per cent in 1960.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The value of the rule which I invoked is apparent. Questions of this kind only introduce debates. Now that each side has made a statement, I think perhaps we might call the account even.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct to the Prime Minister a question arising out of a press report that the Cockshutt Farm Implement Company may be sold at an early date to the White Motor Company of the United States. My question is this. In view of the Prime Minister's interest in reducing farm implement prices and the inquiry that took place in this house last year, I wonder whether any discussion has been held with farm organizations which might lead to the retention of the ownership of this company within Canada and perhaps its development by the co-operative movement and the producers themselves?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: No such discussions have taken place, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman will, of course, understand me when I make this suggestion. In the province of Saskatchewan a government of the kind to which he refers has gone into various businesses including steel production and the like. This might be a matter he could transmit to that government for its attention.



AUTOMOBILES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question. In view of the fact that he has now had the Bladen commission report on his desk for many months and in view of the requests made by the automobile industry and other industries allied therewith, may I ask him if the government is going to act one way or another with regard to this report before the dissolution of the present parliament?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, although he has been in the house a long time, has quite overlooked the fact that the implementation of the report would involve the kind of action that is taken in a budget.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not entirely so.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Therefore his question is quite premature. Every other hon. member knows that questions of that kind are not answered in the house. His curiosity in that respect can only be satisfied when the next budget or a budget is introduced.
Inquiries of the Ministry
In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I have been receiving delegations on this subject. You will remember that in making my announcement last June with respect to it I invited delegations and expressions of opinion. I have been receiving expressions of opinion from representatives of the automobile industry, the automotive parts industry, municipalities where these industries are located and others, and this subject is continuing to receive very active study. Indeed, there are some futher delegations yet to be heard. I am hearing the president of one of the motor car industries on Monday next, one who comes from the city of Windsor, incidentally.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for an unusually lucid reply. May I say to him that while-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There will be opportunities for debate. If the hon. member has a supplementary question he may ask it, but otherwise I think he should restrain himself.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was just preceding my supplementary question by a compliment to the minister, something I am not usually given the opportunity of or justification for doing. May I ask the minister if we are to take it from his reply that there will be a budget before the next election and that in that budget the government will take action to try to deal with the situation that is seriously affecting the automobile industry?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Buy a rule book, Paul.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member, as he knows, should have no expectation of receiving an answer on the orders of the day to a question as to when the next election will be. The hon. member for Skeena.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, that was not my question. My question was based on the seriousness of the situation affecting this industry and in that connection I have the right under our rules to ask the Minister of Finance whether or not we may expect a budget in which the recommendations of Professor Bladen will be considered one way or another by the government. That is my question and I ask the Minister of Finance to answer now.


Mr. Speaker:: I remind the hon. member that was his first question.


Peter Francis Martin: No, no.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Well, it was not precisely in those terms but that was the substance of it. I am sorry, but I cannot accept his argument. The hon. member for Skeena.



TEXTILES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has he taken note of the complaint made by the Canadian apparel and textile manufacturers association to the effect that unnecessary disruption of the Canadian textile industry has been caused by Japan's failure to announce 1962 quotas for shipment of clothing and textiles to this country? Is there any foundation to this complaint?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, it is not unusual in the early part of the year, while we are still negotiating with representatives of the Japanese government for the establishment on their part of export quotas for the year, for representations to be made by the Canadian industries that are affected. As a matter of fact, so far as the textile industry is concerned, we are in frequent contact with the representatives and spokesmen for that industry. So far as negotiations are concerned, Mr. Speaker, I said in reply to a question a few days ago that the negotiations with respect to the 1962 quotas are proceeding. I must say that I always wish these negotiations would proceed more quickly than they do, but whatever textile products may be entering Canada from Japan in this present period before the quotas are determined for 1962, most certainly they will be taken into account in the establishment of the quotas.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: have a question for the Minister of Finance on the Columbia river negotiations with the premier of the province of British Columbia. Recently when the premier was advised by you that it was impossible to meet him in Toronto were any further steps taken to arrange a future meeting? If so, what were the results?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think I can put quite briefly the state of the correspondence between Premier Bennett and myself. The last letter that 1 received from Premier Bennett was dated November 27, 1961. That letter was made

public by the premier after it was sent. I sent him an interim acknowledgement dated December 9, 1961, and replied to the letter at length on December 23. That letter concludes with these words:
I am, as always, ready to meet with you and invite you to suggest several alternative dates in January for consideration.
The only communication I have received from Premier Bennett in response to that letter was a telegram which reached me on the evening of January 4.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Was the minister in Quebec then?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. I received this telegram at my home in Ottawa. It reads as follows:
Will be in Toronto at King Edward Hotel on Friday January twelfth only. Would make time available for discussion on Columbia if you thought advisable.
That telegram was signed by "W. A. C. Bennett minister of finance." I responded early the following morning on arrival at my office with the following telegram to him:
Reurtel deeply regret cannot be in Toronto January twelfth. Will be engaged all day at meeting of Canada-U.S. continuing committee on trade and economic matters in Ottawa. Hope you can suggest other dates for our meeting.
I have had no response to that communication, Mr. Speaker, I wrote the premier a letter also on January 5. In it I quoted for confirmation his telegram to me and my telegram to him in reply and added the following:
I am very sorry that I am not available on the date you suggested, but the date of the meeting of the Canada-U.S. committee was set several weeks ago and involves a large number of ministers and officials from both countries. It is expected to continue also on January 13 th.
That concludes the recent exchanges. As I say, Mr. Speaker, I have had no communication from Premier Bennett since I received that telegram on the evening of January 4. If it were the wish of the house to have these documents printed as an appendix to today's Hansard, I have copies available for that purpose.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A waste of the taxpayers' money.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the correspondence in question be printed as an appendix to today's Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I hear an objection. I will recognize the hon. member for Laurier who I believe has a question to ask.

Mi. Chevrier: May I direct a question-


Donald Methuen Fleming: I do not think there was any objection, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Trinity said no. I do not know whether or not he meant it. Does the hon. member for Trinity seriously object?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: From what the minister had said, Mr. Speaker, I could not determine anything that would justify the expenditure of the taxpayers' money for printing these documents.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In that event, in view of the interest of other hon. members of the house in a matter of extremely great importance to Canada and an extremely important element in co-operation between Canada and the United States, I would ask the house to permit me to read the letter which I wrote to Premier Bennett on December 21.


Lionel Chevrier: Go ahead.


Mr. Speaker:: Only with unanimous consent can that be done.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This procedure would also involve delay, Mr. Speaker, and incur considerable expense. Perhaps I had better withdraw my objection.


An hon. Member:: The Liberals are not interested.


Mr. Speaker:: The inclusion of unread documents in Hansard must be by unanimous consent. I recognize the hon. member for Laurier.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question-


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I have an indication-


Lionel Chevrier: Your Honour has given me the floor twice. Surely I ought to be allowed to ask a question. I have the floor.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member for Laurier would allow me to ascertain whether or not I have overlooked something to which I should have attended.


Lionel Chevrier: I will, of course, bow to your wishes, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Methuen Fleming: One hon. member indicated that he was not willing to give unanimous consent to the printing of these documents. That member has now indicated that he is withdrawing that objection. I wonder whether the correspondence could be printed by unanimous consent.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the correspondence be incorporated in today's proceedings?


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



INQUIRY AS TO PROPOSED U.S. TARIFF CHANGES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: My question to the Prime Minister is the following. What attitude does the government intend to adopt in the face of the vast tariff changes submitted to congress by President Kennedy yesterday and which are designed as stepping stones to an open trade partnership between North America and western Europe to stop communist expansion in the economic field?


John George Diefenbaker: The government of Canada has made it very clear that it is most anxious to see the widest possible development of multilateral trade without discrimination. Any initiative in this regard will naturally receive the most favourable consideration by the Canadian government. Indeed, by reason of the communist danger that faces us and particularly Mr. Khrushchev's claim that by 1980 the U.S.S.R. and communism in general will have destroyed economically the free world depending on private enterprise, I am one of those who believe that in the years ahead any step that can be taken to strengthen each and every nation in the free world economically should receive the support of all.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Can the Minister of Finance indicate the date when he will be presenting the next budget?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am in no position to indicate the date on which the next budget will be presented. It is most extraordinary for hon. members to expect the Minister of Finance in the month of January to indicate the date of the budget. It is only seven months since the last budget was introduced.


Lionel Chevrier: It was a pretty bad one, too.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I would say this so far as the hon. member for Essex East is concerned. In his impatience and curiosity-
242	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister is re- Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State
plying to the supplementary question of the for External Affairs): Not yet, Mr. Speaker, hon. member for Skeena.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I say to the
hon. member for Skeena that if any hon. member of this house has representations on this subject that he wishes to make to me I shall, of course, be glad to receive them, but I think they should be informed representations and not the kind of political claptrap that we hear from the hon. member for Essex East.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I ask this question by way of a supplementary only because of its importance to the city of Windsor and to Canada generally. If the minister cannot tell us the date, can he give us the month when the budget will be brought down?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, it will be a suitable month in the year of our Lord 1962.



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. Has the government authorized any special allowance for members of the armed forces serving overseas to restore their purchasing power to the level enjoyed before the devaluation of the Canadian dollar?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the matter of the amount of the allowance paid to personnel serving in Europe has been the subject of a survey which has been carried on during the past few months, the results of which will be available shortly. On the basis of those results a decision will be made whether or not there should be any change in the amount.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a supplementary question. Has the Department of External Affairs made any change in its allowances to officers serving overseas to reflect the change in purchasing power brought about by the devaluation of the Canadian dollar.



BRITISH GUIANA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I
ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question based on a report in last night's Ottawa Citizen about my excellent friend, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam? The report was to the effect he is going to leave next week to advise the government of British Guiana on its system of taxation. My question is, was this as the result of an arrangement between the government of British Guiana and the government of Canada?


Howard Charles Green: No, no, no, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask a
supplementary question of the Minister of Finance? Does he not think that the services of the hon. gentleman ought to be preempted to Canada?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Canada will not bid for those services under any circumstances.
(Translation):



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Artha-baska):: My question concerns the Minister of Agriculture but, in his absence, I should like to direct it to his parliamentary secretary. Is it possible that American farmers, who get subsidies to reduce their grain acreage, may be doing some farming in Canada to take advantage of Canadian legislation?
(Text):


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I did not quite understand the hon. member's question, but if he is implying that farmers from the United States are coming over here to take advantage-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the parliamentary secretary might perhaps take the question as notice and examine it. It appeared to me it was a question that went beyond the jurisdiction of the Canadian Minister of Agriculture but perhaps it could be taken as notice.

Inquiries of the Ministry
PUBLIC SERVICE	There are negotiations going on, as the house
knows. I will inquire as to what stage they
INQUIRY AS TO INCREASES FOR PREVAILING	arg now ^ inform the house later.



RATES EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance about a matter which I understand comes under his jurisdiction. Since approximately last June has there been a freeze order against wage increases for carpenters, plumbers or electricians employed in the parliament buildings and can he make a statement soon that increases in line with established trade union contracts and rates will be made applicable to all federal government prevailing rates employees affected?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking for a declaration of policy. If the minister wishes to deal with the matter on the orders of the day he will have the opportunity to do so, of course, but it seems to me that the hon. member is asking for a declaration on an important matter of policy.


Harold Edward Winch: Wage increases, sir.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is asking for information with respect to the wages paid to any particular group of employees on prevailing rates, I suggest that he put his question on the order paper and give particulars so that there will be no difficulty in identifying the particular group about whom he is speaking. If it is a question of policy, I think he is aware of the policy followed by the government in relation to the wage rates of persons in the prevailing rate categories. Obviously this is not a matter for the orders of the day.
(Translation):



PUBLIC BUILDING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (Si. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Could the minister give the house a progress report on the negotiations between the municipal authorities of Montreal and the C.B.C. concerning the construction of the corporation's buildings in the eastern part of the metropolis?
(Text):


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: I am not in a position to say today exactly where that matter stands.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask
the Minister of Finance what disposal, if any, the government has made of this proposal of Canadian National Railways that the government should assume liability for a further approximately $1 billion of the Canadian National funded debt?


Donald Methuen Fleming: All questions pertaining to the capital position of the Canadian National Railways are being discussed at the present time. The hon. member will recall that the period of years covered by the Canadian National financing act expired last year and was extended for a further year by act of parliament. Negotiations are proceeding at this time and will continue, I expect, for some little time to come with a view to working out terms in this respect which might be appropriate to be submitted to parliament for approval in due course.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Is the Mr. James A. Chamberlin who has just been named project manager of the United States project "Gemini", the same Mr. Chamberlin who assisted in designing the Avro Arrow?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: I shall have to inquire.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That would be a new question. I recognize the hon. member for Kootenay West.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In
244	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry view of the debate now taking place in the United Nations general assembly on Angola, and in view of the assurances given this house last session that Canada would cease shipping arms to Portugal under the NATO agreement, would the minister care to comment on the statement purported to have been made yesterday during the debate by the Indian representative Mr. C. S. Jha, to the effect that of the 15 NATO countries only Norway had announced it would refuse arms to Portugal?


Howard Charles Green: The important word in that statement is the word "announced". Only Norway had "announced". The situation so far as Canada is concerned was explained to the house by the Prime Minister on June 24, 1961. The hon. member for Kootenay West will recall that the Prime Minister then said Canada has not delivered mutual aid to Portugal since November 1960 and earlier shipments to Portugal as to other NATO countries were made on the understanding that they would be used only to strengthen the defensive capacity of the organization and only for the defence of the NATO area as defined in article 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which does not include Angola. Moreover, commercial sales of munitions to Portugal have not been made for over two years. That was the situation as announced in June of last year and that continues to be the situation today.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
a supplementary question? Were any arms sent under any other provision, such as mutual aid? The hon. member used the words "commercial sales"?


Howard Charles Green: No, the hon. member has not heard me correctly. In my statement I referred first to mutual aid and then dealt with commercial sales. There has been no shipment of arms under any other provision.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: May I ask this question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Will Mr. Chamberlin and the approximately 25 other ex-Avro engineers now employed by the United States national aeronautics and space administration, qualify for readmittance to Canada under the new immigration regulations in case their services should ever be required here again?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking about the regulations and the law.
[Mr. Herridge.)

He is able to interpret them just as other hon. members can. It is not in order to ask for an opinion or interpretation of the law or to pose a hypothetical question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think the government has done a great disservice to Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will have the opportunity to debate that matter.



GALT TERRIERS-REQUEST FOR GRANT TO PARTIC- IPATE IN WORLD HOCKEY TOURNAMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister received a request from the Galt Terriers for a grant to enable them to participate as Canada's representative at the coming world hockey tournament in Colorado? If so, what was the response to this worth-while request?


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, there has been a request received in the department. I have referred it, along with many other requests, to the incoming advisory council.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if I might ask a supplementary question arising out of the minister's answer? Is he in a position to say whether the incoming council will be able to make a decision on this request in order that the Galt Terriers will have the money in time to go to the world hockey tournament?


Jay Waldo Monteith: The council is to have an organizational meeting on February 5 and 6, and this is one of the matters that will be referred to them for consideration.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I
wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware of the recommendations made by the secretary of labour, Arthur Goldberg to President Kennedy that the offer of the Finnish government to lend the United States a super icebreaker in an attempt to keep the great lakes open on a year round basis-


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking whether or not the minister is aware of something happening in the United States.

If he has a question to ask the minister about something within his jurisdiction, perhaps he would put his question.


Hubert Badanai: The question is, has the government any intention of considering such a proposal to keep the great lakes open by using an icebreaker during the wintertime?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of what is going on between the United States secretaries in the American cabinet. It is not clear as to just what the suggestion is. I think my hon. friend is asking if it is the intention to keep the great lakes open in the winter. At the present time, we have certain regulations so far as shipping on the great lakes is concerned and the opening of navigation in the spring, and there are no changes contemplated.

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



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Production and marketing branch-
611. Payments to western grain producers to be distributed on the following basis, namely, $1 per cultivated acre up to a maximum of 200 acres per farm in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, $42,000,000.
The Chairman:: Shall this vote carry?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I regret that illness prevents the Minister of Agriculture from presenting this estimate to provide for an acreage payment to western grain producers. Thus it falls upon me to do so and I take advantage of the opportunity to compliment you, Mr. Chairman, on your appointment to the important post you hold. I know of no one who could fill the position in a more distinguished manner.
It will be recalled that because of the serious financial position, particularly of the smaller western grain producers, and also due to the absence of a two-price system for wheat, previous acreage payments were made in 1958 and 1960. The reasons why this form of assistance was decided upon in those years were given at length by the Prime Minister and myself when it was originally proposed and debated in this committee. Perhaps I should refer to the Hansard reports in which those debates are recorded so that any members of the committee who would like to refresh their memories in regard to these matters will know where to find them readily.
Supply-Agriculture
They are in Hansard of August 30 and September 6, 1958, and of August 8 and 9, 1960.
I shall not repeat the comprehensive statements made on those occasions but will very briefly sum up the principal reasons why it was decided to provide this particular form of assistance to western farmers. After a careful examination of various programs suggested to improve the income position of these farmers it became quite apparent this was the most equitable and practical method of meeting the difficulty. Second, this method ensures that the smaller, worse-off farmers receive the greatest proportion of benefit from the money provided, and this is one of the main considerations which must be borne in mind in extending assistance of that kind.
Third, assistance by acreage does not stimulate production of particular commodities, thus creating and increasing surpluses which have been found difficult to dispose of in the past. In this connection it is encouraging to record that we have made very great progress in the last year or more in disposing of our large surplus of grain, particularly wheat. Nevertheless a system of assistance which would considerably encourage the production of certain of these grains and cause a move away from a more diversified type of agriculture in western Canada would be a step in the wrong direction.
Fourth, acreage payments are a type of payment which does not serve as an impediment to the marketing of agricultural commodities or to free trade in them, while many of the alternative schemes of assistance which have been suggested would have that undesirable feature. In view of the fact we are dependant to such a great extent on exports of our agricultural products, that is something which we must always keep in mind in any agricultural assistance we institute.
This year there is a very important additional reason why a payment of this kind should be made. It is to be found in the reduced farm income, particularly of people in certain areas of western Canada due to the drought which took place there last year. This drought in the long run did not prove as devastating and serious as at one time was believed would be the case, but nevertheless it did have very serious effects which are particularly apparent in the income position of many farmers in western Canada. How serious that is can be shown by comparing the average wheat yield this year with that of previous years. During the past crop year the average wheat yield is estimated to have been 10.4 bushels per acre, whereas for the previous five years it was 19.7 bushels per

Supply-Agriculture
acre. In other words, this year's yield was not very much more than half of what had been secured on the average in the previous five years. This gives a good indication of the situation in which many farmers will find themselves, and demonstrates the necessity of assistance in the form proposed.
The payments to be made under the authority of this vote will follow the same pattern as the two previous payments. That is, each producer holding a wheat board delivery permit will receive $1 for each cultivated acre listed in the permit, up to a maximum of $200. Payments will be made to holders of delivery permits for the current crop year, that is 1961-62, and it is estimated that approximately 235,000 payments will be made.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not
wish to be rude but will the minister clarify one matter? Do I understand that while payments will be made on the permits books, a person with two or three permit books will be entitled to one payment only? If so can he say how a cross check will be made as there were a number of extra payments made last time by error?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The payments will be made through the wheat board as they were on the two previous occasions and the checking will be done on the basis of their records. Every effort, of course, will be made to ensure that a man who may happen to hold two permits will not be paid on both of them. On the last occasion there were some cases where this happened and repayment was requested. In the final check of every case where an error of that sort was made, repayment was sought. It is always possible that errors can be made in cases of people with similar names, but I do not think that is a material matter so far as the scheme generally is concerned. However, there are several matters which caused questions to be raised at the time payments were made previously. I might mention a few of them so that there may be no doubt in anyone's mind as to the situation at the present time. The first of these matters is in connection with joint permits, that is, a permit in which more than one person is shown as the actual producer. This covers partnerships and things of that sort. Where payments are made to more than one individual as actual producers, payment will be made to them jointly to a maximum of $200 for each such producer. In other words, if they have more than 400 acres and two people are in partnership on a joint permit they

would each get $200. If they had only 300 acres they would receive $150 each, in that particular case.
The second matter is in connection with cooperatives. Payment will be made to co-operatives based on a maximum of 200 for each active member of the co-operative and again to the extent of the total cultivated acres shown in the permit. If there are five people in the co-operative and they have 1,000 acres they get $200 apiece; if they have 500 acres they get $100 apiece.
The next matter is in connection with landlords. A large number of questions were raised last year as to whether they would get the payments, and there were complaints when they did not. I should like to make it clear that since the payment is made to the party shown as the actual producer in the wheat board permit, landlords are not eligible for payment unless they are listed as the actual operators of the land. The next point concerns the acreage eligible for payment. All acreage to a maximum of 200 acres which is shown in the wheat board delivery permit as being under wheat, oats, barley, rye, flax, cultivated forage crops, miscellaneous crops, summerfallow and new breaking is eligible for payment. This means, of course, that the only land which is not eligible is that which is natural pasture. There is one other point in this regard; it is the one I have just mentioned, but perhaps it should be put separately so that there may be no confusion. The acreage which is listed in the permit book as being uncultivated land or natural pasture is not eligible.
I trust this explanation will ensure that there is no such confusion with regard to these various points on this occasion as there was in regard to all these matters on the first occasion when acreage payments were made in 1958.
When I was introducing this estimate in 1958 and also in 1960 I referred to a table which gives the breakdown of specified acreage groups as shown by the wheat board delivery permits and I think it would be of advantage to members of the committee if I put this on the record of the house as I did in 1958. I would therefore ask the permission of the committee, Mr. Chairman, to have this table printed in Hansard.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Has the minister permission to table this document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table referred to follows.]

S upp ly-A griculture
The following fable indicates the specified acreage groups as shown in wheat board delivery permits for the 1960-61 crop year:
Specified acreage	Number
groupings	of permits
000- 099 acres	 20,172
100- 199	"	
54,926200- 299	"	
49,123300- 399	"	
32,297400- 499	"	
23,443500- 599	"	
13,845600- 699	"	
9,938700- 799	"	
6,490800- 899	"	
3,854900- 999	"	
2,8141.000-	1,999	"	
6,3942.000-	2,999	"	
4223.000-	3,999	"	
984.000-	4,999	"	
275.000-	5,999	"	
206.000-	6,999	"	
177.000-	7,999	"	
78.000-	8,999	"	
7
223,994


Douglas Scott Harkness: As may be seen, this table shows the specified acreage groupings for the crop year 1960-61, in other words, the last crop year for which we have a complete record. It shows in particular that in the group having up to 99 acres of cultivated land there are 20,172 farmers. The average acreage per permit is 65. In the next group having between 100 and 199 cultivated acres there are 54,926 farmers with an average acreage per permit of 144. In the next group having between 200 and 299 cultivated acres there are 49,123 farmers with an average cultivated acreage of 247. This table also shows the breakdown into wheat, oats and barley but I shall not read that out; it will appear in Hansard.
What these figures mean is this: taking these first three groups we have 124,221 farmers out of a total of 223,994 holding permit books who have cultivated acreage amounting to less than 300 acres. The third group I mentioned had an average of 247 acres and the two other groups held an average of less than 200 acres. In other words, these are small farmers and they constitute more than 55 per cent of the total of farmers in western Canada holding permit books. This demonstrates that the particular type of payment now envisaged gives to these people the greatest proportionate benefit from the funds allocated for the purpose. It also makes it clear that the common assumption made by many people that all the farmers in western
Average acreage cereal
Average acreage per permit		crops	
Wheat	Oats	Barley65	15	13	10144	36	23	21247	68	36	31338	105	41	37442	147	45	41546	185	51	48637	228	49	49745	268	51	55845	300	57	60941	341	57	621,258	452	69	822,348	825	142	1543,408	1,122	316	2864,407	1,185	407	4075,400	1,700	450	6006,412	1,941	353	5297,286	2,429	429	7148,286	2,000	857	571345	36	34
Canada are big farmers is not correct. The majority are small farmers in actual fact.
There is some other information which I think would also be of interest and value to the committee, namely what was paid in the course of the two previous payments made in 1958 and 1960. In 1958, in Manitoba-these are round figures-there were 43,900 payments made to a total value of $7,206,000. In Saskatchewan, 109,460 payments were made to a total of $19,958,000. In Alberta there were 79,145 payments to a value of $13,219,000 and in British Columbia 1,653 payments amounting in all to $265,000. In other words, 234,162 payments were made and the total amount paid out was $40,649,123.
In 1960, the total number of farmers paid was 227,710, a reduction of about 7,000, and the total amount paid out was approximately the same, namely, $40,432,000. In order to save time I shall not break it down this time for the various provinces. I might say, however, that due to the increase in average farm acreage which has taken place since those payments were made it is estimated that the average payment will be higher on this occasion. Therefore the total amount paid out will be somewhat higher than it was on those two previous occasions. Also, it is estimated that there will be a certain increase on this occasion in the number of payments which are made.

Supply-Agriculture


Peter Francis Martin: What is the estimated average?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The estimated average of what?


Peter Francis Martin: You said it was $178 under the previous plan.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No particular sum has been estimated, but it is estimated that the average payment will be higher because the size of farms has increased somewhat during the intervening period.


Hazen Robert Argue: It will be very few dollars in any case?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes. The acreage payments made in 1958 and 1960 I think without any question have shown their value to the western farmers and western farmers have demonstrated their approval of these payments in no uncertain way. When the acreage payment program was first introduced to the house in 1958 hon. members opposite were very critical of it. They complained about the method which was being used and about the size of the payment. This was the occasion on which the hon. member for Assiniboia, in particular, was talking about "peanuts" and things along that line.


Hazen Robert Argue: Hear, hear.


Douglas Scott Harkness: However, the history of these two payments has demonstrated without any question that they have been extremely valuable and they have been very well received by the farmers of western Canada.
At this particular time, in view of the drought which was experienced last year, the smaller farmers of western Canada particularly-and, as I have indicated, they constitute the majority-will find the payment which is proposed in this estimate a very great help indeed. The estimated amount of between $41 million and $42 million which will go into western Canada as a result of these payments will have an extremely beneficial general effect not only on the economy of western Canada but also on the economy of eastern Canada, in the form of orders for manufactured goods of all kinds which otherwise farmers and their families in western Canada would not be able to purchase.
I hope that this estimate will receive the universal approval of the committee.
(Translation) :


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to join with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness) in congratulating you upon your appointment as chairman of committees of the whole. There is no doubt that you are

qualified and able to hold that office. You can rest assured that, for our part, we will make your task easy and enjoyable.
Following a statement on the official assistance program to the western farmers that the government intends to implement, I would like to say a few words of approval about these credits which will undoubtedly contribute to help the western farmers who have suffered losses through drought during the 1961 season. We would have thought, however, that the government would have announced a program that would have taken into account the promises made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) during the 195758 electoral campaign. Such is not the case.
I should just like to mention here what he said in Moose Jaw on March 15, 1958 and which was reported in the Montreal Star on March 17, 1958. I quote:
(Text):
The Prime Minister also promised that sympathetic consideration would be given to making deficiency payments to wheat, oats, and barley growers so that their returns bear a fair relationship to production cost.
(Translation) :
That promise is probably one of those which the Prime Minister forgot to fulfil, and it is not the least, since it concerns 220,000 farmers in the three prairie provinces. Once again, the Prime Minister repudiates his promises to give parity and not charity to grain growers.
In 1960, when a similar vote was before the house, the Prime Minister, after having apologized for not being able to grant the deficiency payments asked by the wheat, oats and barley growers, said:
Deficiency payments applied to deliveries of grain would fail to help those producers most in need and if adopted would require very large subsidies from the treasury, which would inevitably lead to increased surpluses and would add further to the burden of financing the disposal of those surpluses.
And a little further on, the Prime Minister said:
As a result, our policy has consistently emphasized measures to attack the basic problems of agriculture; measures such as export assistance, crop insurance, a vastly improved and comprehensive agricultural credit policy, rural development, conservation and the like. We believe that the basic problems of Canadian agriculture will yield only to long range solutions.
Such was the Prime Minister's agricultural philosophy at that time. And now, in order to solve the problem, we have to take emergency measures as we did in 1958, 1960 and again this year, in other words, handouts, charity. No measure taken so far has given the results expected and the long range effects which were supposed to be felt.

The Crop Insurance Act would have played a suppletory part if the object of the legislation had been really to help the farmer, instead of being merely eyewash.
A few areas have been organized in the western provinces, but, in its application, the act did not reach as far as it should have, because it imposed too heavy a financial burden on the provincial governments.
Farmers in the east have a lot of sympathy for those of the west, and they proved it often last summer as well as in 1958 and 1960.
The fortunes of our farmers in the east are closely tied to those of their fellow farmers in the west, because it is from them that they get much of their supply of feed grain. Indeed, when agriculture is flourishing in the west, our whole economy is the better for it.
Mr. Chairman, the financial help given to farmers who suffered losses last summer will no doubt be appreciated, but, next spring, comes sowing time, it will not be enough to pay for the expenses they will have to incur in order to buy seed grain, gas and other items.
At the present time, most farmers have delivered the greater part of their grain; by next spring, they will have practically none left to bring in a cash income.
These circumstances will give rise to a serious problem where the farmer will be in for trouble if he cannot find ways of financing.
The regulations of the Farm Credit Corporation and the provisions of the Farm Improvement Loans Act do not allow loans to be made to cover operating expenses. Of course, farmers may get a personal loan from the credit unions or the chartered banks but there again, only a small portion of them take advantage of such loans because they have no securities to offer.
I would therefore suggest that the government amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act in order to enable the corporation to grant short term loans as the Liberal party has often recommended and as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has also proposed in the brief submitted to the government four or five years ago.
If we really wish to help farmers, those neglected citizens-
(Text):


Mr. Smallwood:: I rise on a point of order. I am wondering whether we are debating the whole agriculture policy or whether we are debating acreage payments.
Supply-Agriculture


Paul Raymond Martineau: I noticed that the hon. member had strayed rather far from the subject of the item.
(Translation):
I would ask the hon. member to revert to the vote under discussion because the rules require that we deal only with the item under consideration.
(Text):


Paul Joseph James Martin: Before you make your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I believe I have already made my ruling.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure that the Chair-


Hazen Robert Argue: You cannot get away with that.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I shall be glad to hear the hon. member as well as any other member. But as the hon. member and all other members have heard, I have made a ruling. However, further explanation may be forthcoming. I shall be glad to hear the hon. member.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure we desire to assist the Chair, particularly as the Chair assumes its new obligations. I believe that the Chair in turn would want to realize the importance of this matter. When this matter was first proposed in 1958, discussion was preceded by a statement by the minister who engaged in a very thorough exposition of agriculture policy. The Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I hope the hon. member will confine his remarks to the point of order and will not stray far afield,


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is exactly what I am doing.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, no.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The minister has risen on a question of privilege.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for Essex East has stated that in 1958 I did certain things which I did not do. I would ask him to refer to Hansard of the dates which I gave when I was speaking a few moments ago in order that he may not make statements which are completely incorrect with regard to what I have done or not done.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was about to make the observation that the debates on this matter in 1958 and 1959 will show that there

S upp ly-A griculture
was a thorough discussion by those proposing the matter. In particular, if Your Honour will look at Hansard for August 30, 1958, at page 4345, you will note the participation of the Prime Minister in this matter and observe that he reviewed the whole past policy of the government, that of other governments and what this government proposed by way of program. That was all with regard to this particular item. Then you will observe that the Leader of the Opposition spoke later on the same day in reply. He made an argument with regard to the important contention of the Prime Minister. He dealt with agricultural policy. Then on September 6-


Paul Raymond Martineau: May I say-


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I finish?


Paul Raymond Martineau: -that it will not be necessary for the hon. member to continue. He has sufficiently enlightened the Chair on the subject. As I was saying to the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska, I did not preclude him from proceeding. I only asked him to assist the Chair by keeping his remarks as closely as possible related to the subject under discussion.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word if I may do so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I had not finished speaking on the point of order.


An hon. Member:: Two great experts.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Your Honour has requested that the hon. member stick close to the subject. We must understand what this means. What the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska has been doing is complaining, as was done on other occasions and as was permitted in the debate, that this particular item is no substitute for a full agricultural policy. In view of the precedents and in view of the rules I submit that he is entitled to indicate that this policy, which is satisfactory as far as it goes, is not sufficient and that it is no excuse for the government having failed to define its policy as announced by the Prime Minister.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The hon. member is not invoking a point of order. He is really making a contribution to the debate. However, it being one o'clock I do leave the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. The hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska.
[Mr. Martin (Essex East).)


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I believe we were dealing with a point of order at one o'clock and if I might be allowed to say a few words on the point of order I would appreciate it. The hon. member for Essex East pointed out that when an item of a similar nature was debated on previous occasions a wide range of debate was allowed dealing with the government's agricultural program as it affected agricultural producers in the country. I feel that the hon. member who has the floor is in order when he puts forward a case for similar payments or treatment for farmers outside the three prairie provinces. I think this is in order. Perhaps a 30-minute speech dealing only with that point would not be in order, but I submit that pointing out why benefits to one area should apply to other areas should be pertinent to this item.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On the point of order, I must take issue with the contention made by the hon. member for Essex East, particularly his statement that in introducing this matter in 1958 I made a long, general agricultural speech. If he will look at Hansard, which I hope he has done-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have it right here. I will deal with it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -he will find that I confined myself entirely to the matter of acreage payments. I did not make a general speech at all. The Prime Minister also did not speak on this estimate at that time. The Prime Minister in 1958 and again in 1960 made a statement in the house on general agricultural policy in which this matter was mentioned along with a number of others, but that was not as part of the discussion of the estimates in any way whatsoever. The Prime Minister made his statement on motions. Therefore the contention that the Prime Minister made a general agricultural speech on a similar item of estimates when it was before the house is not correct.
I should also like to point out that on the two previous occasions there was considerable difficulty because hon. members opposite tried to turn the debate on this particular estimate into a general agricultural debate contrary to the rules of the house. I would hope that we might have a ruling at the present time that the discussion will be confined to this particular estimate and that we will not go into all of the scores, even hundreds, of general matters which come under agriculture because that is contrary to the rules of the house and is not a means by

which the general business of the house can be dealt with and completed in any reasonable way. If we were to follow such a procedure we would be sitting here the entire year and would never come even close to getting through our business. Therefore I think it is a matter of some importance that the existing rule in connection with a discussion of this sort should be observed.


Paul Raymond Martineau: At the outset of this afternoon's sitting I would simply ask for the co-operation of members on both sides of the house. The rule on the matter, being standing order 59, paragraph 2, is, of course, quite clear.
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
At the moment I would call upon the member who has the floor to proceed and I would ask him to conform to that rule and to the general practice of this committee. Hon. members will also appreciate that one cannot rule on points of order before they arise. The hon. member has the floor.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, before the hon. gentleman continues-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Just a moment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Paul Raymond Martineau: There is no point of order before me.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I wish to deal with what the Acting Minister of Agriculture has said.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I have made a few observations and the hon. member for Essex East made some observations on the same point before the adjournment, to which the minister has replied. As far as I can see, at the moment there is no point of order before the committee and I am asking the hon. member who has the floor to proceed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, that is all right as long as it is clearly understood that what the Acting Minister of Agriculture has said is not part of the ruling, because he has tried to suggest that the Prime Minister did not participate on this item in the general discussion. If you will look at page 4745 of Hansard for September 6, 1958, volume four, you will see that he did.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am perfectly in order in speaking at this time notwithstanding the irritation it may cause the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Is the hon. member raising a new point of order?
Supply-Agriculture


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are now in
committee, and I have a right to rise and deal with the statement of the Acting Minister of Agriculture that the Prime Minister did not participate in a general debate in the discussion on a similar item. I am saying that Hansard at the page I have indicated clearly establishes that in the course-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. The hon. member will have the opportunity in committee, as he says, to explain his point of view fully, and I would give the floor to the hon. member who has it and ask him to proceed.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Very well. (Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, when I was interrupted this morning following a point of order raised by the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Smallwood), I had just suggested that the government should provide assistance to western farmers who will be in need of cash and credit for their seeding operations this spring.
That suggestion did not seem to please the member for Battle River-Camrose any more than many others; of course, government members are systematically opposed to any suggestion made by the opposition and designed to improve conditions for our farmers.
If they really want to help the farmers, if they are sincere, if they want to help-


Mr. Ricard:: This government has done more than any other previous government.


Samuel Boulanger: -those neglected citizens, as the Prime Minister used to call them throughout Canada during the election campaigns of 1957 and 1958, it is high time he proved his sincerity.
There is a problem which I should like to draw to the government's attention. It has to do with the damage caused by floods in eastern Canada and especially in my riding, the constituency of Drummond-Arthabaska, in the riding of my good friend from Megantic (Mr. Roberge) and in a few municipalities of Richmond-Wolfe county.
In September 1961, we had the worst storm our district has ever known. Torrential rains fell during three days causing floods and extensive damage.
Farmers lost their crops; they lost their farm buildings. Mr. Chairman, I ask-
(Text):


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: We are on acreage payments.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Flynn:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member is discussing a

Supply-Agriculture
matter which is entirely beyond the scope of the item before the committee. We are concerned only with acreage payments to western grain producers who suffered loss because of the drought during last summer. The hon. member is discussing a matter which relates to something entirely different, namely, the inundations which took place in certain ridings the hon. member has mentioned. I think he should adhere to the rule as it has been explained to him.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, when dealing with damages caused to farmers by drought conditions, I think we are also entitled to speak of damages caused by flood or other acts of God from which the farmer's income could suffer. We are now concerned with the eastern farmers. They lost their crops, their farm buildings. The roads-*


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I rise on a point of order. The measure we are now discussing deals with drought conditions in the west, while the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) is speaking about an altogether different matter, that is, too much rain. Could it be that he does not know the difference between rain and drought?
I believe you should call the hon. member to order and ask him to limit his remarks to drought conditions in the west, since that is what we are considering now.
(Text):


Paul Joseph James Martin: I regret to have to intervene again, but Your Honour is now in the chair. This point is of vital importance in this discussion, so I think we will have to deal with it. The hon. gentleman whose observations are regarded by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys as being out of order has sought to indicate that this policy is inadequate because it does not cover a situation that requires attention in other parts of the country. The argument is that he has no right, on this item, to make that kind of observation.
I pointed out to the Deputy Speaker before lunch that this intervention was without any validity. I indicated that on two other occasions when this particular item was under discussion there had been a general debate on the problems facing agriculture as a whole, and that is the precedent-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Incorrectly pointed it out.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will deal with that. The precedent for this course, as I pointed out, had been taken by the right hon. Prime Minister himself. He took advantage of the occasion to make a comprehensive statement on agricultural policy in which

the hon. member for Assiniboia, the Leader of the Opposition and others took part.
Now then, just to show that what I have said is justified, on September 6, 1958, we were discussing this proposal of acreage assistance up to a maximum of $200. In that debate there was wide latitude permitted. I have before me the Prime Minister's remarks as recorded on page 4747 of Hansard for September 6, 1958 when the Prime Minister said, inter alia:
Mr. Chairman, this is part ot an agricultural policy designed, as the Minister of Agriculture said a moment ago, to meet an immediate situation. When the next session arrives we intend to introduce a measure for which the farmers have asked from the earliest days-
Then, he talked about the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and referred to all that had been done in the past. The Leader of the Opposition complained bitterly about the inadequacy of the particular proposal for $41 million, and that is what the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska is now doing. In this debate the Acting Minister of Agriculture, supported by his colleague the minister of mines, makes references which are not warranted under the rules or indeed by the very debates which I hold in my hand in an effort to try and preclude the hon. gentleman from saying that this measure is not adequate for the purpose intended and that it fails to take into account the inadequacies and the weaknesses of existing government policy. Now, for hon. gentlemen to try to restrict debate on this item is something which cannot be supported by the attitude it has taken in the past.
I am surprised that the minister of mines should have, so shortly after taking a post in the ministry, forgotten his experiences and sought to circumvent a decision which he himself made. We have great confidence in your judgment, Mr. Chairman. I know that you are not going to allow this party in this house to be overwhelmed or engulfed by a strong majority that seeks to impose closure on us every time we seek to speak for the farmers of this country.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, if this were not a serious matter it would be laughable to hear the type of thing which the hon. member for Essex East has been saying. What he is doing is attempting to revive an argument which he made some time ago when the Deputy Speaker was in the chair and when the Deputy Speaker ruled, as a matter of fact, that the discussion of an item of the estimates should be strictly on that particular item. What the hon. member for Essex East is deliberately doing is to try to justify a full scale agricultural debate on this particular item.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As the Prime Minister did.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is completely contrary to the rules of the house. The hon. member, as he himself admits, is trying to contravene the rules of the house and present some precedent from the past to justify his doing so. The Prime Minister did not make a general agricultural speech on this particular item. He got up to answer very briefly some of the points made by members on the opposite side of the house.
Mr. Chairman, as I indicated a short time ago when you were not in the chair, we had considerable difficulty in 1958 and 1960 in hon. members opposite trying to convert the discussion on this item into a general agricultural debate, and I do not think that should be permitted at the present time.


The Deputy Chairman:: As the minister has pointed out, the rule of relevancy was referred to by the chairman of this committee a short time ago. Even if what the hon. member for Essex East states as a precedent is true, then I say a good precedent is not created by a bad precedent. I feel that perhaps the hon. gentleman who has the floor could relate his remarks more skilfully by analogy to the item under consideration than he has heretofore. If he did so I would be very tolerant. I trust he will co-operate with me.


An hon. Member:: No one expected the Prime Minister to keep the rules a few years ago.
(Translation):


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your remarks and I shall try to abide by them. If I refer to the damages we have sustained in eastern Canada, it is precisely to establish a comparison with those sustained by western farmers.
Western farmers have sustained damages which, according to some reports, amount to $500 million. This is the loss they are sustaining this year on account of crop failure. In eastern Canada, within a radius of a few miles only, farmers have lost perhaps one or two million dollars, not including buildings, bridges and roads. And when we want to talk about those losses, they would gag us. I regret that the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) should have thought it proper to make such derogatory remarks; he will have to put up with the consequences. We have never refused to talk about damages caused to western crops.
Supp ly-A griculture


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: On a question of privilege. The hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) says I have made derogatory remarks detrimental to the farmers of my constituency. This is absolutely contrary to the facts. If there are some who know that I have their interests at heart, it is precisely the farmers of the constituency of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot. On the other hand, if I rose a moment ago-
(Text):


Gordon Campbell Chown: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I am listening for his point of privilege. If there is one coming I hope he will put it to me quickly.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska said I had neglected the interests of the farmers in my constituency. This is altogether contrary to the facts because, all through the years since I was elected a member of parliament-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Order.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: -I have defended the interests of the farmers of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot and the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska should be the last one to come in here and say I have not.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I am sure the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot will have an opportunity to make a speech of this nature at the appropriate time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Six o'clock. (Translation):


Mr. Pigeon:: What have you done about that matter during the 22 years you were in power?


Samuel Boulanger: Of course, we could not go through a discussion like this one without some comments from the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Twenty two years of doing nothing before speaking up.


Samuel Boulanger: The province of Quebec has made a request to the federal government for a substantial assistance in order to help the eastern farmers. I only wish to add a few words to support the request from the government of the province of Quebec. I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Harkness) have a splendid opportunity of telling us today what the government is going to do about the request which the government of the province of Quebec, our farmers and myself have made with a view to obtaining relief for that area.
(Text):


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall the item carry?

Supp ly-A griculture


Hazen Robert Argue: I listened with a great deal of attention when the Acting Minister of Agriculture was introducing this item, and I appreciated the information and statistics he gave us.
On this occasion he engaged in very little extraneous argument but merely set forth the views of the government justifying this payment to producers in various categories. However, the first thing which strikes me in regard to the government's attitude is the long delay in making an announcement. For a great number of years farmers have been pressing for parity prices for agricultural products. In asking for parity prices they sought a set of prices related to costs of production. They did not in any way ask for handouts or charity.
One of the reasons so many members from the three prairie provinces sit on the government side of the house was the belief which producers in western Canada had in the Prime Minister, when he told them during the election campaign that there would be charity, not parity.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is the other way around.


Douglas Scott Harkness: He is always twisting something.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think I have been around some of the members opposite a little too long. The Prime Minister promised parity not charity, but the farmers have waited a long time for parity prices. The principle of parity prices has not been applied to a single farm commodity since this government was elected.
Other measures have been brought in by the government to deal with prices of agricultural products, but in almost every instance the action taken by the government has meant lower support prices, less support, and a smaller guarantee than the farmers had previously. The government has only acted in regard to these payments after a great deal of pressure. Its first announcement that $1 per acre would be paid was made early in August, 1958, after the government had been returned to office, and after farm organizations had continued to press every strongly for parity prices and deficiency payments.
The payments brought forward at that time were made applicable to the 1958-59 crop year and paid on those permit books. Western farmers were dissatisfied with the action which was taken and hoped that in the future the government would do more. They were determined that the government should do no less than provide the $40 million which had been put forward in the estimates in August 1958. We waited during the year 1959 for an announcement by the
[The Deputy Chairman.]
government. None was forthcoming. No announcement of any payment was made during that year. After persistent pressure from agricultural organizations, after a delegation of more than a thousand farmers marched on Ottawa. After protracted correspondence with the government, an announcement was made on August 8, 1960 that a dollar an acre would again be paid on acreage up to a maximum of 200 acres and that this would be paid on the 1959-60 permit books. Thus, with the announcement on August 8 the farmers did receive $1 an acre in accordance with this formula for 1958-59. With the further announcement a dollar an acre was forthcoming on the 1959-60 crop.
Producers had reason to expect that last year, again, the government would make an announcement that it was paying a dollar an acre on the 1960-61 permit books. I asked the Prime Minister in the house last fall whether he intended to take this action but all we got was the brush-off.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member asked him in July, too.


Hazen Robert Argue: I asked him before that. I asked him a long time before that. The Prime Minister went out to western Canada in the summer and said everything was fine, that crop conditions were better than they had been-


Mr. Pascoe:: So they were.


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre says: "So they were". I could tell him that a lot of farmers in south Saskatchewan resented very much that the Prime Minister did not go to the southern part of the province and see what conditions were like there, because the crops were almost zero.


James Ernest Pascoe: You are their spokesman.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am their spokesman and I do not put forward the tripe that is just put forward now by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre in agreeing with the Prime Minister. In large parts of my riding the P.F.A.A. inspectors report that three farmers out of four have zero carryover and zero yield. How much worse off would the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre want the farmers to be than that? But the Prime Minister said he had looked at the crops and was happy because things were better than he had expected. This was at a time when thousands of farmers had no crops at all. Then the right hon. gentleman delayed some more; he delayed until this session opened. More pressure was brought to bear on him to act. Then, somebody wrote the speech from the throne. I take it it was the Prime Minister,

though the Governor General reads it. And in the speech from the throne the following statement is made:
The drought in the prairie provinces during 1961 has resulted in severe losses . .. and you will be asked to provide assistance by means ot acreage payments to the farmers who have been affected.
Well, I hope the government does that. The announcement made today does not derive from that statement in the speech from the throne because, as hon. members will have seen, the statement in the speech from the throne says there will be acreage payments to the farmers who have been affected by the drought. All they are doing in this thing is to use the same old catch all, paying it to a farmer with 40 bushels an acre as well as to the man who had a zero yield. Either the Prime Minister does not watch very carefully the things he writes when he is supposed to be writing the speech from the throne or-and I hope this is correct-the thing we are dealing with today is not the policy forecast in the speech from the throne.
I say this because the provision before us today has absolutely nothing to do with drought-nothing whatsoever. This money is to be paid to grain producers, wheat producers, barley producers, oats producers and to the men who produce hay. It is paid to many men who produce livestock and sell no grain. It is paid to people who do not sell a bushel of grain. It has nothing whatever to do with drought. I suggest the farmers of western Canada will be looking to the Prime Minister to fulfil by way of legislation the undertaking announced in the speech from the throne, namely to bring in acreage payments to the farmers affected by drought. The farmers who have been so affected have put forward their case for acreage payments. That has nothing to do with this proposition whatsoever. The farm unions, by way of a policy statement submitted to the government, have asked for a $5 per acre payment to farmers who have experienced crop failure as defined in the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, namely, a yield of less than 12 bushels per acre. They have asked for an acreage payment up to $1,000 for farmers who have suffered crop failure. I have a resolution on the order paper asking for similar action to be taken, asking that there be an expansion of the provisions of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act so that farmers who have experienced crop failure may receive compensation in a more adequate fashion. My resolution asks that the payment be increased and that the acreage on which the payment may be made should also be increased.
The announcement which was made today will be a great disappointment to western producers, because as far as western producers 26207-1-174
Supp ly-A griculture
are concerned it will be considered to represent just half as much as they felt they had a right to expect. The Prime Minister announced an acreage payment on the 1958-59 crop year and an acreage payment on the 1959-60 crop year. Now he has skipped a year. The announcement today is merely in respect of the 1961-62 crop year. The farmers will realize that they have been gypped by the omission of the crop year 1960-61. The Prime Minister says it is for the two-price system. In the speech from the throne he said it is for the drought. This has nothing to do with the two-price system, though that is what he said. Why did he not have it for the two-price system in 1960-61? What was wrong with paying it in that year? Why miss a year? At least we know why this one is being included. It is an election year.


Mr. McIntosh:: On a question of privilege, the hon. member for Assiniboia has been making statements saying that the Prime Minister had said this, and had said that, without giving the committee any authority in support of those statements. He has not told us where those statements were reported or recorded and I should like to know where the hon. member gets his authority for attributing, for instance, the words "parity not charity". I should also like to know what is his authority for saying that when the Prime Minister came back from the west he said conditions were not as bad as he had thought.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am disappointed that the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek should stand up and repudiate this promise made by the Prime Minister time and time again that we would get parity not charity. My authority for what the Prime Minister has been saying is the speech from the throne. He may say that the Governor General wrote it himself and did not ask for any advice, but with the words that were placed in the mouth of the Governor General the Prime Minister has said the acreage payment will be made to the farmers who have been affected by the drought.
Of course, this has not been done. This apparently is not going to be done. I should like to know from the gladiators from the prairies who sit on the government side of the chamber whether they think the farmers have a right to expect a payment for the 1960-61 crop year.


Mr. Nugent:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. You did not deal with the last point. The hon. member has not quoted any authority for what he has said; he is merely trying to misinterpret the point of order of the hon. member. He said he repudiated the

Supply-Agriculture
Prime Minister. There was no such suggestion. I think the point of order was well taken. The hon. member says he is quoting the words of the Prime Minister and I think it is perfectly in order for an hon. member to suggest that the hon. member who is quoting someone should give a reference of when and where such a statement was made.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I do not mind these interruptions as long as you keep track of the time taken up by these interferences. It is interesting to note how widely the Prime Minister is being repudiated, and I suggest that when-


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Hazen Robert Argue: There is another phony point of order being raised in the wings there.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The hon. member is interpreting my words as meaning that the Prime Minister has been repudiated. I am merely saying that the hon. member who is purporting to quote the Prime Minister should say when and where he was speaking. The hon. member says this is a phony point of order. Certainly if the objection taken to the last point of order was sound, this one is not. This one is ill-taken. I would ask the Chair to kindly direct the hon. member to give his reference and quit giving these phony references to mythical speeches.


Hazen Robert Argue: If I may continue with my remarks that are causing so much consternation among the members on the government side of the chamber-


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: These misquotations always cause consternation.


Hazen Robert Argue: The farmers of western Canada will be deeply disappointed that this government has omitted in the payments to them the crop year 1960-61. Of course, this is the way the Prime Minister works. The Prime Minister will not say on a given occasion the policy of the government with relation to acreage payments over a period of time. No, it is a hit or miss affair. He wants them to come begging. He wants to keep them on tenterhooks. He wants to have a carrot on the stick. He wants to feed them a little before the election and withdraw it after the election if he should be in that position.
I do not think this is the way either to treat the agricultural producers or the House of Commons. If we are to be dealing periodically with a measure to pay $1 an acre to western farmers under a certain formula, then I suggest the government should put forward this policy in legislative form and place it on the statute books so that the legislation is made in an equitable, regular manner and is not in this most unsatisfactory way of having an item in the estimates one year,
[Mr. Nugent. 1
missing a year and putting it in the estimates at some later time.
But the Prime Minister thinks in every field, apparently, as a politician. He has come to the conclusion that he can garner more votes by this slipshod method of dealing with a very important question. The Prime Minister would like western Canada to think that he is the only Prime Minister who has ever done anything for the grain producers. He would like them to think that his legislation has put more into the pockets of the grain producers than other legislation.
I have debated in this house for many years with former minsters of agriculture and trade and commerce, but there was one policy that was placed on the statute books in 1956 that I feel was a good one. That had to do with the national treasury paying the carrying charges on stocks of wheat held at the end of each crop year in excess of 178 million bushels.
This kind of payment is a regular one. This kind of payment is placed on the statute books. This kind of payment may not receive the same spectacular publicity because it is sure and it is certain. But I suggest it is a much better way of handling the business of this country than by the political method of the carrot on the stick, where you can have a nibble before the election and you are forgotten the year after the election.
In 1957-58 under this particular policy $33 million was paid to the grain producers of western Canada. In the next year, $40 million was paid and in the next year $38 million. In 1960-61, $42 million was paid, and for the present year it is estimated at $49 million.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Did you call it peanuts then?


Hazen Robert Argue: Under this policy of paying money into the wheat board fund for storage on wheat that was held in excess of 178 million bushels the treasury has made over the years, I estimate, total payments of $202 million, as opposed to the $126 million that will be paid in the three years in which the $1 an acre has been paid.
I am not endeavouring to set one policy against the other on the basis of which policy is the better one, but I do say to this government that if their policy is $1 an acre, it should be in the statute books; it should be regularized. It should not be available only when the Prime Minister is in the right frame of mind and decides that this is the politically opportune time to bring forward this kind of payment.
The policy that is being put forward today has been put forward on the ground that it is a help to the small farmer. It is a help to some small farmers, but it is a help to

the big farmers. There is a ceiling on it of $200 payable to every farmer who has 200 acres or more in crop. But according to the figures put forward by the minister this morning it is only the small farmer who does not get the full benefit. According to the figures put forward by the minister this morning 20,000 farmers with 99 acres or less will get less than $200. Another 55,000 farmers with acreages of between 100 and 199 will get less than $200. So that about one third of the farmers on the prairies will get less than the $200 put forward in this proposal. Therefore it is not something that provides a minimum payment, a guaranteed basic, floor payment to the small farmers. Instead it is put forward on the basis of a payment to farmers, one third of whom will get less than the $200.
We are still looking forward to the government fulfilling its promises of bringing forth parity prices for agricultural products, and the argument in favour of something more being done is the tremendous increase in the farmer's cost of production over the years.
The 11-factor index for the farmer's cost of production stood at 170.4 in 1947. The last figures I have available show that the index today is 286 and it has gone up 27.5 points since 1957 when this government took office. It is the price cost squeeze resulting in higher and higher costs for farmers in western Canada that has created this demand for acreage payments, for deficiency payments, for income supports of one type and another. I can understand spokesman for agriculture from other parts of Canada saying "We want a payment like this" or "We want some other payment to equal this". This payment is made on the basis of acreage and farmers who produce in eastern Canada have acres just the same as have farmers producing in western Canada. This proposition is not put forward as a well defined policy. It is put forward on a temporary basis. It is not put forward with a formula attached that will be used year after year. I think it is a slipshod way of doing business that will be bound to create in the country much more resentment than would be the case if it were made. That would remove controversy on this question from parliament year after year.
This provision in itself is not nearly enough to meet the agricultural situation as we find it at this time. If the farmers of Canada, are to get a square deal I suggest that the government should provide a system of deficiency payments for grain. These deficiency payments should be based on a formula and they should be designed to give the farmer parity prices for his grain products. Second,
Supply-Agriculture
I would suggest that there should be a large expansion in prairie farm assistance payments that are made; that there should be an increase in the acreage on which payments can be made from 400 to 600 acres; that there should be a thorough overhaul of the government's crop insurance scheme; and that the federal government should bear a much larger share of the burden and should do more than merely agree to pay 20 per cent of the forecast premiums under this legislation.
Third, I would make this suggestion. If the government really wants to do something in a major way for small farmers, I would suggest that in addition to anything that is being done today the government should provide floor prices, and not this hocus-pocus of a national average that is in the agricultural prices stabilization legislation. I submit that the government should provide floor prices on hogs, eggs and poultry.
The farmers would not be asking for deficiency payments or acreage payments if they were getting parity prices. In recent months there has been a considerable improvement in the selling price for Canadian grain. As a matter of fact there would seem to be a real indication now that Canada, along with other nations of the world, may be able to negotiate a new international wheat agreement that will provide substantially higher prices. My fourth suggestion is this. In the present context of the international wheat situation I would think that the Canadian government should endeavour to have the international wheat agreement renegotiated with its target being an increase of 50 cents per bushel in the floor price and an increase of 50 cents per bushel in the ceiling price. This action would bring these prices more in line with the guaranteed prices that are obtained by United States grain producers and would be reasonably in line, I feel, with the upward pressure on wheat prices throughout the world at this time.
As a fifth point I would suggest that at this session the government should amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act so as to make it permanent legislation. I suggest that the government should not have it contain a date at which it terminates unless it is otherwise extended but should make it permanent legislation, in order to reassure the producers of western Canada that the government will maintain the Canadian wheat board.
As a sixth point, I would suggest the government should increase the scope and the powers of the Canadian wheat board and that this government should cease weakening the Canadian wheat board by taking feed

Supp ly-A griculture
grains sold to feed mills from under the jurisdiction of the Canadian wheat board. The jurisdiction of the Canadian wheat board over feed grains should be restored. The Canadian wheat board legislation should apply to rye and flax.
As point number seven I would suggest that, in addition to window dressing and printing pamphlets, the government should take some action in connection with A.R.D.A., the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act, should sign an agreement with the provinces in order to obtain for livestock producers-


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I think I have been very charitable in allowing these planks to be placed before the committee in respect of all other fields of agriculture except the one in the item under consideration. I would ask the hon. member who has the floor and whose time expires in one minute or so, to hearken back to the subject under consideration.


Hazen Robert Argue: I would hope, in view of your ruling, that would mean that I have some further time because of the interruptions.


An hon. Member:: Keep in order and you will not be interrupted.


Hazen Robert Argue: To conclude, Mr. Chairman, I wish to say this. As far as the livestock producers are concerned, which this $1 an acre will help in exactly the same way as it will help the grain producers, one of the things necessary for the government to do in order to improve their situation is to provide them with access to grazing, by an increase in community pastures and by redevelopment of the kind the government has been talking about.
As an eighth alternative or addition to the things that are now being done, I would suggest that the government should protect the long gains of western producers in many fields. This measure will be of some assistance because $200 is better than nothing. However, the $200 payment will scarcely pay for the 3 per cent increase announced a few weeks ago in the prices of farm machinery charged by the International Harvester Company. Welcome as it is, this $200 will in no way compensate the farmer for the increased costs that will follow if this government and future governments were foolish enough to allow the suggestion of the royal commission on transportation to go forward and abandon most of the railway lines in western Canada, thereby increasing the cost of marketing grain by an enormous amount.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, may I say that this item is welcome. It is better than nothing. Previously I had called it peanuts in relation

to farm costs. The bag that contains the peanuts is smaller for the small farmer than for the larger farmer. This is small compensation for the huge increase in the cost of farming and the cost of production. I suggest that the very minimum the Prime Minister should do is to make this payment on the 1960-61 crop year as well as in the present year and to make this legislation permanent.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: For the third time in a row now, Mr. Chairman, we have heard this same speech from the hon. member for Assiniboia in which he uses this opportunity to lay down the various shaky planks in his election platform. He uses this as an opportunity to make his one agricultural speech in the session and to create the impression that he is doing his bit here in the House of Commons in order to help the farmers he represents.
I think perhaps we can best deal with the contribution he has just made by reading an item which appeared in the Regina Leader-Post of October 20, when the opposition in the legislature were criticizing the government for the action during the drought. It reads as follows:
Existing government policies of help to farmers had made it unnecessary to call a special session of the legislature to deal with the 1961 farm crisis, provincial treasurer Woodrow Lloyd said Thursday.
So his colleagues in the province of Saskatchewan do not agree with him when he says that conditions in the drought areas of Saskatchewan were so severe that additional assistance must be provided by the government. There is an article in the same edition of the Regina Leader-Post quoting Mr. Nollet, the provincial minister of agriculture, to this effect:
-the government had done everything possible to help the farmers both to fight grasshoppers and to help overcome the effects of the drought.. . He charged that the Liberals only wanted to stir up a fuss in the face of a calamity to try to get people to believe them. He said it was "the poorest kind of political practice that could ever be followed, since it put a very low level of intelligence on the people of the province."
That is precisely what the hon. member for Assiniboia is attempting to do today. His statement that price supports have been lower since the present government took office is completely false. In most cases price supports have been raised and a larger number of farm commodities have been brought under support. Surely the hon. member does not expect he is going to get anyone to believe that his statement that price supports have been lowered is the truth. The hon. member went to some length to be critical of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture in their efforts to do something to help the farmers of Canada. I think his criticism can be effectively refuted by an article that

appeared in the December issue of The Country Guide. As everyone knows, The Country Guide is a very objective and independent paper. The title of the editorial is, "Hurrah for Mr. Hamilton", and it has this to say, in part:
But setting the drought problem aside for the time being, it should be recognized that there have been a number of positive steps forward and several important breakthroughs in the field of farm policy in the past year.
The editorial goes on to say:
The Hon. Alvin Hamilton has held this post in the federal cabinet for just over a year now. To our way of thinking, he is proving to be an excellent minister of agriculture.
I do not want to trespass on the rules of the house, Mr. Chairman, but I feel that a number of the charges that were made by the hon. member when he digressed from the item in question must be answered. I think I should have the same leeway in replying to those accusations as he had in making them. The excerpt I now wish to read is in answer to the criticism of the hon. member that the Department of Agriculture is carrying on too much publicity. This is what The Country Guide has to say about the matter:
He has made a special effort to explain the problems of agriculture to the consuming public in order to gain understanding and support for needed agricultural policies. He has launched an effective publicity campaign on his departmental programs to ensure that farm people will be fully familiar with how to make the best of the opportunities and assistance they provide.
The editorial goes on to say:
First, the Canada Department of Agriculture must change its emphasis from the production or supply side to the demand side of the market. Second, ways must be found for the federal government to work in greater harmony and co-operation with the provinces on agricultural programs.
That is precisely what the minister is doing.
Third, agriculture must work in greater co-operation with the other resource industries in Canada. Each of these three approaches is commendable.
In conclusion this statement is made:
A great many things remain to be done.
We are the first ones to admit that the problems of agriculture as well as the problems of any other industry in this country are never completely solved.
However, his willingness to act on any valid complaint or promising proposal, his boundless energy and enthusiasm, his sound philosophy and imaginative approach to the problems of today and tomorrow, are not only commendable characteristics, but provide hope for agriculture that has been sadly lacking in recent years. May his efforts in 1962 be as rewarding for agriculture as they have been in the year that is about to close.
Contrary to what the hon. member has been saying, these are the views of the farm
Supply-Agriculture
organizations. This is what they are saying about the government and the Minister of Agriculture. I wish to refer to another item that appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press, I believe it is, of January 13. It has reference to a statement made by Mr. S. E. Ransom, president of the Manitoba federation of agriculture, and is in these words:
Canadian agriculture has about reached the limit of support and intervention it can expect from governments, S. E. Ransom, Manitoba federation of agriculture president, said in Winnipeg Friday .. . He cited the recent passing of the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act as a case in point, and called for steps to be adopted along the same lines whereby farmers and farm groups could do something constructive to get themselves out of the dilemma of high cost, low return production.
The farmers themselves recognize what the government is doing to try to assist them. They are organizing in an effort to co-operate with the government, as the minister has pointed out on so many occasions and, as is stated in the editorial in The Country Guide, the minister is working for greater cooperation between farm organizations and the federal and provincial governments and related industries. We feel that this is an effective way in which the problems of agriculture can be met, first of all by government legislation designed to assist the farmers to help themselves; second, by greater cooperation and, third, by government policies designed to relieve some of the distress that exists because of low income and low yields.
No one on this side of the house has ever tried to create the impression that acreage payments are intended to be the answer to the agricultural problem. They are a measure designed to offset the effects of low income as a result of drought last year. They are intended to assist farmers, particularly those in the lower income range, to maintain their farming operations until they have had an opportunity to take advantage of the different pieces of legislation and types of assistance available to them under this government.
The hon. member for Assiniboia has criticized several of them but he is critical in the same way that Mr. Nollet has accused the opposition in the provincial legislature of being critical. Crop insurance has not been fully applied across the country but I have no doubt that it will be. The reaction in the province of Manitoba because of the drought is an indication that there is going to be a greater signing up of farmers under the crop insurance legislation than ever before because after the drought last year they realized what crop insurance could do for them.
The efforts that the Minister of Agriculture has made to get rid of our wheat and, indeed, the efforts of the Minister of Finance, have

Supply-Agriculture
resulted in approximately a 20 cent increase in the price of wheat. Yet the hon. member for Assiniboia has the audacity to stand up here and say that prices have been reduced, that prices are going down and that there is less support. I challenge him to show me v/here price supports have been lowered on any commodity in this country, particularly in the past few years. I challenge him to go to the people of his constituency and, indeed, to the western provinces generally and spread the same type of claptrap that he spread this afternoon and try to get away with it.


Hazen Robert Argue: Before the parliamentary secretary sits down I should like to ask him a question. Is he aware that in recent months many producers in western Canada have been selling eggs at 15 to 20 cents a dozen, and does he think that is an adequate support price?


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: As the hon. member well knows the price support policy on eggs is based on the national average.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is the trouble; that is what I said.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: At the end of the year, if the price is below the level that is set by the stabilization board, the farmers will be compensated and the hon. member knows that full well.


Hazen Robert Argue: But there is no floor price.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure we all regret that the Minister of Agriculture, because of illness, is not in his seat and, on that account, is not able to introduce this measure, initiated today by the former minister of agriculture, the present Minister of National Defence. I am sure, too, that on the occasion when we first discuss a matter concerning agriculture, we noted with considerable regret the recent death of a former minister of agriculture, the late Right Hon. J. Gardiner. Mr. Gardiner, regardless of whether or not one agreed with him, was deserving of high tribute from the Prime Minister, who led the nation in expressing deep sorrow at the passing of one who had contributed so much to Canada and to agriculture. As a former colleague, I take this occasion to express in this house my own inadequate but sincere tribute to a great minister of agriculture, one who did so much for western Canada and who was one of the great parliamentarians of this period in Canada.
This measure, Mr. Chairman, was announced not in parliament but on the occasion of a visit by the Prime Minister to his constituency last fall. It was an announcement made at a time when I believe the Minister of Agriculture was in the province

of Saskatchewan, meeting, at the same time, representatives of certain farm groups. The Calgary Albertan observes that the Prime Minister made his announcement of this acreage assistance following the pattern of the two previous occasions when this method was used, to constituents of his in a theatre that had seats for 800 but where only 700 people were in attendance. In any event, the Prime Minister, of course, had a right to choose this way of making the announcement, but it is an announcement that came under circumstances that at least must be questioned.
As late as last July, the hon. member for Assiniboia had asked a question of the Prime Minister in this house, and questions were put by other members of the opposition in the month of September last, as to when the house might be expected to deal with the legislation that had been forecast in news stories some time in the month of July. As I say, however, it was only last fall that the Prime Minister gave a positive announcement of the government program. When the Prime Minister did make the announcement I suppose that one would regard the observations of Mr. Rudy Usick, the president of the Manitoba farmers union, as typical of the complaints that were registered against the inadequacy of the particular program. Mr. Rudy Usick associated with his complaint the fact that since the first acreage covered the crop year from August 1, 1958 to July 31,
1959,	the second covered the calendar year
1960,	and the third covered the crop year August 1, 1961 to July 31, 1962, the farmers had been done out of payments for five months of 1959 and seven months of 1961.
This point was made by the hon. member for Assiniboia and has not been replied to by the parliamentary secretary who has just taken his seat. One of the most amazing things about this program is, as the hon. member for Assiniboia has said, that this is not a fulfilment of the promise made by the government and notably by the Prime Minister when he was leader of the opposition and later during the course of the federal election. At that time, he indicated to the people of Canada what his government would do to try and remedy the situation that confronted Canadian agriculture. The hon. member for Assiniboia and my colleague, the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska referred to the promises made by the Prime Minister. We were not going to have mere handouts such as this, good as it is, inadequate as it is, we were going to have a comprehensive program; parity not charity. When that statement was made, hon. gentlemen opposite asked, what was the source, what was the authority for saying that the Prime Minister

had ever said that parity not charity would be the objective of his party when it constituted the government of this country.
No source was given for the statement. Let me remind hon. gentlemen that there will be found at page 2021 of Hansard for March 12, 1956 these words spoken by the Prime Minister:
The squeeze which the farmer suffers results from the disparity in the relationship between the prices of farm products and the prices the farmer has to pay. When they are in proper relationship parity is established, and it is parity that the farm organizations across this country are asking for today. Not charity but parity.
There is my reply which the hon. member for Assiniboia did not give to the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek. Hon. gentlemen will also find, at page 2026 of Hansard for March 12, 1956, that the Prime Minister expressed this objective in the form of an amendment which he moved. This amendment reads as follows:
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following be substituted therefor:
in the opinion of this house consideration should be given by the government to the advisability of introducing during the present session legislation to create a parity of prices for agricultural products at levels to ensure producers a fair price-cost relationship.
There is the authority in so far as the records of this house are concerned. If any more proof is required, I ask my hon. friend to look at what the Prime Minister said in Toronto in his opening speech of the campaign on April 25, 1957; I ask them to read what he said as recorded in the Winnipeg Free Press on April 26 and likewise to look at what was reported in the Toronto Globe and Mail, indicating that the Prime Minister said on the hustings precisely what he has said in this house that what he was going to give the farmers was not $1 per acre with a maximum of $200, not charity but parity. This was the assurance given by the Prime Minister, who is in the house today, to the farmers of Canada. What do we have now? We have for a third time-


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: We have $1.90 a bushel wheat.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -something altogether different from the promised comprehensive program based upon a continuing body of principles as envisaged by the Prime Minister at that time. Let the government, the Acting Minister of Agriculture and the parliamentary secretary not seek to indicate that by coming forward with this measure they are fulfilling their promises. The Prime Minister boasts of having fulfilled almost all of his promises. Well, we all know the extent to which there has been any fulfilment, and if there is one area where there has been 26207-1-18
Supply-Agriculture
no implementation of promises made by the Prime Minister, it is in the field of agriculture.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Nonsense.


Peter Francis Martin: This particular program is now brought forward at a late date in spite of assertions and hints as to what was going to be done, assertions made no later than last summer.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is just plain tommyrot.


Peter Francis Martin: Hon. gentlemen are indicating that they do not like my remarks. They do not like to be reminded that the farmers were promised a new earth. They do not like to be told that if there is one section of the Canadian electorate that is disappointed with the government it is the farmers of Canada. They do not like this.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is all hogwash.


Peter Francis Martin: That is why we are hearing these sitting contributions to the debate, by way of a continuous effort on the part of those who sit behind the Prime Minister to hinder those in this party who are determined to expose the government once again in this session, as it deserves to be exposed, because of the inept way in which it is conducting the affairs of the country.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You know so much about agriculture that you cannot even talk sense about it.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Orda\


Mr. Martin (Essex Easl):: We who come from eastern Canada recognize that the farmers of our country, particularly those in western Canada, are facing great problems but we recognize it is our duty not to view those problems sectionally but in the light of constructive solutions.


An hon. Member:: Like the Liberals did.


Peter Francis Martin: We give support to this measure, but at the same time we say to the government there are other sections of agriculture, for instance, the farmers in the township of Sandwich East in my own riding, in the community of Tecumseh, who last year suffered crop losses for which the government, in spite of representations, have not agreed to make any compensation. What we do for the western farmers, and what we should do for the eastern farmers, is to bring in measures which will apply equally to all sections of Canadian agriculture.
Why was this program not brought forward a long time ago? Why was it not brought forward last summer when the house was in session? Why was it not brought forward in the month of September when the house was

Supp ly-A griculture
in session? It was because at that time the Prime Minister had not decided on calling a general election. It is brought forward now because he realizes his strength has disappeared in western Canada. Because of that he seeks by this measure to recover his lost popularity and prestige, lost even in Prince Albert. I say the measure should have been brought forward at least last summer. I do not say that it represents all that should have been done but, if this is all the government is prepared to do to meet the situation facing the farmers of Canada, then it should have been introduced at a time when the farmers would not have lost five months of the crop year.
What is the explanation given by the government with regard to this matter? We have a most amazing situation. At the end of November, 1961, the Minister of Agriculture was asked if the government was going to bring forward the much-mooted acreage assistance plan. Here is what he said as reported in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix on November 29, 1961. It is headed:
Hamilton holds out promise of payments on acreage plan.
This is a statement I now read, not on the hustings but on the floor of parliament where we all have a responsibility in the light of our acknowledged recognition of what is the function and obligation of parliament in the voting of public money. At the time he made the statement no money at all had been voted. Parliament had not dealt with this matter. We are dealing with it now for the first time this session, and yet the Minister of Agriculture sought to convey to the farmers in western Canada that the government had authority to pay out this money. Listen to the statement which the minister made:
It's not a matter of money, but machines.
Today Hon. Alvin Hamilton, home from grainselling trips which have taken him half way around the world, said that there would be no farm acreage payments in this calendar year. He did not attribute this to lack of federal dollars but said that the cheque machines required to roll out the barrels of money were busy with other financial details.
The agricultural minister did say the federal government had not abandoned the principle of acreage payments to western farmers.
I say, Mr. Chairman, that statement of the Minister of Agriculture was an inaccurate statement. The statement as reported, is an inaccurate statement.


An hon. Member:: As reported.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The reason the money was not paid out in November, or earlier, was because the government had not come to parliament and asked it to vote the necessary assistance to the farmers of western Canada. That was the reason, and let the

western members who sit in the house today write to their constituents and tell them the Minister of Agriculture was wrong, wholly wrong, in saying that the reason this money had not been paid out earlier was because the machinery for issuing cheques had broken down.
The Prime Minister laughs, but I ask him to listen to another statement made by his Minister of Agriculture, which I take from the Winnipeg Free Press of December 1, 1961. The headline is:
Farmers will get paid before Yule.
And the article states:
Mr. Hamilton said acreage payments still are under consideration by the government but it will be technically impossible to make acreage payments this year because cheque machines are being used for the oats and barley pools and the interim wheat payment.


An hon. Member:: What is wrong with that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is an untrue statement. That is what is wrong with it. The reason the cheques were not paid out was not because of faulty machinery in issuing them but because the government did not come to parliament and ask for authority to vote the moneys required to make these acreage payments. That is the reason that should have been given to the farmers of western Canada at that time, but it was not done. The Prime Minister made his announcement at Prince Albert and said nothing about the breakdown of machinery for the issuing of cheques. He made a forthright statement to which no exception could be taken in its accuracy of terms, but just a few days previously the Minister of Agriculture had created the impression that the money was then available, that it would be paid out to the farmers of western Canada and that the only reason for it not being paid out was because the system for issuing cheques had broken down.


Mr. Souiham:: Nobody said it had broken down.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend must not have been listening with great attention when he says nobody said it had broken down. That is what the Minister of Agriculture did say.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Quote him.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Verbatim.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This was the report.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You are just backing down now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This vote represents an ad hoc way of dealing with a particular situation. There is no government policy involved in the pattern of this program. This is a single item, a palliative designed to give relief. It will give relief to an extent, but not to the extent envisaged by the kind of all-embracing statement made by the Prime Minister in his statement of agricultural intentions in the house on August 8 last year.
This is not a program based upon a continuing policy. This is not a grant related to the cost of production or to prices. The Prime Minister said that the agricultural policy of this government would be one which would take into account the cost-price squeeze and the disparity of farm prices in relation to the income of other classes in the community. He said it would be a program related to the cost of production and the revenue which farmers receive for the sale of their products. This program, good in so far as it goes, in no way meets the extravagant, comprehensive assurances given to the people of Canada by the Prime Minister.
As I mentioned a moment ago, it certainly is not what he said on March 12, 1956 in this house. It certainly is not a grant by way of deficiency payments. It certainly is not a grant made under the Agricultural Stabilization Act of which the Acting Minister of Agriculture claims authorship. It has no relation to the general problem of agriculture and no relation whatever to the general economic situation facing the farmers of Canada. It is obviously a compromise between the demands made by certain western ministers in the cabinet and the stand taken by the Minister of Finance who apparently day by day increasingly resists the demands made by his colleagues for further expenditures of public money.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I wonder whether the hon. member is aware that the reason why wheat, oats and barley are not covered by the stabilization act is because of the request made to that effect by organized farmers in the west?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Quite. I am not saying that is not the case. I am saying that this particular program calling for expenditure of $40 million based on the payment of $1 assistance per acre up to 200 acres is not related to the Agricultural Stabilization Act. It does not involve the principle of deficiency payments and it can in no way be represented as part of the over-all program envisaged by the Prime Minister when he spoke in this house in 1956 or when he spoke in this house in August of last year at which time he outlined the government's 26207-1-184
Supply-Agriculture
agricultural policy. I repeat that the Prime Minister and his supporters cannot claim that by this particular program they are satisfying the promises which were made to hundreds of Canadian western farmers.


Douglas Scott Harkness: We were satisfying a very large number of farmers.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I sincerely hope that is the case, but, as I have stated, this provision does not meet the objectives of the government's declared farm policy as announced by the Prime Minister. It does not meet the assurances given to a thousand western farmers when they descended on Ottawa two years ago to demand that this government implement its agricultural policy.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Nobody takes your interpretation.


Peter Francis Martin: Well, when the hon. gentleman and his colleagues decide, as I hope they will decide soon, to face the Canadian people they will see whether or not their policy satisfies the electorate.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is exactly right.


Peter Francis Martin: This policy is an off and on policy. We are not able to say now whether it is going to be a permanent feature of the actions of the government of Canada. Let the Minister of Agriculture say now that if he were entrusted with the responsibility of government next year, something which I doubt very much, his government would embark once again on this particular program of assistance on an acreage basis. Let him say that, and we would then have some indication of whether there is a semblance of agricultural policy.
The most serious objection to this program is that it represents a stopgap handout with no precise relationship to the entire needs of the farm economy or to the needs of individual farmers. If the acting minister were able to tell us now that the provinces were heartily accepting the crop insurance scheme which was introduced two years ago, then he would be able to talk about something in the nature of a comprehensive policy, even though that would not be a realization of the promise that what the farmers were going to get would be parity not charity. That is the kind of thing to which this government must address itself if it wishes to demonstrate it is fulfilling its obligations to the farmers of western Canada.
We have the amazing situation of the Prime Minister announcing a policy in the province of Saskatchewan to his own constituents at a time when the Minister of Agriculture was in that province-at a time when the Minister of Agriculture gave the impression,

Supply-Agriculture
created undoubtedly by implication, that the government had authority to provide for this program. The Prime Minister, taking advantage of a visit to his constituency and speaking in a theatre in Prince Albert which was not filled, said: "We propose to embark once again on a program of acreage assistance". I say that for one minister of the crown to give the impression that the government had already embarked on such a policy and that parliament had already voted the money is a statement which calls for comment and reply by the Acting Minister of Agriculture, because it represents a base inaccuracy. This is a charitable way of dealing with that statement.
But this incident, of course, is only one further example of the way in which the government approaches these problems. The government seeks to take advantage of situations so that it can get the most dramatic effect for political and propaganda purposes. No one demonstrates this more clearly than the Minister of Agriculture in the program called A.R.D.A.

a program which is not designed to meet the current situation, a program in connection with which, as the hon. member for Assiniboia has pointed out, not one project has been realized in co-operation with the provinces under arrangements provided for in the act. The Minister of Agriculture goes all over this country speaking of A.R.D.A. as though it represented the most fundamental approach ever made to solving the problems of Canadian agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Peter Francis Martin: I have no doubt that in the long run it will help Canadian agriculture but let hon. gentlemen not forget that that program in connection with which thousands of pamphlets have been issued was conceived by the previous government as a result of studies made by it in the upper house. The committee on land use under the chairmanship of Senator Power provided the basis for the legislation which was passed in this chamber, in connection with which the Minister of Agriculture goes from one end of Canada to the other, concealing his failure to implement promises which have been made, by representing A.R.D.A. as a charter for agriculture. Not one thing has been done under A.R.D.A. I ask the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, who is now in his seat, to give me one project under that act that has been signed by the federal government-


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Peter Francis Martin: -and the provincial governments.

The Depuly Chairman: I regret to advise the hon. gentleman that his time has expired. The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.


Mr. Cardiff:: Mr. Chairman, if the committee will allow me I should be glad to give the hon. gentleman the facts in regard to matters about which he apparently does not know anything at all. If is is agreeable to the committee, I will be glad to give them.


Peter Francis Martin: Mr. Chairman, I thank my hon. friend for the tribute he has paid to my high agricultural knowledge. I do not think I have anything to add. I will simply say that the government-


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. gentleman this question. How much money did the former government spend under the prices support act in 12 years?


Peter Francis Martin: I will tell the hon.
gentleman this-
The Depuly Chairman: 1 gave the floor to the hon. gentleman from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Saved by the bell.


James Ernest Pascoe: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to speak in support of quick passage of the supplementary estimates now before us. I think it is very useful to have these supplementary estimates on one sheet. I am particularly interested in item No. 611, a vote of $42 million for acreage payments to western grain producers, and item No. 614, a vote for $40,090,000 for the federal share in the winter works program. I know we are not discussing item 614, but I think having the two together on the one page indicates the government's concern for equal treatment for all segments of the economy.
The $42 million in acreage payments will help bolster the income of western farmers, and the $40,090,000 to pay half the labour costs for municipal works will add to the income of another group of workers. Having the two of them together certainly emphasizes the government's concern for all segments of the economy.
I wish to thank the Acting Minister of Agriculture for the full outline he gave of acreage payments in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, who is ill.
Mr. Chairman, you allowed opposition speakers to wander considerably in their remarks on this item.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Ernest Pascoe: I hope to keep right to the one point except I think I should answer to a certain extent some of the statements

they made. I deal with one particularly. I think the hon. member for Assiniboia will be fair and say that the crop was better than was first expected. If he will go through some of the reports of the wheat pool he will see that the crop index was up three points, one time, and so many points, another time, and we got more than a half crop-


Hazen Robert Argue: Why did the Prime Minister not come to southern Saskatchewan instead of wandering all over the rest of the country?


James Ernest Pascoe: He came to southern Saskatchewan.


Hazen Robert Argue: He did not.


James Ernest Pascoe: Southern Saskatchewan is not all in your area. It is in my area too.


Hazen Robert Argue: He was not there during the crop failure.


James Ernest Pascoe: He was in my area.


Hazen Robert Argue: Then he should have learned something.


James Ernest Pascoe: He was in my area and he saw something. I think the hon. member for Assiniboia will admit that the reports of the wheat pool show that the index went up by so many points and we did have more than a half crop. This was after we heard reports that there would be no crop at all in the country. I know that my own crop was much better than I had expected when I heard some of the dismal reports that the hon. member made. Also, the hon. member for Assiniboia made no reference at all to P.F.A.A., under which $50 million is being distributed. Many of the farmers who had poor crops are getting $800 cheques. That is partly due to the amendments that we brought in when we came into office.


Hazen Robert Argue: The same rates were in effect when you were not in office.


James Ernest Pascoe: They were not.


Hazen Robert Argue: They were.


James Ernest Pascoe: The whole thing was completely changed. If the hon. member will also refer to the last wheat board report he will see that already wheat exports for this year are more than 150 million bushels; already in four months more than half of the 10 year average for a whole year when the Liberal government was in power. In addition the price of wheat is now nearly 20 cents more than it was a year ago. I just draw this to the attention of hon. members. I know I should speak on the main item before us.
When I left home to attend this session of parliament I promised farming groups that I
Supply-Agriculture
would press for early action in regard to acreage payments. They had asked me to do this.


Hazen Robert Argue: Why did you not pay it on last
year's crop?


James Ernest Pascoe: The reason we did not pay it last year was because you shouted "peanuts" and we had a great job trying to sell it again to the government.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, oh. Forty seven members from the prairies and they cannot get anything done. Oh, oh, oh, what a joke.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order.


An hon. Member:: Down boy; you have made a speech.


James Ernest Pascoe: As I say, Mr. Chairman, I promised this action to western farmers, and I know that other western members-


Mr. Starr:: Are you applying for this payment?


James Ernest Pascoe: -came back here with this same purpose-


Hazen Robert Argue: You do not apply. You just wait until it comes in the mail.


James Ernest Pascoe: The government has acted quickly to meet our wishes in this regard. This is demonstrated by the early presentation to this committee of the supplementary estimates. To do this it was necessary to alter the usual procedure and interrupt the throne speech after the fourth day of debate.
The hon. member for Assiniboia indicated that farmers did not appreciate these acreage payments. I have received many letters from farm constituents supporting acreage payments. I do not wish to take the time of this committee by referring to them all, but I should like to quote a few excerpts from some of these letters. Here is one from Cymric:
With regard to the $200 acreage payment, I would sooner see this than to have the deficiency payments.


Hazen Robert Argue: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, who is the letter from?


James Ernest Pascoe: The letter is from H. J. Hilder-man.


An hon. Member:: Do you know him?


James Ernest Pascoe: I will repeat what he said in case the hon. member did not hear it:
With regard to the $200 acreage payment, I would sooner see this than to have the deficiency payments.


Hazen Robert Argue: You did not give it to him for last year.

Supply-Agriculture


James Ernest Pascoe: If the hon. member wants the names of all those who have written me, I have here another letter from Mr. Klenk of Imperial:
I sure favour the acreage payment over the extra payment on a specified number of bushels at the elevator, as it sure helps the farmer who has no bushels to sell.


Hazen Robert Argue: Not so much when you miss a year, though.


James Ernest Pascoe: It was on your account that we missed a year.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is ridiculous.


James Ernest Pascoe: There is another letter from George A. McDougall of Craven:
I am very much in favour of such assistance in preference to the deficiency payment. Being in the small farmer category myself, perhaps that is partly the reason but it seems by far the fairest way.
I hope the hon. member for Assiniboia heard that one.


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes, but you should not have missed that year.


James Ernest Pascoe: It was your fault that we did.


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, pay it now.


An hon. Member:: Keep quiet.


James Ernest Pascoe: There is another letter from Mr. John Blackport of Lockwood:
I am a three quarters section farmer and I think the acreage payment method will help more farmers than deficiency payments.


An hon. Member:: The letters should be tabled.


James Ernest Pascoe: Mr. Chairman, I anticipated quick passage of this estimate. I was sin-prised at the opposition expressed by certain hon. members here.


Hazen Robert Argue: No opposition; we want it doubled.


James Ernest Pascoe: I do not think the farmers of the west will take very kindly to what they have had to say.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman, who is one of the most fair minded members of the house, would I am sure wish to reconsider his statement. No opposition was expressed by any member of the Liberal party to this measure. We simply indicated that it was insufficient, inadequate and did not meet the promises made by the government.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, since the hon. member has misinterpreted my remarks I wish to make it very clear that our objection is that the payment is not twice as big so that parliament would
[Mr. Argue.)
pay for the year that has been missed. Let us double it and then it will go through very quickly.


An hon. Member:: Then you will ask that
it be tripled.


James Ernest Pascoe: Mr. Chairman, I mentioned nobody in particular and it is very interesting to see hon. members' reaction. If the cap fits certain hon. members, they can wear it.


Hazen Robert Argue: Smearing John, eh?


James Ernest Pascoe: I have not heard the hon. member for Assiniboia holler "peanuts" this year. I am very glad of that.


Hazen Robert Argue: I rise on a point of order. I referred to peanuts. I said that the trouble this year was that the peanuts for the small farmer are in a smaller bag than those for the big farmer.


James Ernest Pascoe: I suppose the hon. member indicates that he is not going to vote for this item. I am anxious to see what he does in this regard.


An hon. Member:: He wants the $200.


Hazen Robert Argue: I will vote for it.


James Ernest Pascoe: Several days ago he rose in his place in the house and actually asked for acreage payments. This was after the government had already heard from western supporters and had decided that acreage payments should be made this year.


Hazen Robert Argue: Wrong again.


James Ernest Pascoe: I suppose now the hon. member for Assiniboia will assert that it was his very belated request that resulted in these payments. This procedure will be following his usual practice. I believe on one other occasion he asserted that he or his party was responsible for a large sale of grain to Poland after the government had completed the deal.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is not true. It was before they completed the deal.


James Ernest Pascoe: Anyway, he asserted that he did it.


Hazen Robert Argue: I met the delegation and we cooperated with the government.


James Ernest Pascoe: On behalf of the constituents of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, I wish to thank the Prime Minister and the government for accepting our suggestions of this form of adding to the farm income. It will be a help not only to farm constituents but also to the whole economy. In this connection I refer to a news report which appeared in the Moose

Jaw Times-Herald dated March 15, 1961. I should like to refer briefly to it. The headline reads:
All Acreage Payments now in Farmers Hands- $3,801,000 Extra in Area.
Then there was an editorial in the Times-Herald which was headed "Acreage Payment Plan is Best for Farmers". The first two paragraphs of the news item read as follows:
It is estimated some $3,801,000 has been poured into the coffers of farmers living in the Moose Jaw trading area, from federal government acreage payments.
W. L. Burbank, secretary of the rural municipality of Moose Jaw, said today the extra flow of money from outside is hound to prosper the economy of this city.
The secretary of the municipality estimated that 95 per cent of this $3,801,000 would be spent in the local trading area. In Saskatchewan as a whole more than 106,000 grain growers received $19,732,906.
I should like to draw to the attention of the hon. member for Assiniboia the fact that this amount is certainly not peanuts.
I gave these figures in order to indicate the value of these payments at this time of the year when farmers are making plans for spring operations. I know western farmers are beginning to understand that acreage payments are actually along the lines of the two-price system they have been advocating for many years. Other groups in Canada's economy are also beginning to realize that the $42 million which this committee is asked to vote really means that the price for wheat sold for human consumption in Canada is in line with the price of products the farmer buys in Canada.
The money for this acreage payment comes out of the federal treasury. Western members appreciate the help given by the eastern members in getting this supplementary estimate before the committee. It was not an easy thing to do after the way in which earlier acreage payments were ridiculed by certain members of the opposition and even by some farm leaders.
Western farmers appreciate this government action, as was shown by the letters I read. Responsible farm leaders have indicated that they welcome the payments. As I say, even the hon. member for Assiniboia does not come right out and say that they are peanuts. Hence, Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister who first announced the government's intention should feel that the efforts of his government are fully appreciated. It is to be regretted that the Minister of Agriculture has been confined to his home for a few days, owing to the tremendous
Supply-Agriculture
efforts he has made in the past year in selling Canadian wheat and tackling other farm problems.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does the hon. member not think that the weather had something to do with his cold?


James Ernest Pascoe: For all these efforts on behalf of agriculture the farmers will thank the Minister of Agriculture, and the Prime Minister and his government, on election day.


Mr. Rapp:: I am very pleased to be given this opportunity to take part in the discussion of the estimates that are before the committee at the present time. This is now the third time that acreage payments will have been distributed to the western farmers. The amount will be another $42 million this year. The payments are similar to the ones that were distributed in 1958 and 1960. I remember very well the discussion that took place here in this House of Commons in 1958 when these estimates were presented to the house for approval. I also remember very well the remarks of the opposition and in particular those of our friend from Saskatchewan who at that time said they were peanuts. Those were the expressions that were used when these estimates were before the house. I must say that $42 million are not peanuts to the farmers of the three western provinces.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is $1 an acre and that is peanuts.


Reynold Rapp: The amount is equal to the amount the farmers would have received if we had had a two-price system, namely about $45 million. We are well aware of the fact that the government gave this assistance in lieu of the two-price system. They were not in a position to subsidize our grain at the time they gave it. I refer to grain that would be exported to the United States and other countries. I can recall very well the response of the fanners in my constituency to this $42 million. In my own community the payment amounted approximately to $30,000 a year. I have lived in this community for 30 years and this is the first time it has ever received $30,000 from the federal government.
I made it a point to ascertain where these acreage payment cheques were cashed and what they were used for. Cheques totalling the approximate value of $8,000 to $10,000 were cashed at our oil and gas station where the farmers paid for their oil and gas for the year in which it was received, namely 1958. Another $8,000 or $10,000 of them I found were cashed in our rural municipalities where the farmers paid their taxes for that year. Another $8,000 or $10,000 of them were cashed at the various stores in the community.

Supply-Agriculture
Surely this $30,000 these people were able to get in that community meant something to them. Is it any wonder that these farmers in the west-and I stress the words "in the west"-are now so appreciative of what the federal government has done for them and that the slogan in the country is now "Canada needs Diefenbaker"; and I would say that the west needs Diefenbaker.


Mr. Peters:: They surely can have him.


Hazen Robert Argue: They want the dollar an acre.


Reynold Rapp: Other hon. members have had their say, Mr. Chairman. I have the floor and I should like to proceed.


Hazen Robert Argue: Are you in favour of the payment for 1960-61? That is the question.


Reynold Rapp: They know what the federal government has done. They also know that for years, when they sent down here and filled the treasury benches with members of the chief opposition party, they never received anything. They have received more in five years from this government than they ever did during the 25 years that the former government was in power.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder whether I might ask the hon. member a question.


Reynold Rapp: When I am through with my speech.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is the hon. member in favour-


Reynold Rapp: When I am through with my speech. The people in the west are satisfied with what the government has done. Five years ago they sent 47 members to this house. The people have seen the results and that is why the people of western Canada are saying that Canada needs Diefenbaker. For many years the people of Saskatchewan asked for the South Saskatchewan river project but only when the Prime Minister was elected as head of the government and 47 Conservative members were sent here from Saskatchewan and the other two western provinces was this objective realized.
Take the case of the people of Alberta. For 40 years they asked for the Pine Point railway but only when they sent a full slate of Conservative members to Ottawa did they get the Pine Point railway. For 20 years the people of Peace River sent Mr. Solon Low here. He was in the opposition and all he did was whine. He never did get the Pine Point railway for Alberta. Only when the present member for Peace River was sent here along with the Prime Minister did the people of that region get the Pine Point railway which is now under construction.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is a dirty attack on a man who is not here to defend himself.


Reynold Rapp: The people of Alberta, the people of Saskatchewan, the people of all three prairie provinces know that if they want to receive attention from the federal government they must send members here who are members of the party of the Prime Minister which is now in power.


Hazen Robert Argue: You want a dictatorship of one party. You are not satisfied with 47 out of 48. You want a one party dictatorship.


Reynold Rapp: The myth that we need a strong opposition has been killed in the west. The people know now that if they want to get results they must elect the present Prime Minister and give him the necessary support in the house.


Hazen Robert Argue: A one-party dictatorship?


Reynold Rapp: The hon. member for Assiniboia is not really appreciative of what we have done. Since 1945 he has done nothing but whine and wail to no avail, but now we have finally reached our objective and the west is getting the attention it needed because the people there elected the Prime Minister and gave him 47 members.


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Chairman, as the representative of one of Manitoba's rural ridings I should like to comment briefly on this item dealing with acreage payments. First, I should like to express appreciation on behalf of those whom I represent of the fact that these payments are being considered as soon as possible after the convening parliament. I feel sure that the government's decision to make the payments available at this time will be welcomed by all western farmers, particularly because of the severe drought experienced last summer.
The payment of $1 an acre on the cultivated acreage of each farmer up to a maximum of $200, while not a large amount to each individual farmer in relation to what he would ordinarily expect as net income in a good year, is certainly not regarded by the farmers of my area as peanuts, as it was described by the hon. member for Assiniboia. As found at page 4348 of Hansard for August 30, 1958, the hon. member enlarged on that description. In speaking about acreage payments at that time the Leader of the Opposition said:
I have no doubt that when my hon. friend from Assiniboia gets up immediately after I conclude he will call it peanuts.
At that point the hon. member for Assiniboia interjected the following:
I did that a couple of days ago. I shall call it a pittance today.

As a matter of fact, it adds up to a considerable amount of benefit to our rural communities and assists not only the farmers but also those who provide goods and services to our farm people. Statistics show that farm gross income across the nation is making a steady recovery in relation to the income enjoyed by other segments of our economy. But statistics do not reach down to the individuals who have suffered grievous losses owing to the drought. This fact was recognized by the government and the Minister of Agriculture early last summer. At that time steps were taken to assure supplies of feed and to provide the necessary protection against serious income loss through forced selling of our cattle.
The result of the government's action is, of course, well known. With the fullest co-operation of the provincial governments and the farmers themselves, livestock prices remained steady and the market was able to absorb all livestock offerings throughout the season. The small crop on the prairies, while generally of very high quality, left many farmers short of the necessary working capital for next year's operations. Crop insurance and prairie farm assistance are a welcome help to those farmers who suffered a heavy crop loss. The addition of acreage payments at this time will further assist them and help many who were unable to qualify for the other kinds of assistance.
I listened very carefully the other day to the long speech of the Leader of the Opposition on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I am sorry that he is not in the chamber at the present time because I thought that as Leader of the Opposition and head of what is supposed to be a national party he would present some of his party's views on agricultural problems. I found it almost beyond belief-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the hon. member permit me to point out that the Leader of the Opposition last year expressed his views and those of his party with regard to this $1 an acre assistance. He also outlined our party's views on agricultural policy at the time that the Prime Minister did.


George Robson Muir: I am glad that he did it last year because if you will permit me to go on with my speech I would point out that he apparently considered that last year the government had done everything possible for the farmers and therefore it was not necessary for him to mention agriculture at all this year.


Peter Francis Martin: He said just the opposite.


George Robson Muir: As I say, I found it almost beyond belief that he could make this long statement on national affairs without
Supp ly-A griculture
even a passing reference to agriculture or the peculiar problems of the western farmers occasioned by the drought. If this is the attitude of the official opposition to the importance of agriculture in our economy, and the hon. member for Essex East has confirmed that, then farmers across the nation-


Peter Francis Martin: What did I confirm? I want to make sure of everything that government members say. What did I confirm?


George Robson Muir: You confirmed that the Liberals have no agricultural policy. I should like to proceed with my speech.


Peter Francis Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Peter Francis Martin: -the hon. member has a right, as you know, to make an argument in answer to an observation made by an hon. member-


Lewis Elston Cardiff: What is your point of order?


Peter Francis Martin: -but he has no
right to engage in a non sequitur and that is what the hon. member has just done.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: What is the point of order?


Paul Raymond Martineau: I think the hon. member may himself have been engaged in a non sequitur.


Peter Francis Martin: What was that, Mr. Chairman? I did not hear what the chairman said.


An hon. Member:: Read it in Hansard.


George Robson Muir: It does not really matter because every time the hon. member for Essex East opens his mouth about agriculture, the farmers all get a wonderful laugh.


Peter Francis Martin: That is the only thing they get out of the government.


George Robson Muir: If this is the attitude of the official opposition to the importance of agriculture in our economy, then the farmers across the nation do derive some satisfaction that that party is still the opposition and will probably remain as such until they learn to appreciate the contribution our farm people make to the national well being.
All kinds of conclusions can be drawn from this lack of interest in the affairs of agriculture. Either the Leader of the Opposition feels that the present government is doing everything possible for the Canadian farmer or he feels his party is so devoid of ideas for agricultural betterment or knowledge of the farmers' problems that anything he could say would be better left unsaid.
270	HOUSE OF
Supply-Agriculture
In making the acreage payment the government has never regarded it as a handout but as compensation for the low domestic price of wheat to the Canadian consumer. The two-price system has been requested over the years by our farm organizations. The acreage payment has been used as the most equitable manner in which to meet this request. I believe that continuation of this practice by the government will receive the commendation of all fair minded western farmers.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It would not have been necessary, of course, to intervene again but for the frivolous and wholly inaccurate remarks made by the hon. gentlemen who support the minister. The suggestion is made that because the Leader of the Opposition has not thus far participated in this debate, the conclusion is to be drawn that the opposition strongly supports the government's actions in the field of agriculture. One would have thought it was not necessary to rise and make a strong protest against this kind of observation. But in view of the propaganda carried on in this country by hon. gentlemen who sit behind the ministerial benches, in view of the speeches made by the Minister of Agriculture, it is necessary for those of us in the opposition to take advantage of the verbatim proceedings of this house to indicate what our views are, to reaffirm what our policies are and to point out repeatedly the inadequacies of the government's agricultural policy.
No speech to which we have listened this afternoon, notwithstanding the mild manner in which it was expressed, was more provocative in this particular than the speech to which we have just had the doubtful pleasure of listening. The hon. gentleman says that because the Leader of the Opposition did not participate in this debate, that was to be regarded as confirmation of the opposition's view of government policy.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order.


George Robson Muir: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Essex East is distorting what I said. I said that the Leader of the Opposition had made no mention in his speech during the throne speech debate, even a passing reference, to agriculture. The only conclusion we can draw is that he and his party have no ideas about agriculture.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend nas not raised a point of order, because the hon. gentleman-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes he has; he says you are distorting what he said.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If it had been the Acting Minister of Agriculture, who continually interrupts, who had made that statement it would have been another matter. However, the hon. gentleman was not interfered with when he made what I regard as remarks that were wholly out of order.
Let us deal with the last remark. My hon. friend says that the Leader of the Opposition, in his speech during the throne speech debate, did not deal with the question of agriculture. My hon. friend has not read the speech very carefully. If he reads it carefully, he will see that throughout the whole speech what the Leader of the Opposition was doing was addressing himself to the inept way in which the public business of this country was being discharged by the government. I may say, for the benefit of my hon. friend, that when we use the phrase "public business", we do not only mean those who work in our factories or who have professional occupations. We mean as well the farmers of our country.


George Robson Muir: Mr. Chairman, we are discussing an item in the estimates. I do not believe that, in the speech the hon. gentleman is making, there is any reference whatever to the business at hand.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hope you will pay attention to what has just been said, Mr. Chairman. In one breath hon. gentlemen opposite attack the Leader of the Opposition because, they say, he made no mention of agriculture in his speech and when I reply to that accusation they say I am out of order. I cannot believe my ears. Of course, I have the right to repudiate that statement. Throughout his speech, the Leader of the Opposition was addressing himself to the maladministration of this government, to the way in which our economy had sagged. Our economy has application to the farmers of this country just as well as it has to other sections of our country.
When he spoke of the common market and the way this government has confronted that question, was he not dealing with agriculture? No single group in our country has as vital an interest in the implications of the common market as have the farmers of Canada. When the Leader of the Opposition was complaining about the negative way in which this government approached that problem, surely he was discussing the problems of agriculture just as Mr. Hannam, president of the federation of agriculture, said the other day that notwithstanding the effect of the common market on agriculture in the initial period, the long term result of some arrangement with the common market was essential to Canada and its prosperity.

Let hon. members who seek to taunt me- that is nothing unusual in this house-not say that the Leader of the Opposition was unconcerned about the problems of agriculture. Before this debate is over my hon. friend and others will hear from the Leader of the Opposition. He will reaffirm what others on this side of the house have said here, that the policy now before us of acreage assistance to the farmers of Canada is not the comprehensive measure that was promised by this government, and particularly by the Prime Minister. He will say that this measure is good in so far as it goes, but that it cannot in any way be regarded as a fulfilment of the statement of farm policy as enunciated by the Prime Minister who said that the Conservative party stood for parity not charity. He will point out that this particular, ad hoc policy of the government towards agriculture does not deal with the question of the cost-price squeeze. It does not deal with the problem of the gap between the cost of production confronting the farmer and the revenue which he receives from the sale of his product, both at home and abroad.
He will indicate that this government made certain promises, not only to Canadian agriculture-


Mr. Danforth:: Are you speaking for your leader?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Did the hon. member ask a question?


Harold Warren Danforth: I said, are you speaking for your leader?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Now, I am going to speak for myself. I say to the hon. gentleman that this government not only promised the things to which I have referred in so far as agricultural policy is concerned but my hon. friend, who comes from my section of the country, knows that this government promised the farmers of southwestern Ontario they would be the beneficiaries of an over-all sugar policy that would assist them in their beet production. Is the hon. member for Kent now aware of the policy? The farmers of southwestern Ontario complain bitterly about the policy of deficiency payments announced by the government a few weeks ago. The government talks about its comprehensive policies, but let me remind the government of some things. This assistance to western farmers is needed. The drought and the present financial situation facing the western farmers no doubt commands attention but there are other sections of Canada, represented by the hon. member for Middlesex West, the hon. member for Huron and the hon. member for Kent, Ontario-
Supply-Agriculture


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I can speak for myself.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let them rise with me and other members in the house to indicate to the government how we feel about the lack of government policy in relation to its unfilled promises, not only to the farmers of western Canada but to the farmers of Canada generally. Let them join with us instead of in the continuing imprimatur of a moribund government that is now enjoying the last days of office. That is what we should be doing in this house.


William Arnold Peters: You don't much like hearing that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When one compares the kind of policy this government has brought forward, to try and meet the conditions facing agriculture in western Canada, with some of the comprehensive measures brought in by the previous administration under Mr. Gardiner-


Douglas Scott Harkness: What comprehensive measures? You did not bring in any comprehensive measures in ten years; not a single thing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Assiniboia and the Prime Minister himself placed a tribute on the record of this house to the agricultural policy of the late Right Hon. James Gardiner, when they referred to the P.F.A.A. and to P.F.R.A.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister paid a tribute to the late Right Hon. James G. Gardiner and I should like to join in that tribute; but that was not an endorsement of the lack of policy displayed by the Liberal party during the last 10 years or so that they were in office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have allowed the Acting Minister of Agriculture to pay a rather belated tribute to a great man, but the rest of his remarks had no foundation. The government lays claim to having introduced fundamental agricultural policies, but the fact is that it has not. Outside of the Agricultural Stabilization Act, which was in principle a continuation of legislation introduced by the late Mr. Gardiner, this government cannot claim to have done anything in the field of agriculture, anything more than an ad hoc way of dealing with a specific problem.


Harold Warren Danforth: What did the late Mr. Gardiner say about sugar beets? Did he not advise farmers to grow soybeans?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am very willing to talk about soybeans. That is a subject with which I am familiar.

Supply-Agriculture


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Then, please, do talk about it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This interruption almost tempts me to depart from my main text, but I will not be encouraged.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Would the hon. gentleman answer a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Certainly. I am here all day.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: How much money did the former government in 12 years spend on agriculture under the Agricultural Prices Support Act?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have no idea how much was spent.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: If you want to know I can tell you.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend wishes to judge government policy by expenditure. If he were going to judge government policy by expenditure then one would have to say something that one cannot in truth say, that the present administration was the greatest administration in our country. If ever there was a government that embarked upon a program of expenditure it is the government of the right hon. gentleman sitting opposite.


John George Diefenbaker: What about the promises you are making now about $700 million more?


Peter Francis Martin: The speaker talks about promises. No one is a greater authority on the matter of promises than the Prime Minister.


Léon Balcer: And keeping them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: For the sake of the record, he did not make 50 promises; he did not make 70 promises. According to present calculations he made well over 300 promises in the last federal election and I can tell him I only know of two that I can say have been fully kept by his government.


Harold Warren Danforth: Where have you been?


Peter Francis Martin: He has not fulfilled any promises in the field of agriculture. The Prime Minister is here now. Does he deny saying in this house that the object of his agricultural policy was parity, not charity? Does he deny that? The Prime Minister, of course, cannot deny it.
I notice that five o'clock has come.


Paul Raymond Martineau: It being five o'clock, in order to permit the house to proceed to

private members business pursuant to standing order 50, paragraph 3, it is my duty to rise and report progress and request leave to sit again this day, or at the next sitting of the house as the case may be.
Progress reported.



SWEEPSTAKES


Mr. J. F. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-2, to provide for the establishment of a hospital sweepstakes board.
He said: My purpose in bringing this bill before the house is simply to carry out the wishes of my constituents and those of the vast majority of Canadians by instituting a national hospital sweepstakes.
Of course this is not the first time I have raised this matter in the house. When it came before the house last session a great deal of support was expressed for the bill, and I am not going into all the detail I gave last year. However, I would remind the house that I did refer to the Gallup poll on that occasion, a poll which has become a reliable indicator of public opinion on matters such as this. The last poll they took on this subject indicated that 82 per cent of the people of this country were in favour of a national hospital sweepstake.
There is also evidence of widespread support to be found in various press clippings from newspapers across the country. I do not intend to refer to very many, but this is what some of the headlines say: "Vets Want Legal Lottery", "Ontario Municipalities Want Hospital Sweep", "Ontario Votes for Sweeps". This latter headline was a reference to a vote taken in the Ontario legislature some years ago. Then there is another which says: "Unions Ask for Government Lottery". This referred to a statement by the trade union congress representing some 500,000 people in labour unions across Canada. The statement was made to the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons which was set up in 1956 to make recommendations on this matter.
Hon. members will recall, too, that I made reference to the fact that sweepstakes were common throughout the world and accepted by people universally. They were not considered by the people generally as gambling in the ordinary sense of the word. We now have various types of gambling in the country some of which, such as betting on horse racing, are legal. In addition, of course, a good many illegal types of gambling go on,

too. One thing is certain: the people have an instinct to make wagers and no one can stop them doing that.
The joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons had before it during its sittings a mounted police commissioner who indicated that the present law was entirely unsatisfactory and could not be enforced, with the result that the law was being brought into disrepute. I recall also referring last session to the evidence of several law enforcement officers in the United States and other countries who had taken the same position indicating that the law could not be supported and that in their opinion some change should be made.
Then, too, it is the essence of a democracy that the wishes of the people should be carried out and I find it difficult to believe that any hon. member of this house could stand up and say that he did not think there was a large body of opinion among the people he represented who were in favour of a hospital sweepstake. This has been reiterated over and over again in the press. One can turn to the newspapers almost any time and read such headlines as: "Fourteen Canadians Draw Tickets in the Irish Sweep". One can read about the number of prizes won and see the actual names of the prize winners in Canada. As I pointed out last session, a large amount of money comes to Canada from this source-over 25 per cent of the total prizes of the last Irish sweepstake. This indicates clearly that we are paying a very large sum of money indeed into the fund, only a small percentage of which comes back. I suggest that this sweepstake is something which is wanted by the people of Canada and it is time that the members of this house accepted their responsibility and carried out the wishes of the people in this respect.
Last year I took the liberty of writing to a number of foreign embassies whose countries conducted national sweepstakes of one sort or another. They were very kind in their replies and sent me the most extensive information. I do not intend to go into detail now with regard to that, because I put it on record in Hansard last year. The details can all be found in Hansard commencing at page 6965. At that time I showed the arguments which had been put forward that hospital sweepstakes were very inefficient and that a large proportion of the money was used up in administrative costs to be completely unfounded on the basis of actual figures which were supplied by the various countries to whose representatives I wrote. They sent me complete details of their schemes and these showed that the administrative costs were very low and were not a serious factor. The money was mainly used
Legislation to Establish Sweepstakes Board for hospital or other charitable purposes or for prizes to the people who bought tickets,
I strongly suggest that whatever action we propose to take or whatever action we fail to take in this house, we shall not stop people from buying sweep tickets. Canadians are now buying Irish sweepstake tickets, tickets in the French national lottery, tickets in the Mexican national lottery and tickets in sweepsakes as far away as New Zealand and Australia. There have been a number of items in the press indicating this to be a fact.
I referred last year to items carried in newspapers in other countries indicating that money from Canada was finding its way abroad. I might mention, again, that a large number of editorials have appeared in newspapers across the country. I have a number of them here but I do not intend to read them because they are far too numerous. However, papers from one end of Canada to another have carried editorials on this subject. Some of them have been strongly in favour of the idea of a national lottery. Others have said they are not too favourably disposed but on the other hand they recognize the desire of the Canadian people to have a national hospital sweepstake and recognize the right of the majority to have its wishes carried out. It was a matter to be considered by this house and carried into effect.
Hon. members will probably recall the attitudes taken by the various provinces on this question. The views of the government of Quebec are well known. They have had them throughout the years, and legislation was passed some years ago to provide for a lottery or sweepstake within that province. The reason I have proposed the type of bill that I have is this: I do not believe that the scheme could work on a provincial basis. The federal government has taken the position on many occasions that payments as between provinces should be equalized as far as possible. It seems to me tremendous problems in law enforcement would be brought about if one or more provinces held their own sweepstakes, because it would be impossible to prevent the sale of tickets in another province. Moreover, the entire balance of payments as between the provinces would be upset. For these reasons I think it best that this should be done on a national basis and that provision should be made in the bill for the profits to be distributed on a per capita basis so that there would be fairness for all throughout Canada. I believe, also, that this would avoid any disagreement between provincial governments because of the upsetting of the balance of payments as between them.
I have no desire to repeat all I said last session, especially as I know there are many
274	HOUSE OF
Legislation to Establish Sweepstakes Board other members who wish to speak on this subject. I simply say that if those who are interested in what has gone before will turn to the pages of Hansard they will find set out in detail the arguments in favour of this bill.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of an amendment to the Criminal Code which would permit the establishment of a national lottery to control this outflow of Canadian dollars to the benefit of other countries.
Canadians spend some $90 million each year to buy sweepstake tickets from other countries.
We all remember the referendum held last year by the Montreal La Presse and radio station CKAC about a lottery. In the Montreal area and the province of Quebec, nearly
100,000	people voted for and only 150 against it.
Section 179 of the Criminal Code prohibits lotteries. Does that mean that there are none? Yesterday Canada was the choice land for bingos; today it is a paradise for the organizers of drawings of all sorts. Who does not know a thousand and one ways of evading the law?
Should we draw the conclusion that we should hunt down the organizers of drawings and of all those disguised lotteries?
Why not admit instead that they do meet a need? Boileau, who, in his fashion, was an excellent student of the ways of men, found out long before we did that "since we must go to law, since we must leave this earth, we must have lawyers, we must have doctors".
Quebec is not the only place where Irish sweepstakes and army and navy tickets are sold in the open. Moreover, what Canadian would accept to be judged severely because, at the races, he had dared to bet on such and such a horse?
When brought before the courts, the bingo operators generally ask for a trial by jury. Find me a jury with not a single bingo player.
Canadians spend $225 million dollars per year on gambling, 95 per cent of that amount for bets on horses.
Of the total bets, 70 per cent are made in Ontario, according to a Canadian Bank of Commerce business letter published in 1960.
People will always have a yen for gambling. In my opinion, a lottery would regulate and rectify the present situation and, according to a ruling of the income tax appeal board, winnings from bingo or sweepstakes are not taxed.
It is urgent also that a bill be adopted to allow the Bell Telephone Company of


Canada to withdraw its service from a customer deemed by the attorney general of the province to be using the telephone for illegal gambling purposes.
Mr. Speaker, I want to give some of my colleagues the opportunity to express their opinion on that subject. I fully support the bill under study since I have myself submitted a bill to amend the Criminal Code.
(Text):


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. C-2 is a most interesting bill and contains a basic, major issue of principle. I cannot speak with a knowledge of the thinking of all my colleagues in this corner of the house on this matter of sweepstakes, but I should like to express my own personal opinion.
I am in support of the principle of Bill No. C-2, if only for the reason that we may as well face reality and recognize that it is not possible to legislate the gambling habit out of the human animal. If we cannot legislate it out-and I maintain that we cannot- then surely the sensible thing to do is try to either control or regulate that gambling habit so that it is done in a legal fashion and there is, as far as possible, the guarantee of a decent return for the money gambled. In this way we could see that the money which is expended is put to a proper use in Canada.
If we oppose in principle the matter of a government controlled sweepstake for a humanitarian and beneficial purpose, then we are hypocrites in allowing by law the gambling that goes on at the present time. All across Canada, if you happen to be a member of certain clubs, it is quite legal to play poker or blackjack.
By law every citizen of Canada has the right-and many exercise it-to go to the horse races and gamble millions of dollars annually. In addition, millions of dollars are gambled annually at bingo. Let us not forget that these bingo games, which are strictly games of chance, are held in every province of Canada. They are sponsored by whom? By social clubs, by veterans clubs, by political clubs, by churches. I do not know how much we recognize clubs at which members can play blackjack or poker, but they are all legal; it is all gambling, all games of chance.
I do not know whether it is an inborn, inherent trait of an individual to want to take a chance, but annually we have countless millions of dollars going outside this country, despite all the efforts of the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) to stop it, to sweepstakes in Ireland, Australia and other countries. Surely, therefore, we should recognize

Legislation to Establish Sweepstakes Board
all these obvious facts and realities and that we are not going to stop that trait. If people want to buy sweepstake tickets-and they are going to buy them-let them be bought within the law in Canada, under government control, with strict supervision and with a fair share of the money received from the exercise of that gambling spirit going towards a useful humanitarian project within our own country.
I do not think it is the way we should finance hospitals. It is not the way we should finance things which are necessary to Canada. But if it is going to help and we can exercise some control over the gambling instinct and keep the money inside Canada, I think we would be honest not to blind ourselves to what is going on legally in regard to games of chance and say, with regard to sweepstakes, that this cannot be done.
For those reasons, although I know certain people and organizations have objections-because whether they are political clubs, social clubs, veterans clubs or churches, it is permitted in Canada, recognized and sponsored by these people and organizations-let us not be hypocrites in this matter. Let us not deny what we know is a basic human instinct.
We are not going to overthrow this instinct overnight, or for generations, and we must recognize the desire of the majority of people. At least let us give to those who desire it the right to take part in a government-sponsored sweepstake, with the money being held in Canada for the benefit of Canadians and projects in this country.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this subject. It has been referred to as a very popular subject with a great many people in Canada. I think that of all the bills that have come before the house since I have been a member, this is by far the most sound. It seeks to establish a full time board of men who will properly run a sweepstake for the benefit of hospitals in Canada. This sort of thing has been referred to in the past as a type of taxation and some people feel that the poor, or the person who is less able to pay for it, will be taxed the most. This runs against their grain.
As has been pointed out a number of times, most people are already paying in one way or another. They are going out and buying tickets for sweepstakes. Often those sweepstake tickets never get to Ireland. The person from whom they buy the tickets is selling them under cover and sometimes the money is not sent in and the buyer is out of his money. He does not even get the chance, whether it is a fair gamble or not. This type of thing goes on time and again.
If a sweepstake such as this were set up, we in Canada could establish a very workable system. Post offices could sell the tickets without any extra expense. They could be sold almost in the same way that five cent stamps are sold, if a person wishes to buy them. I am not saying they should be priced at five cents, but they could be sold in the post offices and the R.C.M.P. and people behind the project could outlaw all other sweepstakes.
What have we today? We have laws which have not the backing of the people. Quite often when laws are in force and the people are not backing them, those laws turn out to be rather ineffective. This is the case with sweepstakes.
In a small town in my riding a very good friend of mine called me and said, "You know, Jack, it is time we legalized some form of sweepstakes in Canada". I said, "Why?" He said, "Last September I sent $1,200 out of this small town to Ireland". I said, "I did not think it was that much". He said, "Look, there are at least five or seven more fellows in this town of 2,500 selling tickets and I do not know how much money they sent to Ireland". This just gives some idea of the amount of money that is leaving small towns in western Canada to go to Ireland.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne) pointed out that 25 per cent of the tickets drawn are held by persons in Canada. I think it is a logical thing to say that we must be sending over to Ireland at least 25 per cent of the money that is taken in. That is an enormous amount of money to be leaving this country. I know it can be said that if we legalize some form of sweepstakes in Canada, money will still be going over to the sweepstakes in Ireland. Perhaps some money might go there. But with the support of the people behind the law with regard to a legalized sweepstake in Canada and with a crackdown by the R.C.M.P. on foreign sweepstakes, I think most of the money would be funnelled into benefits for our own hospital or medical care. Certainly in my own riding people have told me this, "Look, we even sell tickets to the R.C.M.P.; they buy them and put them in their wives' names". I am not saying this in order to discredit our very noble force in Canada. I am pointing this matter out in order to show that most of the people readily accept the sweepstakes idea and take advantage of it in one way or another. Even the person in the lower income bracket goes out and buys a dollar ticket on a car, to play bingo and so on.
With the ever increasing need for money in order to cover the cost of expensive drugs and hospitalization and with chronic illness becoming a big problem in Canada, and with
276	HOUSE OF
Legislation to Establish Sweepstakes Board hospitals being set up in a number of small towns to care for some of the elderly people who are chronically ill, we know we shall certainly continue to need large sums of money for hospitalization. While it has been pointed out that this may not be the best method by which to raise that money, nevertheless it is one way in which it could be raised without harming or hindering in any way any large group of people and without curtailing further development of our country as higher taxes on corporations or something like that might mean.
In this House of Commons in recent years few members have spoken against sweepstakes. I certainly think that there is a feeling of general acceptance right across Canada.
I should just like to point out a few of the things that have been brought to my attention over the years with regard to lotteries and gambling. Some time ago a school teacher said to me, "I did not know whether or not we could hold a Christmas raffle in my school so I thought the proper thing to do would be to write to the closest law enforcement body and ask what the situation was". She wrote to them; in fact, she went to see them. She said that the R.C.M.P. officer, I believe it was, said, "Well, you are perfectly able to go ahead and hold your raffle; I know that other schools do it. However, if there is any big trouble caused over it, I will have to step in; but if no trouble is caused, I will not bother with it, and you can probably go ahead". This teacher who wanted to do what was right had to take the risk on her own shoulders, had to break the law in a sense, in order to raise a little bit of money so that she could be Santa Claus under the Christmas tree in that small country school.
I do not think this is the proper approach. I know a raffle had been held in this school for years before this woman became the teacher there. She wished to continue the practice. She did not want to do away with the Christmas concert or anything like that. However, she did not want to be breaking the law at the same time and she went to the trouble of asking the police officer about the matter. He said in effect, "Go ahead; do it at your own risk. If the neighbouring people raise objection or if somebody squawks against it, I shall have to step in, take a look at it and perhaps lay a charge". This is the position in which we are placing good people who want to obey the law. We are placing them in a position in which they have no alternative.
I know of another instance. I may say that I am bringing this matter out in order to point out how people wish to obey the law and to do what is right, but that we as the


law makers in Canada are sometimes placing them in a difficult position. I also know of a group of people who wanted to build a curling rink. Because there had been an on again-off again approach to lotteries in Alberta and because at the same time a group of people were fined for having a lottery to build a curling rink in one town in Alberta, this particular group of people were concerned about the matter. Again they wanted to do what was right and what was within the law.
They wrote to the premier of the province and asked him if they could hold a car raffle in order to build a curling rink in this town. I might add that the curling rink was sadly needed. They wanted to do what was right. In a sense the premier wrote back and said "Legally you cannot do it; but if you do it, very likely nothing will come of it. Very likely you can proceed and you will be all right". This again placed them in the position in which they knew they were breaking the law but that it would probably be all right if they went right ahead and broke it.
When we have in Canada laws for which the people find themselves having no respect and which are broken by them with no trouble arising out of the breaking of them, I say that we should change the laws so that people will have respect for them. In this particular case the community in question did not build a curling rink. However, a community five or six miles up the line a year later went ahead and raffled a car, took a chance of being thrown in jail if anything came of it and they built their curling rink. I may say that curling rink has flourished in that part of the community ever since then.
This is the trouble we have with sweepstakes being readily accepted and the laws not permitting them to be legally operated. Having regard to the experience we have had with sweepstakes, I think that we in Canada should be realistic enough and should have enough knowledge of human nature to go ahead and legalize a sweepstake board, make it the only sweepstake board operating in Canada and make its tickets the only sweepstake tickets allowed to be sold in Canada. If you get the people behind the idea and have it accepted by the general public, they will readily buy tickets for a Canadian sweepstake. They will not likely buy too many foreign sweepstakes tickets if they know they are illegal and that the law is going to be enforced to the hilt with regard to them. We should not have R.C.M.P. officers buying sweepstakes tickets and putting them in their wives' names. Some people think that this is not true and that I am possibly degrading our very able and efficient police force. That is not my intention at all. I am saying this, sir,

Legislation to Establish Sweepstakes Board
to point out the lack of respect that people generally have for the law so far as sweepstakes are concerned.
1 know that two years ago a young fellow in my constituency won $140,000 in the Irish sweepstakes. He had very little when he won the money and he was still looked upon as a respected citizen. Nobody said he was a thief or had broken the law. He was a hero in that particular community. The whole idea of sweepstakes tickets got a shot in the arm there because of his winning. I am proud to say, being a farmer myself, that part of that money was invested in a farm for the young man and I am sure he will make a success of that enterprise. These are the things that we have to consider.
I know that recently in the newspapers at home there has appeared what is called "play at home" bingo. So many numbers are printed each week in the weekly paper. People buy a bingo card for $1 and sit at home and wait eagerly for the weekly paper to come with the numbers for that week. At one time the prize was a thousand dollar bill. I have never had a thousand dollar bill. In the particular town in question the prize was advertised. If you walked by the biggest window of the biggest store in town you could catch a glimpse of the thousand dollar bill in the window on certain days. People buy their cards and play bingo at home in the hope of being the lucky winner. The idea has really gone over. I think the attraction is in the idea of taking a chance by playing bingo and running $1 into $1,000 without even moving off your seat at home but just picking up the weekly paper and filling in the numbers on the bingo card.
A few years ago bingos were looked upon by the province of Alberta with a sceptical eye but today bingo seems to be flourishing again. Alberta seems to blow hot and cold so far as sweepstakes are concerned but people are playing bingo at home. There are now three prizes. The first prize is a thousand dollar bill and the other two prizes are $500 and $200 respectively. This is how widely the idea of bingo and sweepstakes is accepted.
Some time ago in a large city I was asked to speak in a large collegiate or high school. I was going to speak on world affairs in general that night. I happened to walk in the wrong door of the school although I did not realize it at first. There seemed to be quite a crowd gathered there and I thought that surely they had not all come to hear me. Nobody met me at the door and I glanced around and saw that something was being sold and the thought went through my mind that surely they were not charging people to hear me speak because my advice is generally given gratis.
I went up to one of the people at the counter and said, "What is the charge, what goes on?" He said, "It is a bingo. We have a bingo here every week on this day." I was somewhat taken aback so I said to him, "I was to make a speech. Am I in the wrong school or what is the score?" He said, "No, your speech is to be made up on the second floor somewhere and here is a gentleman who will show you where to go." I went up there and made my speech to a crowd of 35 or 40 people, but down below there were 400 or 500 people taking a chance playing bingo. They did so every week for 52 weeks in the year. I do not know for how many years it has been going on. That is how widely accepted the idea is of taking a chance of running a dollar into a five dollar bill or a thousand dollar bill. These people were perhaps concerned about world affairs but not concerned enough to wait until next week to take a chance and come to hear me instead.
This sort of thing flourishes without the provincial governments doing a thing about it because they know that people generally accept the idea of sweepstakes and that it would be practically useless to curtail the practice. I know that the cost of medical care is increasing all the time and at the present time a government inquiry is going on for the purpose of determining how best a medical insurance plan can be worked out for the people of Canada. This also is a popular idea, particularly among persons who are least able to pay for their medical care. Those are the same people who some are trying to protect by keeping sweepstakes illegal. These same people who want hospital and medical care want to gamble. They want to run a dollar into a thousand dollars or a dollar into a five dollar bill. How can we protect them both ways? Certainly we can protect them to a certain extent, as the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) said, with regard to how much of their wages they gamble, but even that is a difficult thing to do.
I happen to live next door to a merchant in Ottawa who is in charge of a department in one of the larger department stores. He has told me that once the Connaught race track opens every spring business in the store takes a slight drop.


Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: Boloney.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Do I hear the word "boloney" coming from that side of the house? It could well come from that side of the house because we have heard nothing but boloney from that side all afternoon. I would not doubt that there might still be a little left over there. But this man tells me that there is a slight dropping off of
278	HOUSE OF
Legislation to Establish Sweepstakes Board business when the track opens and perhaps after it has been in operation for a while business comes back to normal.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the hon. member a question. Is he in favour of this bill? Yes or no.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Certainly I am.


Jean-Thomas Richard: That is all I want to know. I am in agreement with the hon. member.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am 100 per cent in favour of the bill and I do not know where the hon. member has been.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but under the provisional rule his time is limited to 20 minutes and it has expired.


Mr. W. C. Henderson (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words. I am in favour of sweepstakes, racetrack betting and any other form of betting as long as the winnings come into our pockets. You can go over to Connaught track and see people betting there whom you might say should use their money to buy shoes instead of betting or buying sweepstakes tickets, but that is human nature. I am in favour of sweepstakes being conducted so that people do not have to buy tickets under cover.
In one town in my constituency there is a fellow who sells 6,000 books of sweepstakes tickets and that money goes to Ireland. He has got the thing worked out so well that he does not even have any trouble sending the money. He sends a wire and apparently the bank does the rest of it. The banks are in this too. I know this fellow and he makes his living doing this. He was a farmer but he quit farming because it was so profitable to sell sweepstakes tickets. What we should do is to allow this commission to start selling tickets in Canada, then anyone could buy them. I buy them all the time. I do not beat around the bush about it, and I have lots of friends who do the same.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Is this a new venture for the Conservative party?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will get the floor if he rises.


Walter Clarence Henderson: I hate to bother him, Mr. Speaker-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What did Mackenzie King say about it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. members should listen to the hon. member who has the floor.


Walter Clarence Henderson: We are going to have sweepstakes whether or not we like them. We


should use the money for the hospitals. You have to be quite wealthy, almost a multimillionaire to enter a hospital today because it is very expensive. Why should we not take a commission from these sweepstake tickets? It is the only chance you will ever get in your life to have $140,000. Some people win it. I never won a dime in my life, but I am going to take a chance again. I think it is time for the vote. We are all in favour of this, so let us have it.
(Translation):


Mr. Alfred Belzile (Malapedia-Malane):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in support of this bill. Since I am not a lawyer, I do not pretend, of course, to be very conversant with the law. However, as the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Henderson) has just stated, gambling and lotteries are taking place throughout Canada at present whether we like it or not.
I realize that some people like to say that laws are made to be broken; but the fact remains that it is not always pleasant to see that so many offences are committed against laws enacted by the state. There is a basic principle to the effect that within a family, the father and mother must take all the means at their disposal to enforce obedience by their children.
The government is like the father of a family. In my opinion, it is only logical that it should have at its disposal all possible means to ensure the respect of its laws. We all know that gambling and lotteries are taking place in the province of Quebec and throughout Canada. Some lotteries are sponsored by philanthropic organizations, others by sport, recreational or charitable associations. On the other hand, we are aware of the fact that some lotteries benefit only one or two persons. Some lotteries thrive on the public's money and yet the proceeds are intended only for a handful of swindlers.
Mr. Speaker, I quote this sentence from the explanatory notes of the bill:
Accordingly, a board is set up with power to operate sweepstakes on a national scale.
I suggest that the law should be amended in two different ways, the one to broaden its scope, the other to narrow it down.
The scope of the law should be broadened in the sense that honest games and honest lotteries held for charitable or welfare purposes should be permitted. One would then not only be glad to contribute to charity at

home, but, his conscience being clear, he would be happy in the thought that he is abiding by the laws of his country and his province.
On the other hand, the scope of the law should be narrowed down to make it more strict, to have it prohibit severely and thoroughly games and lotteries which are of no benefit to the nation and the people.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that in this way, our people would find deep satisfaction in the knowledge that their government had made it easier for them to respect its laws.
(Text):


Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: The bill before us seems to be one that is popular at the moment. In this air of popularity, it is very easy to go along with the idea. I have listened carefully to the speeches that have been made so far in this connection, and I think generally speaking statements that have been made are true. However, I wonder whether we have stopped to consider all the implications of these statements? I come from a community of which I am very proud. I have recently read the reports concerning returns to the community chest campaigns across this country this year. It seems to me that in most cases these campaigns fail to reach their objectives. They were disappointing to the people who voluntarily and wholeheartedly sponsored them.


Jean-Thomas Richard: This is not true in Ottawa.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: Would you please not interrupt?


Jean-Thomas Richard: This is not true in Ottawa.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: I was talking about the general picture. Do not interrupt me. If you want to rise and ask a question, I will accept it. We hear so much about interruptions of hon. members opposite by government members, but nothing is said about interruptions by opposition members. I think this is out of order. I do not indulge in it, and I do not appreciate it. The hon. member is trying to disrupt my argument because he thinks I may be opposed to something he desires. I am willing to hear both sides of the story and make up my mind.
I was speaking of the results obtained in the community chest campaigns across this country this year. The results were disappointing a year ago and I understand they were even more disappointing this year. This is not true of my community, and I am glad to hear it is not true of Ottawa. I believe these community chest campaigns indicate the
Legislation to Establish Sweepstakes Board acceptance by the people of the community of their responsibility under our system. The point I am trying to make is that we all say we like to take a gamble, that the people want to take a gamble, that this money is going out of the country so we should give the people the opportunity to buy the tickets here.
I do not think we can legislate the morals of people, but I do say concern should be expressed somewhere along the line about the apparent growing weakness of our people to contribute legitimately to meet the responsible needs of their communities and their country. If this bill goes through it may be the answer to all the problems of some people, but it may create an awful lot more than they have now. It may leave us holding a bag that we shall have great difficulty filling.
My philosophy is that I would like to see less government and less government spending, regardless of which party forms the government. I would like to see more people stand up and say "we are responsible, we will solve our problems, we will do the job". There is a growing trend today, sponsored by a small group in the far corner of this chamber, a very vociferous group who have a lot of support, though they will not admit it, from another very vociferous group, towards declaiming that governments have an over-all responsibility and that governments can do everything. This trend is weakening our free community. I remember the day when we faced problems involving the lack of food and clothing in small communities in western Canada. Pioneers would come there, raise sod shacks, and the community accepted the responsibility and solved their problems. They did not run to the government and say "Mister, look after me". I regard this tendency as dangerous to our western democracy, and one which could in time make us ripe for communism.
We had an example from the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Henderson). I know he is a gambler-I do not say I am not-and he told us about a man who sold 6,000 books of tickets. I believe that in almost every community in Canada today there are professional sellers of sweepstake tickets. They have a sucker list to whom they can sell any ticket that is printed, but there is no guarantee that the tickets people buy from them are legitimate, or that the buyers have any chance of winning. This is happening all over the country and I would hope if any action is taken by parliament in this connection it would be on such a basis that we would not build up a preferred class of people.

Legislation to Establish Sweepstakes Board
For years I have belonged to community sporting organizations. I think it was the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Horner) who advocated having a national lottery and making everything else illegal. This I would not support. In my community we have one of the top junior A hockey clubs in Canada. In my province we have probably the second best boys' junior hockey league, and we have kept that league alive through community support. In the city of Regina we publish a year book for the benefit of the club, and people I know have subscribed $6,000 a year to the purchases of the club through the year book. This is a substantial acceptance of the responsibility of the community, but we found that in itself it was not enough. Other people in the community, who would have howled to high heaven were the club disbanded and its work among 3,000 boys stopped, gave their assistance when we ran a "young Canadian" night and gave away a car. The tickets for that could be sold any place in the city with ease. This is an area which I believe is deserving of attention where a legitimate purpose can be served.
The prizes which are given away are not huge. The fortunate winners cannot desert their legitimate occupations and start lives of ease, but they are substantial prizes that attract the support of the public and in that way provide much needed money. Organizations such as that, and matters of this kind, should not be overlooked. I do not think anybody misunderstood the reference by the hon. member for Acadia to members of the R.C.M.P. buying sweepstake tickets, but it is
unfortunate that he used that example. They are human like the rest of us. Had he said he was a member of parliament and had a ticket in his pocket for the next sweepstake, it would have been a far better example. I belong to that category and I believe if a poll were taken of the members of the House of Commons it would show almost all of us to be in that category. What is said about the gambling instinct is true, but this is something with which we should not deal without consideration of the over-all picture.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what we shall be doing on Monday? I also hope it will be possible for the house leader to give us an indication of what business we shall be taking up for the first few days of next week.


Mr. Churchill:: On Monday we shall continue with supplementary estimates. Had we made greater progress today we might have considered something else for Monday, but should the supplementary estimates be passed on Monday then it would be possible to go on with other government orders, of which there are nine on the order paper now, with another seven to be added on Monday by way of resolutions and the introduction of bills. At the moment, I do not see any prospect of completing the present supplementary estimates on Monday but should the house do so I am quite prepared to go ahead with the bills standing in my name.


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


[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, January 5, 1962
The Honourable W. A. C. Bennett, M.L.A., Premier of British Columbia,
Victoria, B.C.
My dear Premier:
I acknowledge receipt of your telegram of January 4th reading as follows:
"Will be in Toronto at King Edward hotel on Friday January twelfth only. Would make time available for discussion on Columbia if you thought advisable."
I have replied thereto as follows:
"Reurtel deeply regret cannot be in Toronto January twelfth. Will be engaged all day at meeting of Canada-U.S. continuing committee on trade and economic matters in Ottawa. Hope you can suggest other dates for our meeting."
I am very sorry that I am not available on the date you suggested, but the date of the meeting of the Canada-U.S. committee was set several weeks ago and involves a large number of ministers and officials from both countries. It is expected to continue also on January 13th.
Yours sincerely,
Donald M. Fleming
Ottawa, January 5, 1962
The Honourable W. A. C. Bennett,
Premier of British Columbia,
Victoria, B.C.
Reurtel deeply regret cannot be in Toronto January twelfth. Will be engaged all day at meeting of Canada-U.S. continuing committee on trade and economic matters in Ottawa. Hope you can suggest other dates for our meeting.
Donald M. Fleming,
Minister of Finance.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Donald M. Fleming,
Minister of Finance, Ottawa.
Will be in Toronto at King Edward hotel on Friday January twelfth only. Would make time available for discussion on Columbia if you thought advisable.
W. A. C. Bennett, Minister of Finance.
The Honourable Donald M. Fleming, Minister of Finance, today released copies of his
letter to Premier W. A. C. Bennett of British Columbia under date of December 23, 1961, dealing with the Columbia river power project.
Minister of Finance
Ottawa, December 23, 1961
The Honourable W. A. C. Bennett, M.L.A., Premier of British Columbia,
Victoria, British Columbia.
My dear Premier:
Before going overseas to the NATO meetings last week, I sent you an interim reply on December 9th to your letter of November 27th concerning the Columbia river treaty. I have now had an opportunity to review the situation.
I would welcome an early resumption of discussions on the financial arrangements, but my colleagues and I feel that it is most important that we should first remove any misunderstanding that may exist about the real purpose of the treaty. In your earlier letter of June 9 you stated that in your view all of Canada's share of the downstream power benefits should be disposed of to the United States. You return to this point in your last letter, and say that it is of paramount importance to you.
This stand is quite contrary to the fundamental purpose of the treaty, which is to secure for the people of British Columbia directly and immediately the cheapest and most abundant electric power available.
I believe it essential to reaffirm the basic position outlined in my letter of May 17 regarding the use which has been clearly envisaged from the beginning on both sides for these power benefits. As you were aware, throughout the negotiation of the treaty, discussions in the Canada-British Columbia policy liaison committee were based on the intention that the bulk of Canada's share of the low cost downstream power benefits would be delivered to Canada for the use and benefit of consumers in British Columbia. The treaty itself accurately reflects this principle. I refer in particular to the following provisions of the treaty:-
[Stage Direction]
"Article V-Entitlement to downstream power
benefits
(1)	Canada is entitled to one half the downstream power benefits determined under article VII.
(2)	The United States of America shall deliver to Canada at a point on the Canada-United States of America boundary near Oliver, British Columbia, or at such other place as the entities may agree upon, the downstream power benefits to which Canada is entitled, less
(a)	transmission loss,
(b)	the portion of the entitlement disposed of under article VIII (1), and
(c)	the energy component described in article VIII(4)."
"Article VII-Determination of downstream
power benefits
(1)	The downstream power benefits shall be the difference in the hydroelectric power capable of being generated in the United States of America with and without the use of Canadian storage, determined in advance, and is referred to in the treaty as the downstream power benefits.
(2)	For the purpose of determining the downstream power benefits:
(a)	the principles and procedures set out in annex B shall be used and followed;
(b)	the Canadian storage shall be considered as next added to 13,000,000 acre-feet of the usable storage listed in column 4 of the table in annex B;
(c)	the hydroelectric facilities included in the base system shall be considered as being operated to make the most effective use for hydroelectric power generation of the improvement in stream flow resulting from operation of the Canadian storage.
(3)	The downstream power benefits to which Canada is entitled shall be delivered as follows:
(a)	dependable hydroelectric capacity as scheduled by the Canadian entity, and
(b)	average annual usable hydroelectric energy in equal amounts each month, or in accordance with a modification agreed upon under paragraph (4).
(4)	Modification of the obligation in paragraph 3(b) may be agreed upon by the entities."
"Article VIII-Disposal of entitlement to
downstream power benefits
(1) With the authorization of Canada and the United States of America evidenced by exchange of notes, portions of the downstream power benefits to which Canada is entitled may be disposed of within the United
States of America. The respective general conditions and limits within which the entities may arrange initial disposals shall be set out in an exchange of notes to be made as soon as possible after the ratification date.
(2)	The entities may arrange and carry out exchanges of dependable hydroelectric capacity and average annual usable hydroelectric energy to which Canada is entitled for average annual usable hydroelectric energy and dependable hydroelectric capacity respectively.
(3)	Energy to which Canada is entitled may not be used in the United States of America except in accordance with paragraphs (1) and (2)."...
"Article X-East-west stand-by transmission
(1) The United States of America shall provide in accordance with good engineering practice east-west stand-by transmission service adequate to safeguard the transmission from Oliver, British Columbia, to Vancouver, British Columbia, of the downstream power benefits to which Canada is entitled and to improve system stability of the east-west circuits in British Columbia."
These provisions obviously rest on the intention that, in the normal course, our downstream benefits will be physically returned to Canada. I draw your attention to the word "portion" in Article V and the word "portions" in article VIII. At no time prior to the signing of the treaty was it even hinted by you, your ministers, or your officer who was appointed as one of the four negotiators, that your government would demand that Canada's share of downstream benefits be sold in the United States.
The basic purpose of the treaty is to provide large supplies of cheap power and thereby benefit the people of British Columbia and the economy of Canada as a whole through the industrial development and employment which can be expected to result This purpose would be defeated and British Columbia producers put at a competitive disadvantage if the bulk of the low-cost downstream benefit power is committed to the United States for several decades.
The great advantages to Canada of the development and use of the low-cost power of the Columbia are brought out once again in specific terms in a study made of them by the Montreal Engineering Company. I am sending you under separate cover a copy of this report in two volumes, and I am enclosing herewith a departmental memorandum setting forth briefly some of the conclusions reached in this report.
We have accomplished what seemed at many times to be an unattainable objective

when we were able to negotiate for the return to Canada, free, of one half of the downstream benefits. My colleagues and I would hope that you will be able to return to the real purpose of the treaty and agree that the bulk of Canada's downstream benefit power should be brought back for use in British Columbia, with only the temporary surpluses being sold to the United States, as provided in article VIII of the treaty.
I am, as always, ready to meet with you, and invite you to suggest several alternative dates in January for consideration.
Wishing you the compliments of the season, I am,
Yours sincerely,
Donald M. Fleming

[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, December 9, 1961
The Honourable W. A. C. Bennett,
Premier of British Columbia,
Victoria, B.C.
My dear Premier:
Thank you for your letter of November 27th concerning the Columbia river power development.
My time has been almost completely occupied throughout the last three weeks in the treasury board's annual review of departmental estimates. This task was concluded only yesterday. On Monday morning I am leaving for Paris to attend the annual meeting of the NATO ministerial council and shall be away for the entire week.
On my return I shall be writing to you in further reply to your letter, and particularly in regard to our proposed meeting.
Yours sincerely,
Donald M. Fleming

[Stage Direction]
Province of British Columbia Victoria 1961
November 27th.
The Honourable D. M. Fleming, P.C., Q.C., Minister of Finance,
Confederation Building,
Ottawa 4, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Fleming:
In view of our previous discussions concerning the implementation of the Columbia river treaty, I thought you should be advised, as the year end approaches, of British Columbia's endeavours to see the treaty projects take shape.
First, licensing procedure under the "Water Act" of this province were undertaken by British Columbia power commission commencing the 24th day of June 1961, and hearings were conducted by the water comptroller, Mr. Paget, commencing the 18th day of September and will conclude in all likelihood before the end of this year. The water comptroller's report, we trust, will follow shortly thereafter.
Second, the massive engineering required to give definition to the treaty projects has been under way since November 1960. Three consortiums of engineers have been put to work, each concerned with one of the three treaty projects involving Arrow lake storage, Duncan lake and Mica creek. By the end of this calendar year $4,400,000 will have been expended by British Columbia for these purposes and it is now to be anticipated that definitive engineering will be virtually complete on Duncan lake by early 1962, Arrow lakes by mid-1962 and Mica creek early 1963. Detailed engineering will proceed concurrently with construction when authorized.
The most important question remaining, among a number posed by the treaty, arises under provisions of clause 8 of the treaty and involves the contemplated disposition of Canadian downstream benefit electricity in the United States. I refer especially to this matter among the various factors affecting finance, because you are aware that British Columbia feels that the exchange of notes establishing sale of downstream benefits pursuant to clause 8 is the key to Canadian financial wellbeing. Canada's position is, of course, in effect to be assumed and discharged by British Columbia. Therefore this matter is of paramount importance to us in arranging finance.
My purpose in writing is to suggest that time and events are becoming appropriate for our respective financial officers to bring themselves up to date on this whole matter. I would appreciate learning from you a date which might be suitable for a further meeting and would be pleased to suggest, if it were convenient to you, that you and your advisers might meet in Victoria, but if this is not possible I shall be glad to meet you in Ottawa. While I am very busy preparing for the opening of our own legislature, and with the preparation of the budget, yet I feel that the treaty should be ratified as soon as possible, and therefore will be pleased to go to Ottawa.
Kindest personal regards,
Yours very truly,
W. A. C. Bennett
Premier
[Stage Direction]
Monday, January 29, 1962