1962-01-29

Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Last December, Mr. Speaker, I announced that the government had decided to extend its diplomatic relations with the independent states of Africa by opening new diplomatic missions in Tanganyika and the Federal Republic of Cameroon. I am pleased to announce today that an experienced officer of my department, Mr. Norman Berlis, has been appointed as the first Canadian high commissioner to Dar-es-Salaam, Tanganyika.
This appointment is a mark of the importance which the government attaches to the establishment of close relations between this new member of the commonwealth and Canada. Mr. Berlis, a native of Toronto, is a graduate of the University of Toronto and Osgoode Hall, and has had extensive service for Canada both during the war and in the Department of External Affairs. At present he is head of the information division. The Canadian mission in Dar-es-Salaam will have important functions to fulfil, particularly in the field of educational and technical assistance under the special commonwealth African aid program.
As an example of the close and friendly cooperation between Canada and the former British colonies in Africa, the house might be interested to know that during the visit to Ottawa on December 17 of the chief minister of Uganda, Hon. B. K. W. Kiwanuka, who is the first minister, I discussed with him the ways in which Canada might be able to extend assistance to his country under the special commonwealth aid to Africa program. The proposal to which he gave highest priority was the attachment of a senior foreign service officer to the Canadian delegation to the United Nations in New York.
I am glad to be able to inform the house that we have already acted on this request. Mr. A. K. Kironde, a former Uganda minister of works, who is to become ambassador and head of the Uganda delegation to the United Nations when his country becomes independent on October 9 of this year, has joined our New 26207-1-19
York delegation as an observer as of January 25 after spending three days in Ottawa, and he will continue with the delegation until he becomes permanent representative of Uganda. Canada is paying his expenses from our special commonwealth aid to Africa funds.
The appointment of Mr. Berlis and this request from Uganda that we help to train their permanent representative at the United Nations are very significant moves, because they are the first moves into east Africa; in due course our high commissioner to Tanganyika will probably also be credited to Uganda and to Kenya.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-48, to amend an act respecting the construction of a line of railway by Canadian National Railway Company from Optic lake to Chisel lake, and the purchase by Canadian National Railway Company from the International Nickel Company of Canada, Limited, of a line of railway from Sipiwesk to a point on Burntwood river near Mystery lake, all in the province of Manitoba.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Explain.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I think what you have just read is a perfect explanation of the purpose of the bill and I have nothing to add.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SMALL BUSINESSES LOANS ACT


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-49, to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Explain.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The purpose of this bill is to enlarge in one particular the purposes for which loans may be authorized under the said statute.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is the particular?

Proposed Legislation


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Fleming, Eglinton, moves that the said bill be now read the first time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, we have asked the minister to give us an explanation of this bill and he has simply rephrased or paraphrased what is already referred to in the title of the bill. The way to give an explanation is to give us the particular with respect to which there will be an amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. A bill is not debatable on first reading, and while the house is entitled to ask for an explanation I do not know that it is entitled to complain about the explanation that is given.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Some more gallery play.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



OLD AGE SECURITY ACT


Hon. E. D. Fulton (for the Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Old Age Security Act to increase the amount of monthly pension payable thereunder to sixty-five dollars per month.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Edmund Davie Fulton: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Old Age Assistance Act to increase to sixty-five dollars per month the maximum amount of assistance in respect of which payments may be made to the provinces under the provisions of that act, and to increase the total amount of allowable income, inclusive of assistance, by one hundred and eighty dollars a year in the case of an unmarried person and three hundred and sixty dollars a year in the case of a married person.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Edmund Davie Fulton: that

the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Blind Persons Act to increase to sixty-five dollars per month the maximum amount of allowance in respect of which payments may be made to the province under the provisions of that act, and to increase the total amount of allowable income, inclusive of allowance, by one hundred and eighty dollars a year in the case of an unmarried person and three hundred and sixty dollars a year in the case of a married person.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Edmund Davie Fulton: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Disabled Persons Act to Increase to sixty-five dollars per month the maximum amount of allowance in respect of which payments may be made to the provinces under the provisions of that act, and to increase the total amount of allowable income, inclusive of allowance, by one hundred and eighty dollars a year in the case of an unmarried person and three hundred and sixty dollars a year in the case of a married person.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Léon Balcer: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize and to provide for the construction of a line of railway in the province of Alberta by Canadian National Railway Company from White-court for a distance of approximately 23.2 miles to the property of Pan American Petroleum Corporation, at a total estimated expenditure of $2,300,000, not to be exceeded by more than 15 per cent; to authorize the issue by the said railway company of securities that may be guaranteed by Her Majesty in right of Canada to finance the construction of the said line; and in order that the said railway company may forthwith proceed with the construction of the said line of railway, to authorize temporary loans to the said railway company out of the consolidated revenue fund upon terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council and secured by securities of the said railway company.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Questions

Léon Balcer: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act to provide that the authority, with the approval of the governor in council, may from time to time borrow money from Her Majesty or otherwise to an aggregate that shall not at any time exceed $345,000,000 in lieu of $335,000,000 which it is already authorized to borrow by section 13 of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(QUESTIONS ANSWERED ORALLY ARE INDICATED BY AN ASTERISK)

Mr. Malheson: 1.	Has the government selected a site for the new Brockville federal building?
2.	Has property been acquired?
3.	If so, where, from whom, at what price?


Mr. Walker:: The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is yes.
The answer to question No. 3 is, on Buell street bounded by George and Church streets, from the following persons at the following
prices:
A. J. Johnston Co	 $70,000
Mrs. Helen Gamble	 14,000
Mrs. Wm. Nedow	 10,500
Mrs. Norah Slack	 21,000
Mr. H. Casselman	 10,500



* MONEY SUPPLY INCREASES AND DECREASES

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 2
['An invitation was extended to the Right Hon. Harold Macmillan to visit Canada either before or after his visit to the United States in the latter part of April. He has accepted the invitation. Naturally there is a great field of matters that might be discussed on an occasion such as that. No agenda has been agreed on or has even been discussed as yet. However, I could think of many matters of interest to Canada, the United Kingdom and the commonwealth which would be subjects of discussion when that visit takes place. Indeed, the meeting together of prime ministers in this way is always extremely beneficial.']
Mr. Matheson:: 1.	What has been the net increase or decrease in the money supply for each of the years 1950 to 1961 in terms of volume and percentage?
2.	What has been the net increase or decrease in the money supply for each of the months of 1961?
3.	What quantity of silver dollars have been minted in 1961 (a) prior to July 13, 1961 (b) subsequent to July 13, 1961?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The answer to these questions contains many figures. May I have leave to put them on Hansard without reading them?


Some hon. Members:: 

Mr. Peters: 1.	Has the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys drilled or is It planning to drill a test hole in or near Summerside, P.E.I., and, if so, why?
2.	How many men will the project employ, and of these, how many will be hired locally over and above regular government personnel?
3.	Is this a special make-work project in P.E.I.?
4.	Did any oil companies conduct drilling operations in this area in recent years, and. If so, did the department receive any information on these drillings?


Mr. Flynn:: The answer to this question is rather long and I would ask leave to have it printed in Hansard without reading it.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer referred to above is as follows:]
1.	The Department of Mines and Technical Surveys is preparing to have drilled, in the near future, one or more core test holes in the general vicinity of Summerside, P.E.I., for the purpose of securing sub-surface geological information as an aid to determining the geological structure in this district.

2.	The drilling will be done by the Department of Public Works on behalf of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. It is expected that two or perhaps three drills will be operated. It is understood that each of these will require, in addition to a D.P.W. driller, a driller's helper and two to four labourers. The helpers and labourers will be hired locally.
3.	The project is being carried out under the federal government winter work program.
4.	During 1959, Imperial Oil Limited drilled three wells in search of oil in this general district. These were: (1) Imperial Wellington Station No. 1; (2) Imperial MacDougall No. 1; and (3) Imperial Port Hill No. 1. The geological survey of Canada, Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, has received cores, samples, and other information on these wells.
* SECTION 96a(2), INDIAN ACT


Mr. Howard: 1.	Since September 29, 1961, has any referendum been held among the electors of any Indian band in British Columbia respecting the bringing into force of section 96A(2) of the Indian Act and, if so, what is the name of each such band, the date upon which each referendum was conducted, and the results of the referendum therein?

2.	What action has been taken, or is planned, with respect to the results of the said referenda?
Answer by: Mrs. Fairclough: The answer to the first question is yes.
The names of the bands and the dates of the referenda are as follows:	Kincolith,
December 5, 1961-in favour; Fort George, November 14, 1961-in favour; Necoslie, November 23, 1961-in favour; Steliaquo, December 12, 1961-in favour; Canyon City, January 5, 1962-in favour; Gitlakdamix, January 5, 1962-in favour; Greenville, January 5, 1962-in favour; Sechelt, January 4, 1962-in favour.
The answer to the second question is that the results of all referenda have been referred to the governor in council for consideration with respect to the issuing of a proclamation bringing subsection 2 of section 96 A into force in the reserves belonging to the above bands.


* TELEVISION SURVEYS, SKEENA, B.C.
Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1961, have any surveys been made of the need for television facilities in the electoral district of Skeena and, if so, what are the results of these surveys, and the areas or communities so covered?
2.	Has any decision been made to establish such facilities in the said electoral district and, if so, when is it expected that such facilities will be installed, in what communities, and covering what areas?


ESCAPES FROM
[Stage Direction]
Calendar Year	Inmates e:
1950	4
1951	1
1952	14
1953	14
1954	15
1955	14
1956	16
1957	10
1958	9
1959	16
1960	30
1961	71
1962	1
Total	215
Questions
Mr. Lambert:: With respect to the board of
broadcast governors I am advised that in answer to the first part of the question the board itself has made no surveys of the needs for television facilities in the electoral district of Skeena, nor is it aware of any specific surveys made by private operators.
With respect to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, I am advised that during 1961 the corporation did conduct a survey in the electoral district to determine the feasibility of providing television service to the communities of Prince Rupert, Kitimat and Terrace. A final decision has not been reached pending further study and evaluation of the C.B.C. engineering proposals, and an evaluation of a new proposal put forward by a private operator who has applied to the C.B.C. for network affiliation.
^ESCAPES FROM PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Howard: For each year since 1950, how many inmates, if any, have escaped from penitentiaries, and how many of the said escapees have been recaptured?


Edmund Davie Fulton: As the number of years and the statistics are fairly lengthy I suggest the answer might appear in Hansard, and I shall at once send a copy to the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The answer referred to above is as follows:]


PENITENTIARIES
[Stage Direction]
\ Inmates recaptured
All recaptured
63 inmates recaptured
(8 inmates unlawfully at large)
Recaptured
Note: The above indicates the escapes during the period January 1 to December 31 of year indicated opposite number of inmates who escaped.
[Stage Direction]
Questions

Mr. Howard: For each month since January 1, 1960, what was, in each of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police detachments in the Skeena electoral district, the number of Indians, as defined in the Indian Act, (a) charged with, and (b) convicted of, infractions of the sections of the Indian Act relating with intoxicants, and with respect to the convictions, what were the penalties imposed by number of Indians in each appropriate grouping of such penalties, and the total amount of fines levied?
Answer by: Mr. Fulton: By order in council dated March 18, 1888, the British Columbia government were given and assumed responsibility for the enforcement of the Indian Act and all other statutes, both federal and provincial, in connection with Indians in British Columbia. The situation, therefore, is that although the R.C.M. Police in British Columbia do carry out police functions in British Columbia under provincial authority they do so as the agents of the provincial government under contract. The particulars sought here do not fall within federal competence and accordingly the question should be directed to the government of British Columbia.


Mr. Speaker:: I would call the minister's attention to the fact that the question he has just answered is not marked with an asterisk and it is quite in order-in fact, it is contemplated-that the answers to these questions which do not bear an asterisk will simply be tabled.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I regret having taken up the time of the house unnecessarily, I think owing to my being the first one exposed to the new procedure.


SURVIVAL AND RESCUE TRAINING COURSES
Mr. Howard: 1.	Since September 7, 1961, how many men (a) started (b) completed, and (c) were rejected for the first training course which was designed to increase the number of men trained to take part in survival and rescue operations?
2.	How many men (a) started, and (b) were rejected for any such subsequent training courses?
3.	What has been the cost to date of this program?
Answer by: Mr. Chambers:
1.	(a) 20,523, (b) 17,632, (c) 3,464.
2.	(a) 25,878, (b) 5,492.
3.	$7,414,482.


EMERGENCY MEASURES RECEPTION FACILITIES
Mr. Howard: Since September 13, 1961, what steps, if any, has
the emergency measures organization taken with respect to the planning and providing of reception facilities and shelters for those who would need them following their evacuation from their homes in the event of nuclear war?
[Mr. Fulton.j
Answer by: Mr. Diefenbaker: Planning and providing reception facilities and shelters for those who would need them following evacuation from their homes in the event of a nuclear war are, by agreement, primarily provincial and local responsibilities. The federal government provides help by way of advice, consultation, and financial support under the financial assistance program. Since September 13, 1961, these forms of federal assistance have been continued and emphasized. Certain aspects of the subject were reviewed at the conference on November 27, 1961, between federal and provincial ministers charged with responsibilities in civil emergency planning.


FALL-OUT SHELTER CONTRACTS, ARNPRIOR, ONT.
Mr. Howard: 1.	Since September 13, 1961, has any contract been awarded for construction, at Arnprior, of a variety of prototype fall-out shelters, and, if so, what was the amount of the contract, and who was the person awarded the contract?
2.	Were there any other bidders, and, if so, what are their names, addresses, and amount of each bid?
3.	Have any of the said prototype shelters been completed, and, if so, how many, and what is considered to be the best type for each particular purpose for which such shelters are considered to be necessary?
4.	Have any steps been taken financially to assist our fellow Canadians to acquire such shelters, and, if so, what are the details?
Answer by: Mr. Diefenbaker:
1.	The contract was awarded October 23, 1961, for construction at Arnprior of a variety of prototype shelters. The amount of the contract was $24,473, and it was awarded to N. Sullivan and Son, Arnprior, Ontario.
2.	There was another bidder, M. G. Sulphur, Renfrew, Ontario, and the amount of that bid was $25,408.
3.	Three such prototype shelters have been completed except for a limited amount of internal fitting on which the work is now progressing. One of the shelters is of medium size, made of reinforced concrete, designed to accommodate some 30 persons and to give some protection against blast as well as fall-out. The second is of similar character except its capacity is limited to 5 or 6 persons, suitable for a family. The third is a below ground structure of family size, made from concrete blocks affording excellent fall-out protection, with limited protection against blast. Each of these is felt to be the best type for the particular purpose in mind.
4.	Yes. Persons wishing to construct shelters of this sort in their homes or on their premises may secure government guaranteed loans under the National Housing Act.


FALL-OUT PROTECTION, FEDERAL BUILDINGS
Mr. Howard: 1.	Since September 13. 1961, how many federal buildings (a) have been considered to have adequate fall-out protection (b) can be improved to provide such protection, and what is the estimated cost of making such improvements and providing essential facilities and supplies (c) cannot be thus improved due to the excessive costs involved?
2.	Are steps being taken to so improve such buildings to provide adequate fall-out protection, and when is it estimated that this work will be completed?
3.	How many of the buildings referred to respectively in (a), (b), and (c) of part 1 of this question are in target cities?
4.	How many of the said buildings were considered to have been destroyed during exercise Tocsin B?
Answer by: Mr. Diefenbaker:
1.	During 1961 surveys of federal buildings with respect to fall-out protection have been carried out by two departments, the Department of Public Works and the Department of National Defence. Since the surveys by the Department of National Defence and the evaluation of them will not be completed until March 31, 1962, the information given here refers to the information gathered by the Department of Public Works only.
In its surveys it has been found that 504 federal buildings are considered to have adequate fall-out protection. In its opinion 324 additional buildings can be altered to provide adequate fall-out protection at an estimated cost of approximately $5,000,000 for the necessary improvements and essential facilities and supplies. Some 4,000 other federally owned buildings could only be provided with fall-out protection at considerably greater cost.
2.	The results of the detailed surveys described in 1 are at present under consideration and no decision to undertake construction has yet been made.
3.	Of the 828 federal buildings, including
the 504 with adequate fall-out protection and the 324 that could economically be modified, there are 281 in areas listed as possible target areas.	.
4.	Of these 828 buildings, it is estimated that 214 would have been destroyed under the circumstances assumed in exercise Tocsin B. No detailed review was made of the other buildings.


FALL-OUT PROTECTION FACILITIES, TARGET AREAS
Mr. Howard: Since September 13, 1961, has the emergency measures organization, or any other part of government developed any measures to give priority to target areas for increasing fall-out protection for those dwelling in private houses or apartment houses by making it possible for people to make use of government, privately owned, commercial, and industrial buildings, and, if so, what are those measures?
Questions
Answer by: Mr. Diefenbaker: Since September 13,	1961, the emergency measures
organization, together with other agencies of government immediately concerned, such as the Department of Public Works, has been considering measures, with special attention to target areas, that would increase fall-out protection for those dwelling in private houses or apartment houses, by making it possible for people to use government, privately owned, commercial, and industrial buildings. Before firm recommendations can be made in this matter, it has been found necessary to procure a good deal of basic information. This includes the number of buildings that already have a reasonable degree of protection against radioactive fall-out, what buildings could economically be modified to afford such protection, what numbers of people under emergency conditions they would accommodate, what costs would be involved in improving the fall-out protection factor, and numerous other related facts.
While various buildings of the types enumerated above are subject to consideration, first priority has been given to federally owned buildings. The next group given attention includes those owned by provincial and municipal governments. Extensive surveys have been carried on by the Department of Public Works with respect to federally owned buildings and these surveys are supplemented by those now in progress by the Department of National Defence with respect to army buildings. Concurrently, provinces and municipalities have been encouraged to undertake sur veys of buildings they own. These surveys are now going forward at numerous points in Canada.
The federal government has provided technical advice and in some instances has provided personnel as well to assist in the surveys. The costs of such surveys made by provinces and municipalities are recognized as an appropriate part of the financial assistance program for emergency planning, and thus to the extent of 75 per cent are met from federal funds.
Beyond the buildings owned by various governments it would be anticipated that commercial and industrial buildings would fall into the next priority for survey purposes. When the degree of fall-out protection afforded by such buildings and their capacity for habitation for survival purposes have been determined, then measures for possible use of such buildings in an emergency can be given detailed consideration.

Questions


NATIONAL SURVIVAL TRAINING COURSE QUOTAS
Mr. Argue: 1.	What was the quota for the first and second national survival training courses?
2.	How many enrolled for the first and second courses?
3.	How many completed the first course?
4.	How many of those who completed the first course have joined (a) the regular forces (b) the militia?
Answer by: Mr. Harkness:
1.	The quotas for the first and second SMTP courses were 25,000 each.
2.	(a) First course: 20,523 (b) Second course: 25,878
3.	17,632
4.	(a)	514
(b) 6,857


*BOMARC MISSILE INSTALLATIONS, NORTH BAY AND LA MACAZA
Mr. Argue: 1.	Are Bomarc missiles being installed at bases near North Bay and/or La Macaza?
2.	If so, have these Bomarcs been fitted with (a) conventional warheads (b) nuclear warheads?
3.	If not, which warheads are on order, (a) conventional warheads (b) nuclear warheads?
4.	Do conventional warheads for the Bomarc exist at present?
5.	If not, what is their present stage of development?


Mr. Chambers:: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows:
1.	Bomarc B missiles are being installed at North Bay. As La Macaza has not yet reached the installation phase, no missiles have been installed at this base.
2.	(a) No.
(b) No.
3.	No agreement has been made for the supply of warheads as yet.
4 and 5. A conventional warhead was at one time under development for the Bomarc A missile. There has been no further development to date.


U.S. SAC FLIGHTS OVER CANADA
Mr. Argue: 1.	Do aircraft of the United States Strategic Air Command fly over Canada carrying H-bombs whenever an alert is called?
2.	How many alerts have been called in each of the last 10 years?
3.	On how many occasions in the last 10 years have aircraft of the U.S. Strategic Air Command carrying H-bombs flown over Canada?
Answer by: Mr. Harkness:
1,	2 and 3. The procedure with regard to Strategic Air Command aircraft overflying Canadian territory carrying nuclear weapons was explained by the Prime Minister in the

House on June 3, 1958 (Official Record page 781) and again on March 17, 1959 (Official Record page 2011). On the former occasion the Prime Minister stated that it would not be in the public interest to give any indication of either the frequency of such flights or the number of aircraft involved.


*C.N.R. FREIGHT RATE INCREASES ON IRON ORE
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the Prime Minister and/or the Minister of Transport received in the last six months any reports, briefs, telegrams, letters, etc. or delegations from any person, persons, or organizations, regarding freight rate increases applied by the Canadian National Railways on iron ore shipped from Atikokan, Ontario, to Port Arthur?
2.	If so, when, by whom, to what effect, and with what consequence?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is no, and part 2 is therefore not applicable.


* PUBLIC WORKS MINISTER'S TOUR OF ASIA
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Did the Minister of Public Works make a tour of southern and southeastern Asia in 1961?
2.	If so, what was the purpose of the tour?
3.	What cities and countries did he visit?
4.	Has he made any public report upon this tour; if so, what was its gist?
5.	Has his department any plans or has it set aside any funds to help carry out any recommendations or suggestions he may have made in such a report?
6.	If so, what is the nature and scale of such a project?
7.	How many, and what other nations, have given indications that they wish to join in such a project?


David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows:
1.	I visited Malaya, India and the crown colony of Hong Kong.
2.	I was the Canadian government representative to the annual meeting of the Ministerial council of the Colombo plan.
3.	Kuala Lumpur, Malaya; New Delhi, India; and Hong Kong.
4.	As the house was not in session the only public reports made were in the form of newspaper interviews in Asia and Canada. The gist of them was an outline of the accomplishments of the Colombo plan and Canada's part in them.
5.	No. I was assigned this responsibility as a member of cabinet. The Department of Public Works is not directly involved in the Colombo plan.
6 and 7. Not applicable.


* SHIP CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
Mr. Chevrier: 1.	Since the announcement in the house on May 12, 1961, of the subsidy for the construction

of ships, how many contracts have been entered into between the Canadian maritime commission, the ship builder, and the ship owner?
2.	How many such contracts are for (a) operation in the deep-sea trade (b) operation in the lake and coastal trade (c) trawlers and fishing vessels?
3.	In what shipyards are these being built?
4.	How many such ships were contracted for with the shipyards prior to (a) May 12, 1961 (b) since May 12, 1961, and before September 27, 1961, (c) since September 27, 1961?
5.	How many such applications are for (a) operation in the deep-sea trade (b) operation in the lake and coastal trade (c) trawlers and fishing vessels?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows:
As it is not possible at the present time to answer specifically each part of this question, I would like to deal with it as a whole.
I might first say that contracts are not entered into between the Canadian maritime commission and the owners. What is negotiated between the commission, the owners and the builders is an agreement which covers the payment of subsidy for a specific project. The agreement can be signed only after all matters associated with the application for the subsidy have been settled, and it has not been possible up to now for the commission to complete the required detailed arrangements. Actual agreements not having yet been signed, it is considered that names of shipyards and shipowners concerned should be withheld pending formal execution of agreements.
Up to the present 79 applications have been reported to the commission in respect of vessels which could come under the subsidy. The value of such construction amounts to approximately $75,000,000, and the work is being carried out in some 30 different shipyards throughout the country.
Of the applications before the commission, 5 are for passenger and cargo vessels, 17 dry cargo, 4 oil tankers, 15 tugs, 24 barges, 11 fishing vessels and 3 miscellaneous.


* UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
Mr. McMillan: What was the net amount, exclusive of loans. If any, from the treasury, In the unemployment Insurance fund, at the latest available date, with securities held, quoted:	(a) at par (b) at their
current market values?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, at December 31, 1961, $163,305,098.55, including $157 million in non-marketable securities redeemable on 30 days notice. *


* SURPLUS TRAILERS, D.E.W. LINE POINTS
Mr. Badanai: 1.	Are trailers now being used at D.E.W. line points shortly to become surplus equipment?
Questions
2,	If so, how soon will these trailers become available for disposal, and at what price?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows:
1.	Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is not informed in advance of the nature or quantity of equipment to be declared surplus by the United States government the owner of the equipment mentioned.
2.	When and if such equipment is reported surplus and is accepted for disposal by the corporation, acting as agent of the United States government, it will be sold to the highest bidder in accordance with corporation practices.


COASTAL TRAFFIC REGULATIONS
Mr. Badanai: 1.	Do present coastal traffic regulations permit only vessels built and owned in Canada?
2.	If so, what is the position of boats built years ago in other countries which have been operating on the great lakes for many years by various owners?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows:
1.	No. In accordance with the commonwealth merchant shipping agreement and the Canada Shipping Act, ships on commonwealth registry may engage in the coasting trade of Canada.
2.	Ships operating on British registry but built outside the commonwealth, in order to engage in the coasting trade of Canada, must obtain a licence from the Minister of National Revenue obtainable on payment of a 25 per cent ad valorem duty.
unemployment benefit recipients


Mr. Lessard: According to the most recent statistics, how many unemployed are in receipt of unemployment benefits?


Mr. Thrasher:: Mr. Speaker, a record is not available at any given time indicating the number of persons actually in receipt of benefit since payments are made at varying intervals in the case of postal claimants and personal payments at local offices.


* SIREN FAILURES, EXERCISE TOCSIN B
Mr. Pitman: 1.	How many sirens did not work properly during exercise Toscin B?
2.	In what centres were these sirens located?
3.	How many sirens have at present been installed and, at what total cost?
4.	Have reports of complaints of freezing up of sirens been received and, if so, from what areas have these reports emanated?
5.	What steps have been taken to prevent such freeze up in the future?

Questions


Egan Chambers: Mr. Speaker, the answers to the five parts of this question are as follows:
1.	53 sirens failed to sound and there were an additional 70 partial failures during exercise Tocsin B.
2.	Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Belleville, Toronto, Fort William, Fort Erie, Oshawa, St. Catharines, Sault Ste. Marie, Barrie, London, Dunnville, Hagersville, Windsor, Essex, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, Victoria, Trail.
3.	(a) As of January 4, 1962, 744 sirens have been installed and an additional 857 have been procured from the manufacturer for installation.
(b) Trtal committed funds to date, which include* purchase of sirens and installation contracts not completed, are $2,008,760.06. Cash expenditure to date is $821,108.30.
4.	Reports have been received of the sirens icing up at the following locations: Edmonton, Montreal, Peterborough, Ottawa, Kingston, Hamilton, Windsor.
5.	Tests are currently being conducted by ihe army in conjunction with national research council, a consulting engineering firm and the manufacturers to determine the most reliable and economic method to prevent icing and stoppages.


* PRODUCTIVITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
Mr. Pitman: 1.	How many meetings have been held by the productivity council and, how long has each meeting lasted?
2.	Have any members resigned from the productivity council since it was originally established and, if so, what are their names?
3.	Have all designated members of the productivity council been in attendance at all meetings and, if not, what members have been absent?


Mr. Morris:: Mr. Speaker, the answers to the three parts of this question are as follows:
1.	There have been five meetings held, three of which lasted one day and two lasted two days.
2.	Yes, Mr. Jean Raymond and Mr. H. R. Milner.
3.	The meetings of the productivity council have been well attended, and while it would be incorrect to state that all members have attended all of the meetings I can assure the house that all members have been in attendance at some time or other and many have attended all meetings. Having regard to the voluntary service rendered by these public spirited citizens, the attendance record has been very good indeed.


*T.C.A.-C.P.A. AMALGAMATION, INTERNATIONAL SERVICES
Mr. Cardin: Is it the intention of the Department of Transport to encourage the integration of the Trans-Canada Air Lines and the Canadian Pacific Airlines for the provision of service on international routes?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, any statement of government policy with regard to the subject matter of this question would be announced by the government in the usual and appropriate manner.


*U.I.C. RULING RESPECTING UNION MEMBERS
Miss LaMarsh: 1.	Has the unemployment insurance commission received any representations opposing its ruling that union members while engaged on union business during regular work hours cannot make unemployment insurance contributions?
2.	If so, has the commission reversed its ruling?
3.	If it has not reversed this ruling, what are the reasons for this ruling?


Richard Devere Thrasher: Mr. Speaker, the answers to the three parts of this question are as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	The commission's decision reads as follows:
The law is quite clear on the point that an unincorporated association is not a legal entity and that a member of such a society cannot be employed under a contract of service by the association of which he is a member, since he is individually as much the employer as every other member and therefore cannot also be the employee of the association under a contract of service which requires the relationship of master and servant between two different persons.
I might add that when the union was advised of this ruling by the commission it was also informed that, if desired, an appeal could be made to the umpire who is the final authority under the Unemployment Insurance Act.


* MECHANICAL TRADES WAGE RATES, POINT EDWARD NAVAL BASE
Mr. Granger: 1.	Has the Minister of Labour received a communication from the Cape Breton district command of the Royal Canadian Legion supporting a request for the upgrading of wage rates for prevailing rate employees in the mechanical trades at Point Edward naval base?
2.	If so, has any action been taken by the Department of Labour in the way of conducting a wage review or increasing the rates?


Richard Devere Thrasher: Mr. Speaker, the answers to the two parts of this question are as follows:
1. Yes. Representations were also received from the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria.

2. The Department of National Defence made a request for a review of the rates of pay of the various classifications employed at Point Edward naval base. The Department of Labour has authorized a wage survey to be made in the area in order to recommend any necessary revisions in the Point Edward naval base rates.


*BUTTER PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION
Mr. Maiheson: 1.	What was the volume of production of butter
in (a)	1957 (b)	1961?
2.	What was the volume of consumption of butter in (a) 1957 (b) 1961?
3.	What volume of butter stocks or their equivalent in butter oil was in storage on December 31. 1961?


Edmund Leverett Morris: Mr. Speaker, the answers to the three parts of this question are as follows:
1957	1961
1.	Creamery butter production	
303.371.000	350,477,000*2.	Creamery butter consumption	
321,554,000	282,288,000*3.	Stocks of creamery butter and butter oil (in butter equivalent) as at December 31,
1961, were 200,087,000*
The 1961 figures are preliminary.


*CROP INSURANCE SCHEME, QUEBEC
Mr. Pigeon: Has the Minister of Agriculture been requested by the authorities of the department of agriculture of Quebec to participate in the crop insurance scheme?


Mr. Charlton:: Mr. Speaker, while informal discussions have been held concerning crop insurance, no formal request has been received from the department of agriculture of Quebec to participate in a crop insurance scheme under the Crop Insurance Act.


* LETTER CARRIER DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS
Mr. Hicks: 1.	What is the principal requirement to have letter carrier delivery service installed?
2.	Who establishes the requirement?
3.	Is the requirement ever changed to suit local conditions?
4.	Is an apartment house with 20 tenants counted as 20 points of call?
5.	Has the town of Abbotsford, B.C., requested in the last year letter carrier service? If so, how far are they short of requirement?


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, the answers to the five parts of this question are as follows:
1.	The availability of 2,500 points of call in a compact, well built up area.
2.	Treasury board.
3.	No.
4.	Yes.
26207-1-20J
Questions
5.	(a) Yes-Abbotsford and district chamber of commerce.
(b) 700 calls.


NUCLEAR DEVICE EXPLOSION, ATHABASCA TAR SANDS
Mr. Argue: 1.	Have any requests been received from, or have any discussions taken place with (a) the governments of Alberta or the United States of America (b) private oil companies, concerning the explosion of a nuclear device in the Athabasca tar sands in Alberta?
2.	If so, on what dates, and what was the federal government's answer in each case?
Answer by: Mr. Churchill: The possibility of recovering oil from Athabasca tar sands by the explosion of a nuclear device was brought to the attention of several federal government organizations by a private oil company in 1958. As a result, the former minister of mines and technical surveys set up a committee to investigate the technical feasibility of this proposal. This committee was composed of technical representatives from the oil company and federal and Alberta government organizations and it had discussions with technical officers of the United States atomic energy commission, who had carried out underground tests in that country.
Though there have been discussions on the technical level regarding the feasibility of such an experiment, there have been no formal discussions with the governments of Alberta or the United States of America regarding the actual carrying out of an explosion in the Alberta tar sands. The Prime Minister advised, in answer to a question on March 21, 1960-Hansard, p. 2251-that the atomic energy control board, which would have to approve such an experiment, had not received any application for permission to carry out any such explosion. This is still the situation.


* JACQUES CARTIER BRIDGE
Mr. Pigeon: How many toll collectors on the Jacques Cartier bridge have been sentenced by court for fraudulent operations?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the national harbours board advise as follows. Subsequent to investigations 26 toll collectors were found guilty under the Criminal Code and sentenced for fraudulent operations at Jacques Cartier bridge.


AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION BOARD PRODUCTS HELD
Mr. Boulanger: What was the quantity and the value of each of the agricultural products held by the agricultural stabilization board on December 31, 1960 and 1961?

Questions
Answer by: Mr. Charlion:
December 31, 1960	December 31, 1961
Agricultural Product	Quantity	Value	Quantity	Valuelb.	$	lb.	$Butter 	103,043,205]	120,804,133]	81,201,143.16	126,070,319.78Butter oil 	15,163,046	53,807,132	Dry skimmed milk	5,707,973	558,163.19	4,917,473	787,679.54Waxed cheddar cheese .	4,835,160	1,647,195.83	923,023	705,325.39Pork products	*34,635,323	21,903,821.48	34,083,378	21,298,650.43Lamb 	896,781	401,376.59	4,077,771	1,643,584.99Raspberries 	823,936	341,889.35	
Sold under contract, awaiting delivery to buyer.
egg prices, 1960-61 Question No. 45[DOT]-Mr. Boulanger:
What was the average price for eggs of each
grade for the years 1960 and 1961	(a) in each
province (b) in Canada?
Answer by: Mr. Morris:
Data on average price of eggs by grade is not available by provinces. Information by cities and Canada, by months, for 1960 and 1961 is given in the attached table. AVERAGE RETAIL PRICES OF GRADE "A" EGGS, PER DOZEN, FOR SELECTED CITIES AND URBAN CANADA BY MONTHS-1960-1961
Jan.	Feb.	Mar.	Apr.	May	June	July	Aug.	Sept.	Oct.	Nov.	Dec.c.	c.	c.	c.	c.	c.	c.	c.	c.	C.	c.	c.St. John's	Large 1960 1961	74.8 81.1	59.2 68.2	61.6 71.2	71.9 80.2	71.6 71.1	70.6 71.8	65.7 69.7	66.3 71.6	79.9 73.0	83.8 79.2	83.7 87.2	87.6 87.3Halifax	Large 1960 1961	41.9 53.4	46.0 50.4	50.8 55.9	60.3 50.5	49.6 50.2	44.9 49.4	51.0 53.2	56.8 58.0	68.1 65.9	68.2 66.6	69.8 70.4	63.6 56.4Medium 1960 1961	38.5 45.4	41.7 44.9	46.7 53.2	57.9 46.4	46.9 46.9	39.3 43.6	44.9 48.8	48.5 51.9	63.7 58.2	58.0 54.5	61.3 64.0	58.8 47.5Saint John	1961	49.2 61.6	49.4 52.9	52.8 58.5	62.3 55.2	53.9 54.2	50.2 54.2	56.8 57.6	60.9 63.8	73.6 70.2	72.7 69.2	72.7 72.0	69.3 62.2Montreal	Large 1960 1961	42.4 54.2	42.8 52.1	48.5 54.3	58.7 51.2	51.7 51.2	46.9 53.3	53.3 57.5	59.5 60.6	67.6 69.9	69.0 68.9	71.6 71.5	63.6 57.5Medium 1960 1961	38.8 49.2	37.8 46.4	46.1 51.8	57.3 47.8	50.2 46.7	42.9 47.4	48.8 51.3	55.5 52.5	63.4 57.7	57.0 54.8	60.6 64.0	58.1 47.7Toronto	Large 1960 1961	39.7 52.2	39.7 49.1	45.9 52.3	55.9 46.7	48.3 48.5	44.3 50.5	52.5 53.6	56.9 56.7	66.5 65.8	67.3 66.1	69.6 68.7	61.6 54.4Medium 1960 1961	34.8 46.1	36.7 43.9	43.6 51.1	55.2 45.4	47.5 47.6	42.3 48.0	47.7 52.5	53.5 54.2	64.6 58.9	56.3 53.0	58.8 63.4	58.4 48.4Winnipeg	1961	39.3 49.0	37.4 43.2	42.4 47.7	51.8 45.9	47.8 45.6	46.7 46.9	48.6 51.6	50.2 57.8	59.3 58.4	60.6 59.3	61.9 61.5	56.8 49.1Medium 1960 1961	35.4 45.7	33.3 41.4	39.8 45.9	49.7 44.0	46.2 43.8	45.2 45.4	46.9 50.6	48.6 54.8	57.8 52.8	54.6 55.0	56.5 56.3	53.8 44.1Regina	1961	38.6 49.8	35.0 41.1	45.1 44.0	48.3 43.5	44.1 43.1	44.3 45.3	48.4 53.4	51.6 62.5	61.3 61.0	60.1 63.3	61.8 64.8	57.7 54.9Medium 1960 1961	34.4 44.7	31.1 37.8	42.6 41.2	46.0 42.1	41.1	41.5	45.2	49.4	58.9	55.8	54.8 58.0	51.0 48.2Edmonton	1961	37.3 48.1	35.1 41.2	45.3 43.9	49.3 43.9	45.4 42.1	44.8 48.4	49.4 53.9	55.3 58.9	62.3 60.1	59.8 61.8	56.6 61.6	52.7 53.8Medium 1960 1961	33.5 46.9	32.5 40.5	44.8 43.3	49.1 43.5	44.3 42.2	44.0 48.2	49.3 53.0	55.9 59.7	63.3 58.3	57.8 60.0	52.1 58.2	49.3 50.8Vancouver	1961	45.6 54.6	46.1 49.9	48.1 48.7	50.5 50.1	52.1 48.3	51.9 49.1	48.1 52.9	52.3 59.3	55.9 56.2	57.5 57.1	56.8 57.1	56.6 59.6Medium 1960 1961	41.5 52.9	41.1 46.8	45.6 46.4	49.2 47.3	49.9 46.2	49.8 46.8	46.8 48.7	47.2 54.8	49.8 49.8	52.2 51.2	50.9 50.8	51.5 54.6Canada	1961	41.9 53.5	41.2 49.4	47.4 52.2	56.1 49.3	50.0 49.1	46.8 51.0	52.1 55.1	56.7 59.4	65.3 65.4	66.2 65.9	68.0 68.1	62.1 56.7Medium 1960 1961	36.2 46.2	36.0 43.1	44.3 48.3	52.6 44.5	46.2 44.9	42.5 45.9	46.4 50.4	51.7 49.1	60.6 56.0	56.0 53.4	56.7 59.5	55.1 47.9
Questions

Questions


AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION BOARD LOSSES
Mr. Boulanger: What has been the total loss incurred by the agricultural stabilization board for the fiscal year 1960-61 as a result of its operations for each commodity covered by the act?
Answer by: Mr. Charlton: The total cost of operations of the agricultural stabilization board, by commodities, for the fiscal year 1960-1961 is as follows:
Milk for manufacturing $11,432,769
Butter	 2,441,994
Cheese	 269,544
Dry skimmed milk ....	6,669
Eggs	 2,095,528
Fowl	 295
Hogs	 29,243,738
Lambs	 101,134
Wool	 1,253,000
Raspberries	 268,260
Sugar beets	 2,715,765
Soybeans	 867,194
Tomatoes	 36,028
Sunflower seeds	 44,377


IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
Mr. Boulanger: 1.	What is the total import of agricultural products, in value, on an annual basis, for the period of 1961 and 1962?
2.	What is the total export of agricultural products, in value, on an annual basis, for the period of 1961 and 1962?
Answer by: Mr. Morris:
1. Value of imports of agricultural and vegetable products (except chemicals, fibres and wood):
1961	(January to September) $497,361,580
1962	not available
2. Value of exports of agricultural and vegetable products (except chemicals, fibres and wood):
1961	(January to September) $765,400,851
1962	not available


FOWL IMPORTS, 1960-61
Mr. Boulanger: 1.	What quantity of chicken broilers, fowl, turkeys and parts have been imported for the calendar years of 1960 and 1961?
2.	How many permits have been issued for turkey broilers, turkey heavier weight, turkey parts, fowls and fowl parts, and chicken broilers, imported from United States during the calendar years of 1960 and 1961, and what quantity?
Answer by: Mr. Morris:
1. Available statistics on imports of chicken broilers, fowl, turkeys and parts during the calendar years 1960 and 1961 are as follows:
Class	Description
2254	Poultry, n.o.p., and game; quails,
partridges and squabs, dead or alive, n.o.p	
2259	Chickens and fowl, dead or alive
n.o.p	
2003 Poultry, live n.o.p	
2247	Chickens and fowl, eviscerated	
2249 Poultry, eviscerated n.o.p	
2255	Chickens and fowl, dead n.o.p	
2256	Poultry, dead n.o.p	
2260	Turkeys, dead or alive, n.o.p	
2248	Turkeys, eviscerated	
Unit	Calendar	January-	Julyof	Year	June	SeptemberQty.	1960	1961	1961Lb.	1,350,344	523,666	*Lb.	17,550,492	7,901,341	*No.	*	*	150,197Lb.	*	*	1,266,822Lb.	*	*	342,541Lb.	*	*	502,614Lb.	*	*	nilLb.	4,682,777	2,951,889	TLb.	t	t	853,130
^Classes 2254 and 2259 replaced by classes 2003, 2247, 2249, 2255 and 2256 from July 1,
161.
fClass 2260 replaced by class 2248 (and part of class 2003) from July 1, 1961.
2.	In 1960, 77 permits were issued for turkeys for a total quantity of 4,342,642 pounds and 22 permits for turkey parts for a total quantity of 225,439 pounds.
In 1961, 95 permits were issued for turkeys for a total quantity of 5,214,893 pounds. (These figures include one permit for 120,000 pounds of turkeys imported for ships' stores 
and not for domestic consumption). Twelve permits were issued for turkey parts for a total quantity of 66,800 pounds. In the issuing of import permits no distinction is made between turkey broilers and turkey heavier weight. Fowl was removed from import control on May 30, 1958. Chicken broilers were not under import control.

Questions
dairy products imports, 1961	Answer by: Mr. Morris:

Question No. 49-Mr. Boulanger:	1. Yes.
1.	Has Canada imported dairy products during 2. Available statistics on imports ol dairy
the year 1961?	products during the year 1961 are as follows:
2.	If so, what quantity, and from what country? products uu & J
			Unit of	Jan.-Sept.
Class	Description	Country	Quantity	Quantity2280	Milk, skim, powdered 	United States 	. lb.	9,368Total	9,3682281	Milk and cream, fresh 	.United Kingdom 	330Denmark 	48,137United States	3,383Total	51,8502282	.United States 	. lb.	192Total	192.United Kingdom 	. lb.	94,776Austria 	31,286Belgium & Luxembourg	3,635Denmark	2,187,870Finland 	120,233France 	463,120Germany W	166,872Greece	12,123Italy	2,192,796Netherlands 	1,372,648Norway 	17,857Sweden 	4,362Switzerland 	1,565,562Poland 	6,614Yugoslavia 	3,287New Zealand	7,232Argentina 	143,074United States 	1,264,342Total	9,657,6892286	Milk, whole, powdered 	. Switzerland	.. lb.	1,588United States 	55,271Total	56,8592287	Milk products, condensed, evaporated,	dried or powdered, n.o.p	.. Netherlands 	.. lb.	5,768United States 	3,704,014Total	3,709,782
Questions


CANADIAN NET FARM INCOME
Mr. Boulanger: What was the net farm income in Canada in current and constant dollars for each year from 1949 to 1961 inclusive?
Answer by: Mr. Morris:
Net Income of Farm Operators from Farming Operations
Current Dollars, Canada, 1949-1961
1949		1,415,787
1950		1,219,757
1951		1,936,990
1952		1,919,439
1953		1,644,382
1954		1,025,272
1955		1,289,964
1956		1,458,135
1957		1,058,268
1958		1,337,599
1959		1,206,325
1960		 1,358,427
1961		(not available)
Note: Estimates of net farm income not available in constant dollars.


STORAGE STATISTICS, WHEAT, OATS AND BARLEY
Mr. Boulanger: What quantities of wheat, oats, and barley were stored in eastern Canada on December 31, 1961, for food requirements?
Answer by: Mr. Morris:
Stocks in Store, Eastern Elevators,
January 3,	, 1962	
Wheat	Oats	Barleybu.	bu.	bu.Western grain 87,088,383	6,497,030	11,385,291Eastern grain 2,192,728	72,135	U.S. grain 	1,498,499	3,260,298	15,604Total 90,779,610	9,829,463	11,400,895
Note: These data represent only stocks in store in visible or commercial positions with no allowance for stocks stored on farms. Quantities in "storage afloat" are also included. There is no available information as to quantities of these grains which will enter Canadian food channels.


PROVINCIAL AND REGIONAL COUNCILS, PRODUCTIVITY COUNCIL
Mr. Boulanger: 1. How many provincial and regional councils or committees have been established with a view to 
co-operating in the work undertaken by the national productivity council?
2. In which provinces have such committees or councils been established?
Answer by: Mr. Morris:
1.	Thirteen.
2.	I.-Provincial councils established cooperating with the national productivity council.
(a)	Atlantic provinces economic council.
(b)	Newfoundland, Newfoundland research council.
(c)	Nova Scotia, Nova Scotia productivity council.
(d)	Prince Edward Island, resources development council.
(e)	*New Brunswick, unnamed but in the formative stage.
(f)	Quebec, Quebec economic and development council.
(g)	Ontario, economic council.
(h)	Manitoba, provincial productivity council of Manitoba.
(i)	Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan productivity council.
(j)	Alberta, Alberta productivity council.
(k)	*British Columbia, unnamed but in the formative stage.
^Formative stage.
II. Local committees established within the provinces to co-operate with the national productivity council:
Saskatchewan-Regina, Saskatoon, Moose Jaw.
Alberta-Edmonton.


TIBETAN REFUGEES
Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Has the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs received representations regarding the plight of Tibetan refugees in the frontier regions of northern India?
2.	Has the Canadian government been requested to send food or any type of aid to assist these starving refugees?
3.	From whom have representations been received?
4.	What reply has the government made?
5.	If the government has not already done so, will it accede to requests for aid for these starving refugees?
Answer by: Mr. Green:
1, 2, 3. The Prime Minister recently received a letter from Professor George Woodcock, a Canadian temporarily resident in South Asia, concerning the present situation of the Tibetan refugees. Professor Woodcock

asked the Prime Minister to consider whether the Canadian government could provide food for these refugees and air transport for its delivery to them.
4, 5. The Prime Minister replied that the Canadian government was deeply concerned both about the events which led to the flight of the Tibetan refugees and about the trials which the Tibetan people were still undergoing. The government would continue to do whatever it could to alleviate the plight of the Tibetan people by ensuring that world opinion was focused upon this grave problem. In the absence of a formal request from the country of first refuge, however, the United Nations high commissioner for refugees was unable to include the Tibetan refugees in his program. Since special international assistance for these refugees was apparently not being encouraged by the country of residence, the Canadian government would hesitate to recommend to parliament a special appropriation for this purpose.


CANADIAN CONTENT OF AUTOMOBILES AND ENGINES
Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Has the Prime Minister or any member of the government received a request for an investigation into the Canadian content of automobiles and automobile engines manufactured in Canada?
2.	Has the Prime Minister or any member of the government received a resolution requesting the government to take immediate steps to see that Canadian automobile manufacturers adhere to the regulation requiring 60 per cent Canadian content?
3.	Has the government received representations requesting a restriction on the movement of automotive manufacturing equipment already installed in Canadian plants to any other country?
4.	If so, from whom have such representations been received?
5.	Did the Prime Minister reply personally to these representations and, if not, did any one reply on his behalf, and what was the nature of the reply?
Answer by: Mr. Diefenbaker:
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	Local 444, united automobile workers, Windsor, Ontario.
5.	(a) No. (b) Yes. (c) Acknowledgement of representations.


*C.M.H.C. LOANS, QUEBEC
Mr. Pigeon: 1.	How many mortgage loans have been made from 1957 to date by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the province of Quebec, and what is the total amount of such loans?
2.	How many loans have been made in the county of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, and what is the total amount of such loans?


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, the answers to the two parts of this question are as follows:
Inquiries of the Ministry
(1)	Direct loans made by Central Mortgage and
Housing Corporation in the province of Quebec
January 1, 1957 - October 31, 1961 No.	of loans	Amount
21,337	$283,451,000
(2)	Direct loans made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the county of Joliette-
L'Assomption-Montcalm, Quebec
January 1, 1957 - October 31, 1961 No.	of loans	Amount
703	$7,722,000


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Pitman: 1.	In the recent Tocsin B exercise held in Canada, how many bombs were dropped in the simulated attack, and what was the total mega-tonage of these bombs?
2.	How many bombs were of approximately (a) 1-5 megatons (b) 5-10 megatons (c) 10-20 megatons (d) 20-30 megatons (e) 30-40 megatons (f) 40-50 megatons (g) over 50 megatons?
3.	What centres in Canada were supposedly hit by bombs?
4.	What were the estimated casualties in each?
5.	What was the extent of the simulated attack in terms of (a) ICBMs fired (b) ICBMs destroyed before reaching their targets (c) missiles fired from submarines (d) missiles fired from submarines destroyed before reaching their targets (e) bombers attacking (f) bombers destroyed?
6.	What was the estimated effect in terms of immediate fall-out in Canada from bombs and missiles (a) landing in the United States of America (b) landing off target in Canada (because of our defences, etc.)?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
of Canada's trade
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs based upon a reported statement by Mr. Arthur M. Schle-singer, special assistant to the President of the United States, to the effect that Canada's trade with Cuba hurts prospects of democratic reform in Latin America. Has the government any comment to make on this very serious indictment?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, as yet we do not have a full report concerning this statement. If it was made in the terms suggested, it is a most unusual and, I think, improper thing for an official of another country to do.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce regarding the subject referred to by the hon. member for Essex East. In view of the strong pressure

Inquiries of the Ministry being exerted by the United States in favour of a trade ban against Cuba, I wonder whether the minister would inform the house as to Canada's policy with regard to trade with Cuba at this time.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I am sure the hon. member for Assiniboia was in the house-at least I hope so-when at the last session the Prime Minister advised the house on the policy in this regard, namely that we trade with Cuba in the same manner as with any other country with the exception of strategic goods, which we do not ship to that country.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Triniiy-Concepiion):: wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the urgency and the importance of the matter to our fishing industry, will the minister advise the house if and when the government intends taking the necessary action to see that Canada's fishing limits are extended from the present three mile limit to a twelve mile limit?


Howard Charles Green: Any such announcement would be made in the house in due course, Mr. Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. Can he say whether active negotiations are going on at the present time on this subject with any other countries?


Howard Charles Green: I think it would not be beneficial to answer that question at this time, Mr. Speaker.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Beneficial to whom?


Howard Charles Green: To Canada. To whom does the hon. member suppose?


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is he in a position to confirm or deny the reported visit of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom some time in April on the occasion of the Prime Minister's visit to New York? If so, is the Prime Minister in a position to advise the house in a general way of the purpose of this visit or of the discussions which he proposes to have with the British Prime Minister?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: An invitation was extended to the Right Hon. Harold Macmillan to visit Canada either before or after his visit to the United States in the latter part of April. He has accepted the invitation. Naturally there is a great field of matters that might be discussed on an occasion such as that. No agenda has been agreed on or has even been discussed as yet. However, I could think of many matters of interest to Canada, the United Kingdom and the commonwealth which would be subjects of discussion when that visit takes place. Indeed, the meeting together of prime ministers in this way is always extremely beneficial.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has he received a letter from the northwestern Ontario development association protesting against the increase of 20 per cent in Canadian National Railways freight and dock charges on iron ore shipped from Steep Rock to the lakehead? If so, I wonder if the Prime Minister would inform the house whether he is contemplating any action to correct the situation.


John George Diefenbaker: I will take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the Attorney General of Canada informed the attorney general of British Columbia that the federal governor in council has officially approved the archaeological and historic sites protection act, B.C. statutes, 1960, chapter 2?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The answer to the hon. member's question is no, Mr. Speaker; but perhaps it would be agreeable if I amplified the answer somewhat to this effect. Pursuant to the British North America Act, the statutes of British Columbia for the session in question were examined by me and were left to such operation as they may have. The lieutenant governor of British Columbia was so informed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Can the minister assure

the house that this act did not represent any violation of the principles of the bill on human rights?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not think I should be expected to answer that question without notice. My responsibility under the British North America Act relates to the examination to which I have referred. The advice given to the lieutenant governor of British Columbia was that which I have indicated.


Mr. Speaker:: I agree that the question is not in accordance with the practice in that it asks for a legal opinion.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is she considering having any investigation made into the rather serious charges by Indian chief Telford Adams about the condition of the Indians in the lakehead area and to the north, including the charge that they are being ignored by the Indian affairs branch?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Whenever we receive any such complaints, Mr. Speaker, we look into them. However, so far nothing has come to our department on this matter, although I noticed an article in the newspaper.



COLD LAKE, ALBERTA    REPORTED SHORTAGE OF CLOTHING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; I hope notice of it reached her in sufficient time. Can the minister inform the house of the situation at the Cold Lake Indian reserve in Alberta with respect to reports from that area that people there are suffering from a shortage of clothing and other necessities?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The hon. member refers to reports from that area, Mr. Speaker. We have no such reports in the department. However, we have telegraphed to the resident superintendent asking him to report at once. If the hon. member could let us have the source of his information, it might help us to track the matter down more expeditiously.
Inquiries of the Ministry COMBINES



VANCOUVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Can the minister inform the house if the allegations that Woodward Department Stores Limited violated the Combines Investigation Act in its relations with the firm of Hamilton Harvey, both firms in Vancouver, is the reason for officials of Woodwards being called before the combines investigation branch officers?


Edmund Davie Fulton: think I shall be obliged to leave the hon. gentleman to draw his own conclusions, Mr. Speaker.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: In the
absence of the Minister of Public Works I should like to address a question to the acting minister. Has the government received from the house building industry any representations for National Housing Act financing of existing homes. If so, has the government reached any decision on this matter?


Howard Charles Green: We will take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.
(Translation):



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschatelets (Maisonneuve-Rose-mont):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Could the minister tell the house if representations have been made to him by the city of Montreal as regards the development, along the Montreal waterfront, of public recreation grounds? If so, what stage have the talks reached?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the last time the mayor and the chairman of the executive council of Montreal came to Ottawa, I had the opportunity of discussing this problem with them. It was agreed that a resolution in proper

Inquiries of the Ministry form would be sent to me. For my part, I was to ask the officials of the national harbours board to examine the question. That is where the situation stands at the moment. (Text):



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
the Secretary of State for External Affairs if, as a result of the report that the three power nuclear test discussions in Geneva have concluded or are being terminated, this fact will cause the government of Canada to state unequivocally its policy with regard to the possession of nuclear arms in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I have already disallowed questions relating to the government's policy on this important matter. It is obviously a matter of policy, and I think it is not to be expected that it will be dealt with by an oral question on the orders of the day.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not ask what the policy is, Mr. Speaker; I asked whether this fact would cause the government unequivocally to state its policy with regard to the possession of nuclear arms in Canada. There is a rather subtle and extremely important distinction.


Mr. Speaker:: The distinction is too subtle for the Chair.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister say if it is the policy of the Canadian government to equip Canada's armed forces with unarmed missiles?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I think the question provides its own answer and is not worthy of a reply from me.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A supplementary question. I am not asking for a statement of government policy but merely for clarification of existing policy.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Leeds.



ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Ross Matheson: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the government giving serious consideration to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer's handsome offer of the Bounty as a training ship for the Royal Canadian Navy?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, this offer of the Bounty has been looked into by the navy and the implications, financial and otherwise, of accepting the offer are now under consideration.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the Canadian Press report in Saturday's newspapers that the United Nations has requested Canada to send a small team of army officers, presumably French speaking, to the Congo to help to train the central government's army, can the minister assure the house that this request of the United Nations will be met?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, we did receive an inquiry from the United Nations with respect to whether we could supply some 15 French speaking officers, one lieutenant colonel and the bulk of the remainder majors, for training purposes for the Congolese army.
We have been looking into our ability to meet this request. In view of the limited numbers of French speaking officers in the Canadian armed forces, the fact that we already have some 30-odd officers in the Congo at the present time and a considerable number of others in such places as Indo-China and other parts of the world, the fact that these officers would have to be rotated every six months in conformity with our general policy respecting people in such service and the fact that the commitment would continue for several years and would involve a very large number of officers, it is extremely doubtful that we would have the French speaking officers to meet the commitment.


Hazen Robert Argue: The answer is no, I take it. The minister gave a long answer without a conclusion.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Having regard to the answer that the minister has just given, may I ask him what he or his department is doing to increase the number of French speaking officers since there is not the number required?


Douglas Scott Harkness: We have been making considerable efforts, as the hon. member knows, to increase the number of French speaking officers in the army, navy and air force. The military college at St. Jean was set up for

that specific purpose, as the hon. member is also aware, and the number of French speaking cadets entering that college and French speaking officers from other sources who are entering the armed services is increasing.



STATEMENT ON EMPTY ELEVATOR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last the hon. member for Port Arthur inquired about grain stocks at the terminal elevators at the lakehead. I should like to give him the assurance that it is expected these stocks will be replenished by the opening of navigation and they are being continuously replenished by shipments from country elevators. The reason, of course, why stocks are down from last year is the unusually heavy shipments out of the lake-head last fall.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska asked the following question:
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?
It is not quite clear what the hon. member means by this question but if he is referring to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and the western grain producers' acreage payments, I can assure him that only those producers ordinarily or permanently resident in Canada are eligible for assistance.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Chown in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 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.


Mr. Korchinski:: Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to participate in the debate on this particular estimate which will provide $1 an acre to western farmers. Those
Supply-Agriculture
of us who are familiar with the situation in the west know that the farmers had a very short crop. We know that many farmers have not been able to deliver beyond their initial quota. We know that many farmers, having reached the three bushel quota, did not have any more grain or, if they did, they retained it for spring. We also know that there were perhaps a small number of farmers who had a little surplus from other years, but this has rapidly dwindled.
I welcome the opportunity to support this item because it will provide something of a two price system. For years many western farmers have been clamouring for this type of measure and for years the Liberal government at Ottawa refused it. I also welcome the opportunity to support this measure because it will assist those who have not been able to qualify for payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act for various reasons.
I have one objection, however, in that the measure does not cover landlords. On March 17, 1961, while participating in a debate on agriculture, as found in volume 3 of Hansard for that year at page 3111, I outlined what I thought was the solution to this problem, and if the government will take note of it I think we will have that problem solved. With that one reservation I am in complete support of this measure.
No doubt the opposition will holler "peanuts." The circus barker from Assiniboia has referred to this and similar measures as "peanuts" on many occasions. The same cry was picked up by the provincial minister of agriculture. As found in the Star-Phoenix of December 14 last, Mr. Nollet had this to say after the acreage payments had been announced:
Saskatchewan agriculture minister I. C. Nollet said that "every little bit helps" but described the payments as "peanuts" and said farmers were expecting more than received under similar payments previously in light of the "great crop losses" this year.
This is the minister of agriculture who now calls himself C.C.F.-N.D.P. This is the same minister of agriculture who, when the crop was snowed under in 1959 and there was a clamour for $5 per acre, took up that clamour too. When the federal government said, "All right, if you will pay half", he said, "Oh, no". He said, "Cut it down to $3". In addition he put forward some sort of magic sliding scale under which many farmers received only 20 cents an acre.
This is the same minister who cries "peanuts" today and says that a greater amount should be provided. This is the same C.C.F.-N.D.P. minister of agriculture of our great province of Saskatchewan who, when the federal government introduced crop insurance,

Supply-Agriculture
said "No, it will break the province". That cry went up all over the west, and the hon. member for Assiniboia and the C.C.F.-N.D.P., or whatever they call themselves now, took up that same cry; "it will break the province". At the same time they introduced a medical scheme which is going to cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $25 million. This is not supposed to break the province because it is supposed to boost Douglas. This is an acreage scheme to repay the farmer for crop losses, whereas the medical scheme was proposed for their own political gain. Why is there such concern that it will break the province? Surely there must be some way, such as reinsurance, to work out to details of this scheme. Why do they show such concern for the state and none for the individual farmer? Since when has the state become more important than the individual? Apparently in the eyes of the socialists the state must be preserved but the individual can suffer.
The hon. member for Assiniboia referred to the program as peanuts and said it would amount to nothing.


Hazen Robert Argue: You are wrong again.


Stanley James Korchinski: I can tell the hon. member what it will do for my constituency. I have checked and I find I have over 6,000 permit books in my constituency. If we take 1960 as an average, this would mean about $186 per book or something like $35,000 for every community. Now, if you take this $35,000 as the average and apply it against the assessment of my own rural municipality of Invermay, assuming an average mill rate of 60 mills, we find that this $35,000 will go a long way toward paying the taxes of the municipality. There are two communities in this municipality. At $35,000 to each community it represents almost all the taxes paid by the taxpayers. I say that this is not peanuts.
The Liberal spokesman, the hon. member for Essex East, had a lot to say about this program. I should like to quote, for example, what he said as recorded on page 263 of Hansard for January 26, 1962:
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 are 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 agriculture policy.

This speech by the Liberal spokesman reminds me of a little jingle. What he says does not mean anything or, in the words of the jingle, "I planted corn in early spring but it didn't mean a dog-gone thing; what do you think came up in the fall? The crows came up and ate them all."
I have a list of things here to illustrate how wrong the hon. member for Essex East is. Somewhere along the line the hon. member for Assiniboia intervened and said, "What about the one year you did not pay?" I say to the hon. member for Assiniboia, what was he doing all the years he was in the house?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order-


Stanley James Korchinski: He was a C.C.F. member at the time-


Hazen Robert Argue: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman; a question has been asked as to what I was doing. The answer is that I have been prodding, pushing and pleading with the government to give at least a dollar an acre every year.


Stanley James Korchinski: Very well; the hon. member says he has been pushing and prodding and wailing for all these years. I point out, however, that in 1945 there were 28 C.C.F. members in the house; in 1949 there were 13; in 1953, 23; in 1957, 25 and in 1958 after the large group of Conservatives were elected from the west, there were only eight C.C.F. members; but we got our acreage payments.


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes, but I have always been here.


Stanley James Korchinski: It would appear that the effectiveness of the farm support program is in reverse proportion to the number of socialists in the house.


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member just wants a one party dictatorship.


Stanley James Korchinski: I come back to the hon. member for Essex East who at one time sat as a minister on the Liberal front benches. I find that since the introduction of the price stabilization bill and up to March 31, 1961, we have paid out $126 million in support of the farmers across Canada, not for one particular area but for all across Canada. As a matter of fact, the price stabilization measure has been much more effective in the east than in the west, but we are not complaining about that. Under the Liberal regime from 1946 to 1958 there was spent about $100 million. However, about $70 million of that was spent at a time when foot-and-mouth disease was prevalent in the west. In the past few years we have spent something like $126 million, while in

12 years the Liberals spent a grand total of $100 million. However, if it had not been for the catastrophe of foot-and-mouth disease they would have spent only $30 million.
Where was the hon. member for Essex East when the farmers were asking for cash advances?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was working hard for the people of Canada.


Stanley James Korchinski: Where was he when they were asking for crop insurance? Where was he, as a member of the opposition, when we introduced the amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act so that 15 per cent more farmers could benefit? Where was he when the farmers, over the years, asked for the South Saskatchewan dam? It only took a very short time for the Conservatives to provide this dam which will be beneficial to the farmers of Saskatchewan and to the west in general.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise on a point of order. I would simply recall, Mr. Chairman, to your mind that when the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska spoke the other day and sought to deal with agricultural problems in general he was arrested in his steps by the intervention of the Acting Minister of Agriculture. I am sure if that is to be the ruling, then it ought to apply to members on the government side as well as to those on this side.


The Deputy Chairman:: I am sorry, but if I may have the floor for just a minute I would say that my ears were beginning to twinge a bit when I heard a reference to the South Saskatchewan dam. This item has no direct relevance to the vote under discussion. I would ask the hon. member to revert to the estimate under study by the committee and stay within its boundaries.


Stanley James Korchinski: If I may speak to that point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would say that at page 263 of Hansard for January 26, the hon. member for Essex East said that the Prime Minister and his supporters could not claim this particular program was satisfying the promises which were made to hundreds of Canadian western farmers. I am merely replying by showing that we are not claiming this one particular scheme satisfies all those promises. It is in addition to all the other things we have done. I am merely pointing out some of those things in order to refresh the memory of the hon. member for Essex East. If I may rapidly go through some of the other measures-


Paul Joseph James Martin: You may not, if the ruling is to stand. The ruling was made
Supply-Agriculture
against the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska and strictly enforced against me and others who spoke, as a result of the intervention of the Acting Minister of Agriculture. Now, the hon. gentleman is not in a privileged position.


Mr. Smallwood:: If I may speak to this point of order, I would say that at five o'clock on Friday night the hon. member for Essex East was engaged in filibustering this vote. He spoke of nothing but what his leader was going to say, and he broke the rule himself.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: That does not justify your breaking the rule.


Stanley James Korchinski: I recall that one of the
things the hon. member for Essex East spoke about was the European common market. If he can talk about the European common market, television broadcasts and so on, I should be allowed to review some of the things we have done. I want to point out that we had extended P.F.R.A. policy to include many areas that had never been covered previously.


Peter Francis Martin: We might have a clear understanding. When the Chair gives a ruling it must apply to all members. When the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska initiated this discussion last week he was stopped in his steps by the Acting Minister of Agriculture, who was upheld by the Deputy Speaker, then acting as chairman. There was much discussion on the point and we were overwhelmingly resisted in the position we took. Now the hon. gentleman opposite is engaging in the kind of speech for which the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska was taken to task. I have no objection to his continuing his speech, but only on the understanding that we on this side of the house are given the opportunity of carefully examining the government's agricultural policy which is so replete with inaccuracies and weaknesses.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Before allowing any further debate I should like to say that the ruling given by the chairman of the committee was quite correct, and I made subsequent reference to it in holding members of the committee to the item under discussion. Therefore it would not be fair if the hon. member continued his present rather broad discussion on agriculture. I would ask him to come back to a discourse on the item under consideration, which is the provision of acreage payments to farmers in western Canada.


Stanley James Korchinski: In addition to the money that will be recovered by means of these acreage payments there will be other ways by which farmers can get money. One of these

Supply-Agriculture
is due to the fact that for the first time in many years we increased the price of wheat to $1.90, something the opposition would have liked to do, but instead they lost the market. This crop acreage will provide some assistance to those farmers who have a lack of grain. Even though we increased our sales of wheat, farmers without grain can now have some means of support for themselves and their families.
Many farmers could not have obtained assistance from the federal government when we increased the payment for tubercular cattle from $100 to $150 for purebreds and from $40 to $70 for other classes. Farmers need finances at the moment. They have been hard hit by drought. Last fall they were helped by providing fodder and freight assistance and were also helped on that occasion by a well drilling program. In the past they were assisted when crops were snowed under, and at that time we introduced a policy which provided them a measure of relief. Now this year, because of the unique situation in western Canada, they need cash. They have taken full advantage of the increased farm improvement loans, which were raised from $4,000 to $7,500. Some of them have also taken advantage of the improvement in farm credit facilities.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Order.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I am afraid the hon. member is again straying from the vote under consideration, thereby making it difficult for the Chair and other hon. members who are to follow. I would ask him to stay with the point under discussion, or take his seat.


Stanley James Korchinski: I might point out that in the past we have had similar situations. As a farmer I have met many hazards, with no crop insurance. At that time there was a Liberal government in Ottawa and we asked them for help. I can tell you of some other things which happened to me. In 1950 we had frost; in 1951 we were snowed under; in 1953 we were flooded, and in 1954 we had rust.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, the hon. gentleman is ignoring your ruling and he ought to be called to order.


Norman Platt Lambert: "Physician, heal thyself." You are the worst offender in the house.


Mr. Muir (Lisgar):: Speaking to the point of order, I should like to quote from Hansard of January 26, page 270, when during a discussion on a similar point of order with the hon. gentleman from Essex East I said:
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.

The hon. member was then allowed to continue for another page and a half, and nothing he said had any relevance to the business at hand.


Peter Francis Martin: Read the following page and a half.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I say a word on this point of order. I think it is out of order to go back and discuss the situation in 1950, although what the hon. member said is right. The farmers needed more money, but when the hon. member is talking about the very great need of farmers in western Canada to have supplementary income he should relate his remarks periodically to the item under discussion. If he did so I think he would be in order. All he is doing now is showing that the farmers in his riding, in spite of everything he says, are in a very difficult situation and need some help. That, I think, is relevant to the discussion.


Stanley James Korchinski: I should like to thank the hon. member for Assiniboia, but without these interruptions I might eventually have been able to relate my remarks to the item in question. All down the years we have had similar situations. We have come to governments for assistance, but only the present government has provided that assistance.
I should like to quote an article by Peter Stursberg in Saturday Night of February 3, 1962, dealing with a time when the late C. D. Howe was a minister of the crown. He makes reference to a meeting in Manitoba at which the late Mr. Howe told a rancher that he "thought he was eating well under the Liberal regime." These are the answers the Liberals have. All I am saying is that for many years we have had similar conditions, and for many years were deprived of any assistance.
I take pleasure in supporting this item because it seems to me what the member for Essex East and the member for Assiniboia have wanted, was a measure which would provide for deficiency payments. At the time of the request I made a survey of my own constituency as to which plan would be better. Some 95 per cent of the replies I got were in favour of acreage payments. At one meeting I attended, where there were 700 farmers present, I invited them to look at my file. Nobody did so because they knew the replies I got were sent by people who were in favour of acreage payments, by small farmers who needed assistance. I can recall another meeting at Invermay which I was invited to attend, but at which I had to apologize for being late as I had a delegation who needed P.F.A.A. payments. There were a group of farmers from outside the area and I invited them to listen to the meeting which

was pleading for deficiency payments. I pointed out that these were farmers who would have liked to qualify under P.F.A.A., who were certainly in need of some assistance, but who would not have benefited under a deficiency payment scheme.
For the few reasons I have indicated I take great pleasure in supporting this item, because it is certainly not peanuts but will be a great deal of assistance to my constituency.


Mr. Michaud:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few observations on the item now before this committee. At the outset let me assure the committee that I give my unreserved support to the amounts requested by the government for the assistance of western farmers. As has already been stated in the course of this debate, what is good for western farmers is also good for the whole farming population of the country. What is good for the agricultural industry of the country is good for the economy of the country as a whole.
Speaking on the address in reply to the speech from the throne the other day the Prime Minister described in ringing terms the general economy of the farming industry, yet we are faced today with a measure aimed to bringing urgent relief to the largest segment of the agricultural industry of the country, namely the wheat industry. Between these two opposing views one has to make a decision. Is agriculture really on a sound economic basis, as indicated by the Prime Minister, or does agriculture in a general way need to be assisted? For my part I have no hesitation in deciding that farmers are not now enjoying prosperous times and need such assistance as is provided by this measure. However, I feel I must emphasize before this committee that the western farmers are not alone in facing financial difficulties at the present time. What is true of the western farmers is in greater measure true of farmers in the eastern regions.
Let me cite two examples. We are all aware that the dairy industry, which is the main source of income for a great number of eastern farmers particularly, is now beset with very serious circumstances. The Canadian dairy association only a short time ago submitted to the government a measure aimed at bringing relief to this situation. All those concerned with this matter are now aware of the government's refusal to accept those recommendations.
Second, the potato industry is also of great concern to eastern farmers and particularly to New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island farmers. These farmers have to sell their 1961 crop at the present time at a price under the cost of production. Here again, where is
Supp ly-A gricu Iture
the action of the price stabilization board about which the present government and the government supporters are so fond of speaking on every occasion? Has the Prime Minister forgotten his statement on this matter at Summerside, Prince Edward Island, during the 1958 election?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is the hon. member aware that there is a starch diversion program in operation to help the potato industry?


Hervé J. Michaud: Yes, I am aware of that, and I am aware that the price they are receiving under that system is yielding the farmers less than a cent a pound for their potatoes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Very different from what was promised them.


Hervé J. Michaud: Yes. That is why I referred to the stabilization price support board.
It was my privilege to visit Prince Edward Island last November. I can assure the Prime Minister that the words to which I have just referred are very vivid indeed in the minds of the potato producers of that province. Generally speaking it is reported that the net farm income in the maritime provinces during the year 1961 went down 5.8 per cent.
If I may be permitted to relate this situation to the general economic condition of the area, we say that it contributes in no small measure to the acute unemployment situation now existing in the maritime provinces. Faced by such dire circumstances the small farmers particularly are leaving their farms in alarming numbers to seek employment on the labour market, thus enlarging the labour force which is already faced with a lack of employment opportunities. Grave agricultural problems face eastern and maritime farmers at the present time.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. I cannot allow the hon. gentleman to continue, as he has almost from the beginning, on subjects that are completely unrelated to the matter of acreage payments to the farmers of western Canada. I would be doing a disservice to his colleague from Drummond-Arthabaska if I did permit him to continue, and to other members of the committee who wish to speak on this subject and hold narrowly to the point that is up for debate. Accordingly I would ask the hon. gentleman to-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, before you make a ruling on the basis of what the hon. member has said, perhaps I may be permitted to say a word. We have just listened to a speech in which we had a long debate on politics in the province of Saskatchewan, which did not seem to me very directly related to the matter before the committee.

Supply-Agriculture
Surely if the hon. members on the other side of the chamber are able to make these speeches about provincial politics, the hon. member who is seeking equal justice for all farmers in the east and the west should be allowed to continue. After all, what we are being asked to do here affects the taxpayers all over Canada, who are being asked to meet a distress situation, which we are very glad indeed to meet.


An hon. Member:: Where is the point of order?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is surely reasonable for an hon. gentleman who wishes to support this program to say that in supporting it he thinks his constituents should be treated with the same kind of justice. That, as I understand it, is what my hon. friend is seeking to do.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I have no objection to any hon. member by analogy relating a problem of one area of the country to a similar problem in another area of the country which is presently under discussion, but I do not think it would be fair to say I did not rule the previous speaker out of order. I did, on several occasions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was out of the chamber for a little while.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I probably did not do it in a concrete way but by interrupting his contribution to this debate. I am fearful that we could be on the subject of agriculture from now until 1963 if we do not keep fairly narrowly to the point. I would ask the cooperation of the hon. member, because I do not wish to limit his contribution in any way if I can possibly avoid doing so.


Hervé J. Michaud: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Chairman.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You put the chairman in a bad position by your remarks on Friday.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You are the one
who put everybody in a bad position. You are getting the government in wrong all the time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You are completely wrong.


An hon. Member:: You were ruled out of order four times.


Hervé J. Michaud: Mr. Chairman, I was just pointing out these few facts in support of my earlier statement that if western farmers need assistance in their present plight, so do eastern farmers. I hope the government will look upon this situation with the same measure and proportion of fairness when it comes to the conditions existing in the agricultural

field in eastern Canada as it does when it deals with the conditions facing western farmers.
In making these submissions I feel I am not alone. I feel I am also expressing the views of eastern farmer groups and farm organizations which on numerous occasions have expressed the views I have just expressed. Quite understandably, all western members who have spoken on this matter have done so with obvious satisfaction. Let the same opportunities for content be granted to eastern farmers' representatives in this committee by the future action of the present government.
(Translation):


Mr. Dorion:: Mr. Chairman, it will be agreed that as member for an exclusively rural district, it is fitting that I should take part in such a debate to express certain views brought to mind by the item under discussion.
Wheat, as everyone knows, not only in the west but throughout the whole of Canada, is the basis of our agricultural economy, and both the western and the eastern farmers are entitled to a fair and square treatment.
When things go well for the wheat farmers, this is reflected in all provinces and particularly in Ontario and Quebec, where the farmers get their supplies of farm equipment, building materials, hardware and whatever they need for their farm operations. The prosperity of wheat producers is therefore an important factor for the development and success of the Canadian industry as a whole.
At this point, may I remark that in a discussion of this nature, anything liable to rouse the east against the west should, I think, be avoided as much as possible, because nothing would be more biased or unfair than such a course of action.
The other day, and again just now, the hon. member who preceded me seems to have slipped into that failing. The other day, as I said, the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger), spoke in favour of payments to western wheat producers whose crops were seriously damaged by the drought, but, at the same time, he wondered why the eastern provinces should not benefit in the same way when disaster strikes. He gave us as an instance, the hurricane which destroyed buildings and damaged crops last year, in his riding and in some neighbouring districts.
What the hon. member has failed to mention is that when such a disaster occurs,

the provincial government is supposed to carry out a survey of the damage and get in touch with the authorities of the Department of Agriculture. Of course, that depends on whether or not the provincial government itself is willing to ask for help of the federal government.
It seems that in the case to which the hon. member was referring last Friday that procedure was not followed. I presume that if such a course of action had been taken, the authorities of the Department of Agriculture would have been pleased to co-operate with the Quebec provincial authorities as they gladly co-operate with the various governments of the country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There were requests.


Noël Dorion: What is the meaning of
this policy of assistance for western Canada which provides for a payment of approximately $42 million to help our western farmers who have lost 50 per cent of their crop through drought last year?
The policy of assistance for western Canada under discussion at the present time, that is the payment of some $42 million to help our western farmers who nave lost approximately 50 per cent of their crop through drought last year, has been asked for by the various farmers' associations of western Canada, the farmers' union in particular, and it was supported by almost all the other organizations of farmers in the west. Of course, those requests were supported, if not officially at least informally, by the provinces and in particular by Saskatchewan. It seems to me that it is a principle which is quite fair when co-operation between the different levels of government is really sought.
That is how this matter came before the federal government and that is how the producers, in whatever part of the country, should go about it when they seek to benefit from federal legislation.
Eastern provinces also benefit from the assistance given to western farmers, and this is too easily forgotten. Certain sectors of the Canadian economy are examined separately and then, because the over-all picture is overlooked, one gets the impression that one particular region is more favoured than another.
In 1939, an important eastern Canada agricultural conference was held at the Windsor hotel in Montreal.
On that occasion, Mr. Chagnon, who is now assistant deputy minister of agriculture, gave a talk which caused quite a stir and following which a brief was submitted to Mr. Gardiner, who was then minister of agriculture. I had
Supply-Agriculture
the opportunity of reading most of that document which resulted in the implementation of a national policy to encourage the economical distribution of western grain in the east, in order to develop breeding policies for the benefit of eastern farmers.
In my opinion, that policy was excellent. The present government has improved it in order to meet the needs of the eastern areas.
This government has maintained and promoted that policy which dates back to 1942. The subsidy rates were adjusted about two years ago, and that was all to the advantage of the eastern farmers. For example, in the Lake St. John and Chicoutimi areas, these transport subsidies were recently increased by $2 a ton.
On that point, I should like to give credit to the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard) for his fair mindedness. On January 22, he stated:
I should now like to deal with a problem affecting my section of the country, since it has to do with agriculture. We have had a problem, which I submitted to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) -
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could ask the hon. gentleman what he is citing?


Noël Dorion: Mr. Chairman, I am quoting from Hansard at page 2236.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In which debate?


Noël Dorion: The debate on the speech from the throne.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, Mr. Chairman, since you are enforcing the rules impartially I am sure the Secretary of State will wish to be reminded that it is a rule of the house that you cannot quote from another debate in the same session.
(Translation):


An hon. Member:: Are you afraid of the speech delivered by the hon. member for Lapointe?


Mr. Fortin:: There is one sincere hon. member on your side. Let him speak.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not the question. (Text):


Gordon Campbell Chown: I was about to rise when the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate took the floor to caution the minister with respect to the old problem of relevancy and to ask him to hold closely, as other hon. members have endeavoured to do, to a discussion of the acreage payments in western Canada.
(Translation):


Noël Dorion: Mr. Chairman, I believe that in all logic we are perfectly entitled to point out what benefits we derive from assistance

Supply-Agriculture
provided to western farmers, because in Quebec and the other provinces the grain we import is produced in the west. It is precisely for that reason that the hon. member for Lapointe paid tribute to the federal government for having increased the subsidies granted to the farmers for the transportation of their grain from west to east, into the lake St. John district and the Chicoutimi area.
The present government is aware of the fact that eastern farmers need feed grain at competitive and reasonable prices in order to maintain their livestock production. Farmers in Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes in particular can thus adapt their crops on their average size farms to make the best of weather conditions.
We have in the east climate and soil conditions which are suited to the production of grass and hay, but much less suited to grain crops. Our farmers can then concentrate on grass and, taking advantage of grain sold at reasonable prices because transportation is no longer a cost increase factor they can now raise livestock at a reasonable cost. Thus it is that the province of Quebec has been able to build up its hog industry to a point where, in some years, it has produced more than a million head. The maritimes have also increased their hog production considerably and have achieved a very high standard of quality.
(Text):


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order. Again I am finding that the minister is creeping away from the topic under consideration in this item of the estimates. I must ask him to come back to that rather narrow subject or he will have to take his seat.
(Translation):


Noël Dorion: Mr. Chairman, I am trying as much as possible to abide by your ruling. What I want to emphasize-it seems logical to me-is that it is our duty to help wheat growers, western producers, because the prosperity of the agricultural industry in Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes depends on their production and their interprovincial trade.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We all agree on that principle.


Noël Dorion: It is precisely that principle that I remind the house, without giving any details, that those subsidies are proportionate to transportation costs, the latter depending, of course, on distance.

I have here some figures which might be of interest. Those payments represent about $5 per ton in Ontario, $8 per ton in Quebec, not including the advantage for the Chicoutimi area which results from the intervention of the Minister of Agriculture. The payments amount to over $14 per ton in the maritimes.
Subsidies paid on the shipping of western grain to the east since the establishment of that policy, that is in 1942, total about $352 million, a sizeable amount for that national policy which has been beneficial to both eastern and western Canada these past 20 years. From 1941 to 1959, 18,235,000 tons of western grain were shipped to the province of Quebec thanks to those subsidies. Together with the Agricultural Stabilization Act and the orders issued under that act, those subsidies have given excellent results.
I should have liked to give a few examples, but I would not want to be accused of ignoring in any way your ruling.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You have been most successful.


Noël Dorion: Hardly so far.


Jacques Flynn: What a model.


Noël Dorion: I could give one example in the province of Quebec-it is a particular case and concerns the riding of Bellechasse. We bring in grain from the west, and this movement of grain and related subsidies have been most helpful to farmers. As I said earlier, if we add to that the conditions under which the Agricultural Stabilization Act is now being administered and the orders issued thereunder-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Those subsidies are the work of the St. Laurent government, let us not forget it.


Noël Dorion: I do not deny that those subsidies were inaugurated in 1942, and I do not think the hon. member will hold it against us if we try to improve on something worth-while which was done by the previous government. Indeed, that is what the present government has done, in my opinion.


Mr. Pigeon:: Few good things were inherited from the former government.


Noël Dorion: We believe this item will contribute to the greater welfare, not only of the west, but of Canada as a whole.

For quite some time it was feared that there would be overproduction of wheat. For a number of years, it was a very serious problem. I think the Minister of Agriculture dealt with this problem in such a way that, today, we are not only rid of overproduction, but of those surplus stocks, which ultimately resulted in distress for the western farmer himself. Our spectacular sales to Poland, Czechoslovakia and China, have had an extremely favourable result while reducing our grain stocks to reasonable proportions.
Therefore, we need not be afraid-I would say the opposite would be appropriate-of encouraging western producers who are temporarily in a difficult position calling for exceptional short term remedies-and the remedy which the government wants to apply today is of that very nature.
I read recently that by July 31, 1961, our grain exports had reached 353,500,000 bushels without wholly taking into account the new deals made possible by the strenuous effort of the Minister of Agriculture. The estimated quantity for next year would be about the same. Because of the Chinese market, it is expected that Canadian farmers will be sure to sell all their export products.
Mr. Chairman, before closing my remarks, I should like to add that there is a significant project under way, I mean the project advocated by the Prime Minister, which would not only favour the western producers but help them dispose of their stocks-I mean the world food bank.
It will be recalled-
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: I again rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. If we are going to have a debate on the world food bank, surely all hon. members are to be permitted equally to participate in that debate. If my friend the hon. member for Kent, New Brunswick, was expected to obey the rules, surely a minister of the crown and a distinguished member of the bar should also be expected to adhere to the rules laid down by the Chair.
(Translation):


Noël Dorion: I should like to thank the hon. member for being so kind as to give me pointers. I realize one can always use the advice of younger people.
Be that as it may, I simply wished to point out-and I do not intend to open a debate on this point-that we shall have, thanks to the action taken by the Prime Minister, legislation which will be extremely favourable to the farmers. The Prime Minister's action
Supply-Agriculture
will probably see its fulfilment during the Rome convention which is now being prepared.
Mr. Chairman, all this to say that we need feel no concern about our wheat production; that bank will make of western Canada another source of supply to be added to those we already have. So there is nothing to be concerned about voting on this item. I presume that in doing so-and I am not at all straying away from the logic of the rule which has been established and which has been so brilliantly recalled by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill).


Jacques Flynn: As interpreted by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin).


Noël Dorion: In conclusion, all those policies of the government are linked up together and based on a truly national policy-national in its inspiration, in its application, in the good effects which it brings about, not only in western Canada but all over the country. Economically speaking, we are thus being realistic and we are working for the maintenance and progress of Canadian unity.
(Text):


Mr. McMillan:: I am very much in favour of this vote to help the western farmer who has suffered because of the drought. The Acting Minister of Agriculture said the other day that in some areas there had been a complete crop failure and that in other areas there had been a partial failure. I think he went on to say-


Douglas Scott Harkness: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I did not say any such thing. I think the hon. member has reference to somebody else. It may have been the hon. member for Assiniboia, but it was not I who said any such thing.


William Hector McMillan: The minister said that some areas only had approximately a 10 bushel yield.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What I said was that the average yield was 10 bushels odd per acre last year whereas in the previous five years the yield per acre had averaged 19 bushels odd.


William Hector McMillan: I intended to come to that and to put the words of the minister on the record. From what the minister has said I think this indicates that there is a very serious problem in western Canada. I agree that the farmers there need help. I also wish

Supply-Agriculture
to ask the minister one or two questions, and I will be short. Is this part of a comprehensive program for agriculture? In eastern Canada there have been serious losses by farmers who grow beans. I know some farmers who depend on beans for their cash crop. In the three years prior to 1960 they had good crops, but because of weather conditions in those years, because of floods in October when they would normally be harvesting their beans, some suffered a complete loss. Others suffered partial losses. These farmers got no help.
I should like to ask one other question. Will the government give help in respect of partial potato crop losses in the maritimes or partial or complete loss of the apple crop in the maritimes, Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia? Will the government assist the fruit and vegetable growers in case of similar loss? I heard one member from western Canada refer to the fact that much of the money under the winter works program was being spent in eastern Canada and that this would largely offset this vote for the benefit of the farmers of western Canada. I agree that the winter works program helps to relieve the unemployment situation in eastern Canada-


Paul Joseph James Martin: To an extent.


William Hector McMillan: -but it does not help the farmer in eastern Canada who has nothing to sell.
There is one other aspect of this vote about which I should like to inquire. I have read articles in the press indicating that in some parts of western Canada last year the crop was almost normal and, as the minister said, in other areas there was only a partial crop or half a crop.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I did not say that.


Peter Francis Martin: Something like that.


William Hector McMillan: The minister said that in other areas there had been a crop failure.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I said that drought conditions throughout the west as a whole had resulted in little more than half a crop, and that applied all throughout western Canada.


William Hector McMillan: I simply want to ask the minister this question. Is the method that is being used in the distribution of this money fair? Suppose one farmer has almost a normal crop and another fanner has no crop at all. Will they both get the same amount of money and, if so, is that a fair division?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, as far as the
last question is concerned, the $1 an acre goes to everyone who has a permit book,

and it is not directly related to whether he was dried out 10 per cent, 20 per cent or 100 per cent. Those farmers who were dried out are eligible for assistance under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and they have been compensated under that act. The man who had a good crop gets nothing, of course, under that act, whereas the man who had no crop gets the maximum payment permitted under that legislation. Compensation on that basis is being made. The payments are in process of being made at the present time, and I think most of the payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act have already been made.
With respect to the other question concerning help to other parts of Canada, I would point out that very extensive assistance has been provided to farmers, particularly in eastern Canada, under the Agricultural Stabilization Act for a wide variety of products. When I was administering the Agricultural Stabilization Act two or three years ago assistance was being provided under that act with respect to some 20-odd commodities. In Ontario those commodities included soybeans, winter wheat, cherries, sugar beets and a number of others in addition to those which are widespread and general such as hogs, eggs and lambs.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hogs and eggs by means of deficiency payments.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Deficiency payments, which were extremely successful and which got us out of the terrible difficulty into which the previous government had got us with regard to both hogs and eggs.


Mr. Martin (Essex Easl):: The most unsuccessful program we have ever seen.


Douglas Scott Harkness: And, of course, all dairy products have been under support. The great bulk of the payments made under the stabilization act have been made in eastern Canada, of course, because that is where these specialty crops and dairying are concentrated to the greatest extent. As a matter of fact, in one year alone under the stabilization act-


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, this is a very interesting argument but I would point out that the hon. member for Welland is making a speech and has asked questions. The minister is not answering questions but making a speech. He should take his seat, listen to the contribution of the hon. member for Welland, and if the minister still remembers what he is saying now he can repeat it then.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for Welland asked me two questions and took his seat. He looked at me expecting me to answer and I set out to do so. The hon. member for Essex East is following his usual method of trying to prevent anybody on this side of the house saying anything while people on that side of the house should, in his opinion, be able to say anything regardless of the rules of the house or anything else. This is but another demonstration of his constant attempts to interrupt unduly the reasonable and equal flow of debate in the house.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Closure.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I was about to say to the hon. member for Welland that in one year alone we paid out in eastern Canada under the stabilization act an amount at least double the total amount of this vote.


Mr. Pugh:: They would not know anything about that.


Mr. Danforth:: Mr. Chairman, as an eastern farmer I should like to take part in this debate and try to present to the committee some of the feelings of the eastern farmers concerning this payment of $42 million to western farmers. I am inspired to speak this afternoon in part because of the speech made previously by the hon. member for Essex East. In listening to his presentation I did not know whether he was speaking on behalf of the eastern farmers or acting as critic on behalf of the western farmers. I certainly hope he was speaking more for the western farmers. He used words such as "mere handout" and "inadequate payment".


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Harold Warren Danforth: From anything I have heard this is not the feeling of the western farmers, and I certainly wish to say that some of the hon. member's ridiculous statements the other afternoon do not in any way represent the feelings of the eastern farmers. When I say that his statements were ridiculous, that is mild criticism. I point out that he said that the farmers of southwestern Ontario had complained bitterly about the policy of deficiency payments on sugar beets announced by the government a few weeks ago. For the record I should like to read an excerpt from a letter addressed to me from the Ontario sugar beet growers' marketing board. It is dated January 9, 1962, and reads as follows:
I have been requested by Mr. John Van Raay, chairman of this board, to convey ... on behalf of himself, the directors and all Ontario sugar beet growers, sincere appreciation for... efforts in bringing to a head the finalization of a plan for a national sugar beet policy.
Supply-Agriculture
The government should be commended in formulating this plan that protects the Canadian farmer from low world prices-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Your constituents have been up in arms.


Harold Warren Danforth: This is signed by Mr. Campbell, the secretary of the Ontario sugar beet growers' marketing board.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What did Mr. O'Neil say?


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. O'Neil, sir, being a well known adherent of the opposition party is no longer secretary to this board.
If I may continue with this thought a little further, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Essex East referred to the march of 1,000 wheat growers on this capital to make representations to this government. I should like to say that there were 4,000 Ontario sugar beet growers, with millions of dollars in specialized equipment, who made representations to the minister of agriculture of the former government, pleading for help for an industry that was in dire economic peril. What did they get? They certainly got an answer. The then minister of agriculture said, if you cannot afford to grow sugar beets perhaps you should be growing soybeans.
I wish to go on record at this time, Mr. Chairman, as expressing my sincere thanks to the farmers of western Canada, and their representatives in this house, for their 100 per cent co-operation with the Ontario sugar beet growers in their endeavour to provide some help to keep their industry alive. In every instance the support was 100 per cent and was deeply appreciated. It is for this, reason the farmers of eastern Canada want, to go on record today as whole-heartedly supporting the policy of this government which will give the western farmers some relief from these drought conditions.
I should like to say too, that as cattle growers in eastern Canada-this may not seem to have much relevance to deficiency payments but it is directly related-we were seriously concerned, when we learned of the drought condition in the west, that there would be a curtailment of fodder for these cattle. We felt there might be a great panic in the west which would result in the sale of surplus livestock and a slump in the price of cattle. We wish to go on record as saying we appreciate the stamina and courage of those western growers who, with the help of the government, provided the necessary forage to hold these cattle and thus make it possible to stabilize the cattle market, not only in the west but in the east as well. This was important to those of us in the east who raise so many cattle today.

Supply-Agriculture
Now, Mr. Chairman, we eastern farmers today appreciate the fact that no segment of the agriculture industry in Canada can be suffering economic trials without directly affecting the welfare of every Canadian farmer. As a result, we eastern farmers have striven for the last four years to obtain a policy which would aid the economic welfare of farmers in all parts of Canada. This effort has paid dividends because other farmers have aided us in our time of need. With the uncertainty of the elements and the markets, no farmer knows when tragedy is likely to strike. We feel that as a result of the crop insurance policy and other measures being introduced by this government the farmers are at last getting to the point where their welfare is being protected, their standard of living is being raised and they are approaching the parity they so richly deserve.
May I once again, Mr. Chairman, speaking for the eastern farmers, say that we do support these payments to western farmers and that we will do everything we can to see that the welfare of farmers in all parts of Canada is protected. It is only in this fashion that the Canadian agriculture industry can stand on its own two feet. We are not in a position to support the idea that this payment should be made to the western farmers every year, nor do I think the western farmers want it every year. We would hope that they would be in a position, as a result of good weather, good markets and good sales, to stand on their own two feet and take their place along with the rest of us. This is the situation the farmers in the east hope for the farmers in the west.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make this one comment on what has been said by the hon. member for Kent, Ontario. He said he did not want to support this acreage payment every year. Apparently what that means is that whenever it suits the political book of the Prime Minister it should be made, and when it does not then it should not. Apparently this is the reason it was not made last year and it is being made this year.


Harold Warren Danforth: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, that is not what I said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then, too, there was the fact that these cheque writing machines had broken down before Christmas. A feebler excuse for not doing something has never been given by anyone.
What I rose to do, sir, was not to take any particular issue with the hon. member for Kent, Ontario, but to take serious issue with a statement made by the Secretary of State in his intervention in this debate. I trust, sir, I may have the same latitude the Secretary of

State had in order to reply to the point he made. He said that the proper way in which assistance should be given to farmers was to have an application first from the provincial government that something was needed. He sought to make the sophistical argument that this was done in the case of wheat. Of course, nothing of the kind happened at all.
We recall very well when these acreage payments were first made in 1958. The federal government took the initiative itself, but it did not do what was requested by the farmers. It did something quite different and it did it on its own motion. What I am doing in rising to support the point my hon. friend from Kent, New Brunswick made this afternoon to the effect that when this kind of distress arises in any part of Canada amongst any group of farmers, the same policy should be applied.
The fact that this is not being done is, as my hon. friend showed, quite evident. I am thinking particularly of potatoes, and here it is not being done notwithstanding the fact that before the election in 1958 assurances were given that it would be done. I have in my hand a copy of the Charlottetown Guardian for February 28, 1958. I am going to read one short passage to make this point.


Mr. Palletl:: The hon. member for Essex East will probably raise a point of order if you read it.


Peter Francis Martin: I think this is very much in order.


An hon. Member:: That is according to your own standard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister was speaking about potatoes and he said that each year before a crop season began, that is, the first part of April:
You will know the lowest price, based on costs, that the farmer will receive during the year.
That was done for one year, and one year only. Now that policy has been abandoned. Those farmers were not told, as the Secretary of State suggested, that they would have to do anything. They were not told the provincial government would have to make an application before this policy was put into effect. This was the undertaking given by the Prime Minister when he was on the hustings, and it has not been kept. The same kind of treatment is not being accorded to the farmers who live there as is being given the farmers in western Canada.
The Acting Minister of Agriculture, in his reply to my hon. friend from Welland made a very good point, although it was not the point he intended to make. He stated that farmers who had a complete crop failure were

protected under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, and therefore these acreage payments were paid to all farmers, no matter what the state of their crops might be. That, I think is correct, but what it undoubtedly means is that these payments are not being made because of crop failures; they are being made for income maintenance purposes, which is exactly the same as in 1958 when there was no crop failure.
The minister contradicted what was said in the speech from the throne about these payments. If income maintenance is to be provided on this basis, then I for one think it is necessary when you have a crop which, as the acting minister said, was cut in two- from an average of 19 million bushels to an average of 10 million bushels, leaving out the fractions. That is a disaster for the farmers. They are dependant upon a certain level of income. They have all kinds of fixed charges and are faced with a cost price squeeze, as are farmers throughout Canada. Certainly we are very ready indeed to support this measure for what it is, but in doing so, we say that there should be equal treatment for other groups, such as the potato growers and the farmers in my riding.
I admit there are not many farmers in Newfoundland. Agriculture is not of first importance there. In the agricultural areas on the island, and in my constituency particularly, the farmers have suffered very serious drought for two successive years, as a result of which we had enormous losses from forest fires. In the eastern part of the island the farmers suffered greatly. I leave to my hon. friend from Humber-St. George's to say what the situation was on the west coast, but I can tell you that on the eastern side they suffered very seriously because of the lack of rain all summer.
Our policy should be to give equal treatment to all Canadians in whatever parts of the country they live. That there is a real need for this legislation we do not deny. We affirm it. As the hon. member for Essex East said, the relationship of this vote to the need is not all it should be, but for what it is we are prepared to vote for it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think I should correct some of the misconceptions raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate who himself said he was no expert regarding agricultural matters.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not say that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If he did not say it, he should have said it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The only people who know anything about agriculture are
Supply-Agriculture
sitting behind the minister. Nothing is more factual, and no one can question the validity of that argument.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The hon. member for Essex East is trying to prevent me making my reply.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am trying to put you on the right track and I find it very difficult.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The actual situation in regard to potatoes and all other agricultural products is that assistance has been extended. For potatoes alone, proportionate to the number of people engaged in growing them, there has been more assistance extended than there has been to western grain producers.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I put a question to the acting minister?


Douglas Scott Harkness: In addition to that, the year 1960 was one of the best years potato growers had.


An hon. Member:: He would not know anything about that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The year 1959 was also a very good one but during the last year prices came down because of over-supply, primarily in the United States. In order to take a lot of these potatoes off the market and ensure a market for Canadian produced potatoes in Canada, admittedly not at high prices, but not at bad prices, we put a starch diversion program into effect. If the hon. member looked into the matter I believe he would find that the situation of potato growers in the maritimes has been much better since this government took office than it was in the previous five years. The growers there are very much better off than they were when the hon. gentleman's government was in power.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister care to answer a question?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before dealing further with the subject can he tell the house whether or not the undertaking that the prices would be set at the beginning of the season has been implemented-the prices undertaking in the quotation I read from the Prime Minister's statement? Has that been carried out by the present government?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not know what price statement was made, but I certainly do not think what the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate said was the statement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I read it from the newspaper.

Supply-Agriculture


Douglas Scott Harkness: The other matter the hon. gentleman mentioned should be dealt with. He tried to make some argument to the effect that I had contradicted what was said in the speech from the throne because I had mentioned cases of people who had no crop at all. What the hon. member for Welland was talking about was their getting assistance under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act but, as indicated in the speech from the throne and as I myself indicated when introducing this estimate, the payment of $1 per acre is designed to improve the general income position of farmers in western Canada because they have only been able to produce a crop which is a little more than half their average yield production for the previous five years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is what I said.


Douglas Scott Harkness: And it is also designed to provide something for them in the nature of what you might call fair prices, so far as wheat used for domestic human consumption is concerned. Those two elements are involved and the fact that people who have no crop at all, or a very small crop, can receive assistance under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is no contradiction whatsoever.


Mr. Rogers:: At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I should like to assure you that I will keep in order. After listening to the debate, and the interjections made last Friday and today, I am afraid this vote will not be approved in time for those producers who wish to use it to assist them in purchasing seed. Representing a basically agricultural district where for the most part our general economy is dependant on the prosperity of our farmers I think I would be remiss if I did not commend the government for its decision to pay these acreage payments again. At first glance this may appear to be a subject that is solely of interest to the farmers. However, all of us are affected by the state of our agricultural industry and as taxpayers we are really partners in any government sponsored activity that will improve the prospects of our agricultural community. As a consequence these payments will be welcomed by all segments of our community.
By and large, if our farmers are prosperous, our general economy is buoyant. This is certainly true in western Canada, and for that matter it is true throughout the whole dominion. Let us make no mistake. Canadian growers are in what I would call an unique position inasmuch as the price of grain is largely governed by export. This has been particularly true throughout the surplus years. In other words, I think it should be abundantly clear that the prices obtained by our producers have no relation whatever to production costs.

I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that these payments will not only cover a large area but will be distributed at the grass roots level, will be appreciated by all farmers and have a beneficial impact upon the prosperity of our general economy.
According to the figures given by the Acting Minister of Agriculture this should mean about $13 millions spread among some
79,000	farmers in Alberta. To support what I have just said, hon. members may have noticed the press last year when there was supposed to be a real drought in western Canada. I refer to the eastern press. They were lamenting all the time how it would affect the general economy, that is, machinery and other services. I think that when the government does make these payments sometimes the press are inclined to say that the farmer should stand on his own feet.
I maintain that the farmer does stand on his own feet and this is an attempt by the government to make a payment to the producer for the amount of wheat we consume in Canada. Therefore it is certainly no handout and I for one think this system should be followed year by year. It is the fairest way to spread it and I think it should be carried on until we solve the problems of agriculture.


Mr. Slefanson:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to speak in support of the agricultural supplementary estimate, item 611, acreage payments to western grain producers which is now before the committee, I will be very brief. As the member for that area in Manitoba known as the interlake district, where the majority of farmers are considered small farmers, I can say without hesitation that the acreage payments will be welcomed by farmers from that area.
Last summer was the hottest and driest on record in Manitoba. With a combination of those two factors it is a miracle that any crop was harvested. However, the figures given last Friday by the Acting Minister of Agriculture, that the wheat crop for the prairie provinces for 1961 was slightly more than 50 per cent of the average for the past five years, hold true for the area I have mentioned.
The crop, although small, was of good grade and weight. This helped slightly to ease the burden. Many areas in the Selkirk constituency qualified for Prairie Farm Assistance Act payments. These P.F.A.A. payments, and now the acreage payments, will be of great assistance to supplement the income of farmers who have been hard hit due to drought conditions. I am sure they are convinced this is the fairest way of assisting and supplementing their income.

Those farmers do not consider the acreage payments as peanuts, as they have often been referred to in the house. Although the individual payment is small, the over-all payment is substantial. It is a real shot in the arm to the economy as a whole. Just about every community in the riding I represent will benefit from the acreage payment.
Opposition members who have spoken today indicated at the beginning that they were supporting the measure before the committee. When the hon. member for Drum-mond-Arthabaska spoke last Friday-I understand he is the official agriculture critic for the Liberal party, and I take it now for the new Liberal party-he showed a lack of knowledge and understanding when he referred to the acreage payments as a gift and straight charity. The hon. member for Essex East-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. gentleman be good enough to repeat what he has just said about something I was supposed to have said.


An hon. Member:: No, the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I see. I think the hon. member will agree that the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska corrected that. The hon. gentleman was speaking in a language different from that of the hon. gentleman who is now speaking, and it was not because he did not know what he was talking about-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Peter Francis Martin: -because the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska is one of the most knowledgeable men on this subject in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: You are just jealous because the hon. member referred to him instead of you as the agriculture expert.


Eric Stefanson: I thank the hon. member for assisting, but I followed the translation on Friday as the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska was speaking. The hon. member for Essex East followed him and-


An hon. Member:: -said nothing.


Eric Stefanson: Yes. He put on quite a show. This great orator, the hon. member for Essex East, was sent on a pilgrimage out west this month. He spoke at a meeting in Winnipeg, a meeting to revive the Liberal party. He spoke to that group on Friday night and reports in the Winnipeg Tribune said he kept the audience rolling with 26207-1-21J
Provision for National Flag and Anthem laughter. It no doubt was a similar speech to the one he gave in this committee on Friday.
Do you know how much the hon. member inspired that group? When they were scheduled to meet the next morning, at the appointed hour not a single delegate was present. One hour after the scheduled starting time the chairman had rounded up two dozen.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is wholly inaccurate.
The Depuly Chairman: Order. I think this
might be a good point at which to report to Mr. Speaker.
It being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions.



FLAGS OF CANADA


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That a special joint committee of both houses of parliament be appointed to consider ways and means of giving Canada a distinctive flag and an official national anthem:
That, notwithstanding standing order 67, the said committee, on the part of this house, shall consist of 25 members, to be named at a later date, and that the quorum shall be as ordered by the said committee;
That the said committee be empowered to hear in this connection the views of Canadian organizations, public bodies and private citizens, to send for persons, papers and records; to sit while the house is sitting; to report from time to time; and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by it and that standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting their honours to unite with this house for the above purpose and, if the Senate deems advisable, to appoint some of its members to act on the said committee.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to read the following motion to the house.
That a special joint committee of both houses of parliament be appointed to consider ways and means of giving Canada a distinctive flag and an official national anthem;
That, notwithstanding standing order 67, the said committee, on the part of this house, shall consist of 25 members to be named at a later date and that the quorum shall be as ordered by the said committee;
That the said committee be empowered to hear, in this connection, the views of Canadian organizations, public bodies and private citizens; to send
320	HOUSE OF
Provision for National Flag and Anthem for persons, papers and records; to sit while the house is sitting; to report from time to time; and to print such papers and evidence from day to day, as may be ordered by it and that standing order 66 be suspended in relation thereto; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting their honours to unite with the house for the above purpose and, if the Senate deems advisable, to appoint some of its members to act on the said committee.
Mr. Speaker, needless to say that the great majority of Canadians are in favour of a distinctive national flag as well as a national anthem.
It would be interesting, if that motion is agreed upon, if various organizations across the country appeared before this committee; for instance, this committee could call the premiers of the various provinces which comprise the Canadian nation.
It would be interesting to hear Mr. Smallwood's opinion on what he understands to be a "distinctive national flag" as well as Mr. Bennett's, from British Columbia, and that of other premiers.
Mr. Speaker, need I remind you that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, on many occasions, during its conventions, unanimously passed a motion requesting the adoption of a distinctive national flag.
The Knights of Columbus of Canada have also adopted a similar resolution.
The Catholic and national unions, and particularly those of Joliette, have already submitted to me a brief asking that I request in the house the adoption of a national flag, and of the national anthem "O Canada".
The National Federation of Canadian University Students, at its 25th convention held in Kingston, also adopted a resolution requesting a Canadian national flag and a Canadian national anthem, that is, "O Canada". That resolution was introduced by the students of St. Joseph University of Moncton.
The national federation of university students represents 37 Canadian universities and
50,000	students.
The National Youth Movement, affiliated with the Native Sons of Canada, has also requested the adoption of a Canadian flag, white and red with a green maple leaf, and the song "O Canada" as national anthem in all provinces. I believe that the very great majority of Canadians are in favour of the adoption of an exclusively Canadian flag.
On August 5, 1960, the members of the National Youth Movement made a survey at the intersection of Northcote and Queen streets, in Toronto. Here is the result: 74 per


cent of those questioned want an entirely Canadian flag on which the maple leaf would be the main pattern; 21 per cent want a flag with the Union Jack; 1 per cent want the stars and stripes of the United States; and 4 per cent are undecided.
It is a fact that "O Canada" is being heard more and more in Canadian official ceremonies. We know the precedent established at the time of the royal visit, on July 1, 1959, when "O Canada" was played for the first time on the occasion of the march past on Parliament hill. "O Canada" was also played before the Governor General, Mr. Vanier, while he inspected his personal guard for the first time. It is almost never forgotten now, because protests would be immediate. It is a sign of the times.
"O Canada" is a national anthem.
"O Canada" is a truly national anthem for our country. Its words tell the history of our country, with its vast expanses of lakes, prairies, cities, mountains and farms. Never has this song failed to kindle a burning flame of love and pride for our country. For many newcomers to our shores, "O Canada" will be inspiring and will strengthen that spirit of Canadianism which will make them love their new country.
"God Save the Queen" originated in England in the 18th century, amid partisan strife having nothing to do with Canadian traditions. That hymn is waning in the Canadian west, as all those who listened to the 1958 football finals broadcast were able to realize. Our anthem, "O Canada", with its title and words, is a recognition of Canada as an independent nation, freely and willingly associated with the British commonwealth. It is high time for sleep-walkers in our midst to wake up and accept the facts of 1962.
In 1959, the Canadian institute of public opinion was carrying out a poll among Canadians with regard to the choice of a national anthem. The question was put in this way:
These are the titles of four patriotic songs. According to you, which would be most suitable as our national anthem?
O Canada	 67 per cent
God Save the Queen	 20 per cent
The Maple Leaf	 11 per cent
Rule Britannia	 1 per cent
No answer	 1 per cent
This survey took place in 1959, and I am certain that if it were repeated in 1962, the 1959 choice would certainly carry more than 90 per cent of the votes.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) ask for a distinctive national flag. First of all, it would be interesting to know what he means by distinctive, because the Liberals themselves are much divided on that point.
As a matter of fact, there is no need to recall what happened at a certain convention of the Young Liberal Federation of Canada. Referring to Le Devoir of September 28, 1959, I might say that the young Liberals of Canada were divided. I shall now quote that paper:
A Winnipeg delegate, Mr. Allan Barry, said that those who are opposed to the fleur-de-lis and to the union jack have no great Canadian feeling. Those who stand for a positive Canadianism are broadminded enough to recognize the contribution made by France and England to the development of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, need I remind you that order in council 5888 was adopted on Wednesday, September 5, 1945, by the former government. Let me read you a few extracts:
It is desirable to authorize the flying of the Canadian red ensign on federal government buildings and to remove any doubt as to the propriety of flying the Canadian red ensign wherever place or occasion may make it desirable to fly a distinctive Canadian flag.
Therefore, His Excellency the Governor General in council, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, is pleased to order and doth hereby order that the red ensign with the shield of the coat of arms of Canada in the fly may be flown from buildings owned or occupied by the federal government within and without Canada.
His Excellency in council, on the same recommendation, is further pleased to declare and doth hereby declare that it shall be appropriate to fly the Canadian red ensign within and without Canada wherever place or occasion may make it desirable to fly a distinctive Canadian flag.
Mr. Speaker, that order in council was issued in 1945 under Mackenzie King's government. Who was a member of the cabinet at that time? None other than the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) who, in 1945, could easily have got up and asked that a truly distinctive flag be adopted contrary to the above-mentioned order in council. The hon. member for Laurier is not the same man today, he is altogether different. Does that mean that he has changed his mind since he has become a member of the opposition?
Must I also remind you of the article which appeared in the newspaper Le Devoir on March 7, 1958? That article was written after the election campaign of 1958 at a time when Mr. Pearson was going from one end of the country to the other, saying one thing in the English speaking provinces and another in Quebec.
Provision for National Flag and Anthem


Mr. Dupuis:: That is untrue.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Here is what the newspaper said:
Mr. Pearson's statement on the necessity of a national flag got a favourable reaction in the capital. However, it was noted that in his interview with the students at the Montreal reform club, the Liberal leader was careful to add: "Perhaps discussions should be held to determine whether or not the union jack should be included in the flag". A Conservative noted for his nationalistic sympathies, made the following comment: "Mr. Pearson is giving, in Quebec, assurances to a certain well-known English speaking group-
Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) to remain in the house if possible, because I would be very happy to hear what he has to say about this question of a distinctive national flag, to find out what he means by a distinctive national flag. It seems to me that the question we are now discussing is of such importance that he should not leave the house, but that, on the contrary, he should tell us what he understands by distinctive. I think he is showing a lack of courage, and I will continue:
-A Conservative noted for his nationalistic sympathies, made the following comment:	Mr. Pearson is giving, in Quebec, assurances to a certain well-known English speaking group. That is to say, he supports (or at least does not squarely come out against) the avowed opinion of Jack Pickersgill and James Sinclair in this matter. This is not what the people of Quebec had expected, steadfastly dedicated to the adoption of a distinctive national flag, one without any trace of subservience to any other country. A Liberal said to us: "H Mr. Pearson came out in favour of the union jack on our national flag, he should have remained silent. This will do more harm than good to the Quebec Liberals."
Mr. Speaker, today the Leader of the Opposition is again favouring a distinctive national flag, but I would like him to be here in this house to tell us what he means by "distinctive", to hear him say whether he still holds the same opinions he had a few years ago, that is to say in 1958. It is really unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition, who toured the province of Quebec lately and supported the idea of a distinctive national flag, should not be here to tell us what he means by "distinctive". He did not go out of the house as the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) did. He simply is not here.
It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, because we know to what extent the Liberal party has completely transformed itself since it has been in the opposition, and that it is now in favour of a distinctive national flag.
I do hope, Mr. Speaker, that this motion will be passed, so that this committee of
322	HOUSE OF
Provision for National Flag and Anthem both houses may be set up as soon as possible, in order that the outstanding personalities of the Canadian nation may be heard with a view to adopting as early as possible a distinctive national flag and a national anthem, that is to say "O Canada".


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to participate in this debate on the adoption of a flag and a national anthem, but following the unfounded statements of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), I think it is the duty of the member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville to clear up a few points.
If the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm had merely introduced his motion in the house, I would have supported him immediately. There was nothing to add to what he said. We also, on this side of the house, are in favour of the setting up of a joint committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons. On that count, I support the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm, as all my colleagues will, if the question is put before six o'clock; but I rather think he is going to be disappointed, because we on this side of the house will not kill time. But, if the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm will consider the time he consumed to talk out this measure, he will know with whom the fault will lie for his failure.
I took the floor to say that if the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm hadl simply introduced his motion, he would have helped his cause, but the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is unable to be objective, and once more, in introducing a motion asking the house to set up a joint committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons, he harked upon old sentimental stories and indulged in petty politics, to which we have become accustomed since he has been sitting in this house.
Mr. Speaker, when I hear the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm asking us where is the Leader of the Opposition at this time, I am inclined to retort: where is the Prime Minister at this time?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Will the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville not tell us why Mr. Martin has left?


Yvon Dupuis: I have listened to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm and I hope he will show me the same courtesy. I would ask him where the Prime Minister is at this moment. If the hon. member criticizes the Leader of the Opposition for having stated that he is in favour of a distinctive flag without specifying what kind of distinctive flag he had in mind, then I will tell him that


I would rather have a man who declares himself in favour of a distinctive flag than one who makes statements like those which the Prime Minister made last week concerning the flag before the Ontario Conservative Women's Association, to discredit the sacred cause of the flag in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I regret that I should have to make this statement, because the more these old refrains are brought up in the house, the more it will harm the cause of the flag.
Instead of asking where the Leader of the Opposition is, this man who has the courage to express his opinions, instead of suggesting that the Leader of the Opposition blows hot in Quebec and cold in Vancouver, when he knows that that is entirely false, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm should be objective and ask his colleagues to introduce a motion for the establishment of a joint committee of both houses of parliament and we will vote in favour of it.
Mr. Speaker, we have had enough of those attempts to make the Prime Minister appear as being in favour of a distinctive flag, when we know that he has raised the racial issue last week. Before I resume my seat, I should like to read again the comments made by Mr. Clement Brown, a newspaperman of Le Devoir who is a friend of the Conservatives, and which appeared in the issue of January 23, 1962:
Even the old guard of the Conservative party is baffled by the Prime Minister's Intervention and the Quebec wing of the party admits that its leader has placed himself in an unpleasant situation from which he will have to pull himself promptly by expressing his views more clearly.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will have to be more specific, because he has left certain doubts in the mind of the Canadian nation. He has tried to lead an underhanded fight against the Leader of the Opposition about a cause too sacred to be dragged into the game of politics, the cause for a national flag.
Mr. Speaker, I will say to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, instead of his own motion today, which is certain to die a slow death through the lengthy speeches of his colleagues, why did my hon. friend's Conservative party refuse to state in the speech from the throne its intention of giving Canada a distinctive national flag or of establishing a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate to study such a measure. I ask him that question. He does not answer because he does not want to speak openly and also because there is a deep rift on this question

Provision for National Flag and Anthem
within the Conservative party. And it you want to talk politics-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: If the hon. member will allow me-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Yvon Dupuis: In the first place, you should not say "sit down", if you are polite. If you want the floor, I will relinquish it to you with pleasure.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: If my very dear friend will let me speak.
In the first place, Mr. Speaker, the member refers to the future without knowing anything concerning the Conservative party. Our party has always worked towards national unity.


Yvon Dupuis: Do you have a question to ask?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Here is what I should like to know. May we assume that the hon. member for Essex East has gone out, that he is not here, because he was afraid to express his opinion on this matter?


Yvon Dupuis: Is your question related to the matter under discussion?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I had a question, I asked it.


Yvon Dupuis: If you have no other question to ask, do not waste the time of the house, because you will "kill" your measure.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for the vote as soon as possible in order that this question be settled, that a joint committee of the Senate and the house be appointed in that connection and that we stop playing politics about such a sacred matter.


An hon. Member:: You were in power for 22 years and you did not do anything about that matter.


Yvon Dupuis: Another polite gentleman, the hon. member for Montmagny.
(Text):


Hazen Robert Argue: I am pleased at this time, Mr. Speaker, to support the motion asking for the setting up of a special joint committee to consider ways and means of giving Canada a distinctive flag and an official national anthem. The policy of the C.C.F. movement over the years in this field is well known and has been consistently in support of a distinctive flag in Canada and an official national anthem.
I think it is time that we brought this about. I believe our nation is ready to support a distinctive flag and an official national anthem and I believe support of this kind will flow from all parts of the country.
The government has made the boast many, many times that it is a government of action,
a government that believes in getting things done. In relation to these particular questions, this government has been one of inaction, of indecision. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think there is evidence that the government is opposed to this kind of move and not only will it do nothing to support either of these proposals but it will in fact make certain that nothing is done in the near future to bring about a distinctive flag and an official national anthem.
I am certain that the hon. member who has moved this motion is sincere in wishing to have for our country a distinctive flag and an official national anthem.


Mr. Lennard:: We have got one.


Hazen Robert Argue: At the very best this motion can be passed by the house and action taken to set up a committee to study these questions and to report to the house at some time. That is the very best that could happen. But I think hon. members in all parties will agree that this is not likely to happen, that even if this motion should be passed by the house and even if a committee is set up an election will likely overtake the work of the committee and therefore the best that can be obtained in fact is mere discussion and consideration and no final action in the present parliament.
From our point of view the worst thing that can happen is for this motion to be talked out. This is a private member's motion. We have until six o'clock to debate it. If it is not carried it will go to the bottom of the order paper and for all practical purposes the motion will be dead for this session. I think all members in all parties would be wise to pass this motion. In my opinion it would be a great mistake for any hon. member to take the responsibility of speaking on this motion until six o'clock and preventing the house from taking a decision on it and passing it, I would hope, so that at least this limited action in this field might be taken.
I suggest that if the Conservative party, one member of which has put this motion on the order paper, should talk it out it will demonstrate to people in all parts of Canada that it is phony, that it does not mean anything. Instead of action being taken following this motion to lead to these very laudable objectives, the motion will have done nothing to bring this about. I suggest that if the motion is talked out this will demonstrate that the people involved, the person who talks it out and the party of which he is a member, are taking very effective action-


Mr. Churchill:: What are you talking for then?
324	HOUSE OF
Provision for National Flag and Anthem


Hazen Robert Argue: -to kill the proposal and to make it impossible for any action to be taken.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You insist on speaking but you do not want others to speak.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think it is a well known practice of the house that each party has the opportunity, yes, the obligation, to make its position clear to the nation and to place its position on the record. Our position is in support of this very limited action, and we call on the Conservative members, Liberal members and our members to allow the House of Commons to make a decision on this question this afternoon.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: I wonder whether I could ask the hon. member who has just taken his seat a question. Is it correct, as stated in the press, that at the organization meeting of the New Democratic party no national anthem of any kind was sung at any time?


Gordon Minto Churchill: And no flags were flown.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not know what my hon. friend read in the newspapers.
(Translation):


Mr. V. F. Dubois (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, the question of a national flag for this country has been raised for a great many years in this House of Commons. Various designs have been suggested, but for the Canadian people there is only one flag which should prevail, and that is a distinctive national flag.
Today, Canada is composed of citizens of different origins who came here to find a better way of life and a new land. Those people of various cultures wanted to adjust themselves to the way of life of the Canadian people, of the founders of this nation. Consequently, if we want to be fair to all those people of different national origins, we must offer them an emblem which is entirely distinctive, and which has no connection with any other country.
The motion of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) is very well founded and we should support it on its merit, because it specifically advocates that our national flag should be really distinctive.
Today, we know that this country, because of an amendment to the Statute of Westminster passed on December 11, 1931, enjoys its full independence, as, from then on, it had the advantage of its own court of final appeal. Formerly, cases of some importance could be heard by the privy council in London. But today, all our cases are settled in Canada, without going overseas.
Moreover, it is the Canadian government's responsibility to appoint the Governor General,


chosen from among the most distinguished men in Canada.
We have ambassadors and consuls in a great many countries. We have our representatives at the United Nations, and we know that on September 26, 1960, the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker) made one of those speeches-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: You are killing time, friend.


V. Florent Dubois: -the like of which never had been heard at the general assembly of the United Nations.


An hon. Member:: You should ask Mr. Smallwood's opinion.


V. Florent Dubois: There are also those Canadians who shared the horrors of the two wars of 1914-18 and 1939-45. Our soldiers, though they distinguished themselves on every battlefield, never were able to get a flag to represent them. And, when one of them was unfortunate enough to lose his life there, to give his life for his own people, he was buried wrapped in a foreign country's flag.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) should have his say.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am here.


V. Florent Dubois: We also know-


An hon. Member:: Where is the Prime Minister?


V. Florent Dubois: -that this country is entitled to a national anthem.
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order; we can only attend to one debate at a time. If the hon. members who are having a private debate would like to adjourn to the lobby, I am sure it would not disturb the rest of the house.
(Translation):


V. Florent Dubois: Every independent country, Mr. Speaker, is proud to have its own national anthem, which celebrates the feats of arms of its history or recalls the basis for its development.
We know that at present the anthem "O Canada" is readily accepted by all elements of the Canadian people. We had the honour of singing it here in this house, and, with our voices united, we were not afraid to sing it to the Canadian people.
When our athletes go to the United States, the anthem "O Canada" is played before the start of a hockey game or some other kind of competition.
Mr. Speaker, for all those reasons, and many others I could list, I strongly support this motion of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.

Provision for National Flag and Anthem


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I have just one remark to make, Mr. Speaker.
With all due respect to the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Dubois), he has unduly delayed an extremely important vote we wish to take.
We are in favour of this measure. The Liberal leader and the N.D.P. leader have already expressed their views in favour of the motion. Let us have the question. It is late, it is 5.35 already.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. We would like to know the views of the member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), so that we may know what he means by "distinctive".
(Text):


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I am sorry but the hon. member for Essex East cannot be recognized at this time to answer a question. The hon. member will have the opportunity to speak in due course. Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonlon-Sirathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I was greatly interested in the speech by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue). I have heard the same speech, of course, on many other occasions when a private bill has been debated in the house. It is typical of the tactics he employs to take the opportunity and use part of the available time for purely political purposes. He informs the house how serious such a measure as this is, how important it is to the country as a whole that the measure be passed, what rascals we all are if we dare to talk about the subject, and then tells us we should vote on it quickly once he has made his usual political speech. I am not one of those who believe that this speech the hon. member makes is going to fool anyone in the country. If he would recognize that the people of this country who are adult enough to appreciate a flag or a national anthem are adult enough to be wise to this sort of tactic, especially after it has been used this length of time, the hon. member would not waste so much time. However, I do not want to fall into the hon. member's habit and talk only about the political aspects of the measure before us.
I believe that a lot of serious consideration must be given to the question of a flag or a national anthem, and much serious consideration must be given to the manner in which a flag shall be chosen. I suggest that when we are considering the question of whether or not this country should have a distinctive 26207-1-22
flag, we should reflect for a while on some of the more important uses of that flag. Certainly, those of us who have been in a foreign country, especially if you have difficulty speaking the language or you run a little short of money and do not know where there is a bank or where to turn for help, know how advantageous it is to spot a flag that is a distinctive symbol of home. I would suggest that one of the most important uses of the flag is to mark a little bit of Canadian soil, a friend from Canada, whether it is a ship or anything else. It is a way of letting it be known that here is a Canadian, here is a little bit of Canada or someone who is a friend of Canada's.
Many people, of course, would like to have a flag flying in their own home as a daily reminder of their Canadian citizenship. Many people would like to have the flag in the classroom or would like to start classes by the singing of the national anthem as a sort of reminder that we are an independent, sovereign nation. Certainly, the fact that Canada is not a colony cannot be emphasized too strongly in some parts of the world; we are a free, independent and sovereign nation.
If we had our own flag it would serve as a reminder that Canada is a distinct entity. I should like to caution some of those members who are most worried about the subject that there is more than the spirit of nationalism to be considered. Certainly, we are all proud of being Canadians and we would like to display some symbol to show our national unity, our national sovereignty. However, it is a question right now of just what that symbol should be and how we should arrive at it. I am suggesting that there are more important considerations to be borne in mind. Canada is growing in stature and has always been a most complex nation in terms of national background and the heritage of the people who make up this country. The flag has the purpose of drawing us together, to help give us national unity, to help make us a national entity. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, it is most difficult at this stage of the development and growth of this country to clearly define that national entity.
If it is as difficult to define a Canadian as I feel it is, then how much more complex and difficult is it to find a symbol that will show to the world what "Canadian" means, a symbol that will satisfy all people in this country, or at least the vast majority of them?
I suggest that being a true Canadian, a distinctive Canadian, means at least a dozen different things in our country at the present time. There is one large group, the French Canadian group, which feels that the true Canadian spirit is the spirit of the French
326	HOUSE OF
Provision for National Flag and Anthem Canadian habitant. He has been in the country a long time. He has a great pride in Canada and has a burning desire to have it recognized that the French Canadian spirit is certainly as patriotic as any there is. To him it is not a French spirit; it is a Canadian spirit and he feels very strongly that it is the true Canadian spirit.
However, we do have a great many citizens from the British commonwealth, people who are firmly attached to the cultural heritage they have gained from Great Britain, and they feel that any spirit which does not recognize the heritage of that country, which does not recognize the historical ties and development links which we have with Great Britain, could not be truly Canadian. They can point with considerable force and intelligence to the fact that we in this house are enjoying a parliamentary system of government, that our rules, our elections and everything connected with our form of government are of direct descent from the British parliamentary system. It would seem there is much weight in the argument that anything which has become so truly Canadian as our parliament-


Mr, Deschatelets:: Would my hon. friend permit a question?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Yes.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Does he realize that if he speaks until six o'clock he will kill this bill?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: In answer to the hon. member's question I thought I made it clear at the start that the matter of speaking on this and having a vote on it tonight has been in my mind. I assure the hon. member that if he is patient and listens to me to the end I can give good and cogent reasons-as I thought I had been giving during the course of the debate-why we are not prepared at present to choose a flag. No matter how trying it may be for him, if the hon. member will do me the courtesy of listening he will find this is the sum and substance of my remarks. In fact 1 have been dealing almost exclusively with that point, that we are not ready to choose a flag today.
Before the interruption I was dealing with our parliamentary system. I think we can call it truly Canadian and yet, because of its parentage, its direct descent from the British parliamentary system, we can also agree to some extent with those who say "Well, this is British". We have also inherited our system of common law from Great Britain and there is hardly any person in Canada who is unaware of the fact that our case law is built upon British case law. In fact nearly all former colonies within the commonwealth have inherited that same British system of common law. In our courts it is quite cus-


tomary to refer to decisions of other courts throughout the commonwealth, and indeed quite often to cases in the British empire. We still have to refer many times to old British decisions, and therefore I can quite understand any lawyer in Canada searching for typical Canadian law saying he cannot envisage a typical Canadian who does not want to respect our British parentage because of our common law.
Now, in dealing with the heritage we have gained from Great Britain I might seem to be someone from England, but, on reflection, I am sure my friends realize my surname is Irish and the heritage I get from the Irish through my father is not such that all things British are particularly precious to me. In fact I was named after an Irish rebel who died in a British prison, and so can assure everyone I am not urging that a true Canadian must necessarily be an admirer of the British.
What I think important is that we are searching for a symbol of Canada, a symbol that would show it was Canadian, and we must take into consideration the factors which people want that symbol to portray. Offhand I do not think we can get a flag that will show our parliament and system of common law.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If I may ask the
hon. member a question, does he not think this would be a good opportunity to terminate his speech so that we could vote, and thereby demonstrate that this is a sincere motion on the part of the government's proposer?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: If we did not know the hon. member for Essex East so well we might have taken that question seriously. However, having been here more than one day, and having heard the hon. member previously, I am sure he is well repaid by the chuckle or two that was heard after he took his seat. I think the hon. member is about as anxious to vote on this-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Give us a chance and we will vote. We will vote for the motion.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: He is anxious to have a decision made on the question of the flag, although I know he would take great comfort in the words of his leader that if they were in power the ministers from Quebec would make the decision.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, the hon. gentleman who started out pretending to make a serious speech-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; would the hon. member state his point of order?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Leader of the Opposition never uttered words that bear the interpretation the hon. gentleman has now unfairly made.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member takes exception to the interpretation of what was said he is entitled to ask to make an explanation, but normally at the end of the address.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did make an explanation. We are not allowed to vote. This government will not let us vote.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, I am not really perturbed by that objection. As usual, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) rises on a point of order to make an interjection, which he does so often, to demonstrate his mastery of the rules of the house. The hon. member cannot be heard to say that he did not know it was a phony point of order-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Insult upon insult is no argument.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: -and a phony objection also. With regard to the question of choosing a flag, this afternoon I have been attempting to deal with some of the difficulties inherent in choosing a symbol that is going to show people the world over what is a Canadian. We are going to have some strong feelings from so many people in different parts of the country about what form that symbol should take.
I suggest that our real difficulty is this. Until we have a more easily defined or more homogeneous type of Canadian nationality we would be very ill advised to attempt to get a flag to represent Canada at this time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let us try it.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: As I said at the start of this speech, I feel that one purpose of a flag is to help achieve unity in this country. If there are going to be so many different views, and so many of them so strongly held, on what sort of a flag we should have, I suggest the process of choosing that flag could today cause more disunity than any other single action for years, with the possible exception of how the Liberals handled the conscription issue, or something like that.
Certainly I can understand the hon. member for Essex East wanting us to rush blindly into this. They have demonstrated, on more than one occasion, I will not say their anxiety but their carelessness about whether or not they disrupt the unity of this country. I am sure that the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I must inform him that his time has expired.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, so there can be no doubt about this, we in the opposition will support this motion-
26207-1-22*
Provision for National Flag and Anthem


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and we trust that the government will give us an opportunity of voting on this important question so we can see whether or not hon. members sitting behind the ministry support the motion made by one of their number, the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Pigeon).
We will support this motion, and if we have not the time between now and six o'clock we can, as master of our own rules, take enough time to vote on this measure and get an opinion from everyone in this house as to whether we are prepared to set up the necessary machinery as a result of which we could determine for this country the right to have a distinctive Canadian flag.
Mr. Pallet!: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. member a question before he resumes his seat?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, let us get on.
Let us vote.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the house ready for the question?


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


Mr. Remi Paul (Berthier-Maskinonge-Dela-naudiere):: Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of this parliament, nearly all hon. members have been called upon to speak on the advantages and the need of a distinctive emblem and to choose a national anthem. Therefore, the time has come, I believe, to take politics out of this question of national interest, and the best thing all hon. members could do for the Canadian people is to vote now in favour of the motion introduced by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.


Mr. J. J. Martel (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few remarks to make. I hope the opposition will let me expose my views for a minute or so.
Last year, on January 23, there was a debate in this house on the issue of the flag. Out of 19 members who took the floor at that time, 18 stated they were in favour- the other one did not have time to do so, but I imagine he would also have been in favour. Hon. members will also recall that after that debate there was a particular incident in front of the supreme court building when a young man from Ottawa, Mr. Peter Hargreave, raised his own flag up a flagstaff. This is an indication of the times, and I feel the time has come for our country, Canada, to have a distinctive national flag.
328	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Provision for National Flag and Anthem
Therefore, I wish to support the motion of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm not only as regards a national flag but also as regards a national anthem.
When I hear the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) ask for the vote, I remember that he belonged to a government that was in power for 22 years and that could have taken a decision on that matter before today. That government had even adopted an order in council to designate "O Canada" as our national anthem. But all kinds of difficulties were put in the way of that order because a comma had been inserted after the O in "O Canada."
In any case, I am in favour of the motion of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm and I want it to be put to a vote. (Text):


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell).


Paul Joseph James Martin: We will never get a vote now.


Hon. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I doubt whether I shall raise myself in the estimation of my old friend, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) by what I am doing, but I hope I am doing it for the best.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, it is not
personal.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I remember being on a committee that dealt with the question of a flag. I think that was my first year in this house, which was some 15 years ago. We had hundreds of flags set up in the railway committee room. We had a long, long discussion and I must say we very nearly reached unanimity at the end of it.
As I recall the situation, the then prime minister, Mr. King, by what seemed to me almost sleight of hand, pigeonholed that resolution and it has been more or less pigeonholed ever since. I hope I am being fair now. That is my recollection of what took place.
The real question at the moment seems to me to be whether this is a good time to deal with this question. I realize it is an important question. I realize there are many -particularly young people-in the country who would like action taken. I will be very frank about that. However, it seems to me that at the present moment we have, I can only describe it as being a bit of a relapse in the relations between the two old races in this country and it seems to me that this is

not a very desirable time for us to get involved in a long and perhaps rather bitter discussion on a flag and national anthem.
We have a lot of things to do in the next few months. I say quite frankly that I do not feel entirely happy in doing this but I think I can say with a good conscience that it does not seem to me a good time to be plunging into this question when we have so many other things which I believe are more immediately urgent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I must inform him that the hour for consideration of private members
business-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, could the house not unanimously allow the hon. member to finish, and then we could have the vote.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: As I hear some dissent from the proposal-


Hazen Robert Argue: There is no dissent over here.


Mr. Speaker:: -the house will resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.


Hazen Robert Argue: Any dissent was on the Conservative side of the house, let us be clear on that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.

The house resumed in committee of supply, Mr. Crouse 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 Acting Chairman (Mr. Crouse):: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Eric Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, when this debate was interrupted at five o'clock in order to proceed to other business, I had almost concluded my remarks. I had already expressed my support for the measure before the committee and indicated that I felt that acreage

payments had the support of the farmers as well as the business people in the constituency I represent.
I was pointing out the attitude adopted by opposition spokesmen; how they bitterly criticized these payments to western grain producers and then concluded by saying that acreage payments would be of benefit and that they would support the measure. We are accustomed to seeing hon. members of the opposition throw up smokescreens of this type. The former leader of the C.C.F., now the house leader of the C.C.F.-New Democratic party, engaged in a great verbal barrage in finding fault with the agricultural policy of the government in general and concluded by saying that the measure would have his support.
I commend the government for taking this action. I also wish to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture. I am sorry that he is absent due to illness. I wish him a speedy recovery and a quick return to his place in this house.
In concluding I express the hope that the estimates before us will be passed quickly so that cheques can go forward to the farmers of the prairie provinces.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few brief remarks to make in the light of some of the discussion that has already taken place. Before proceeding with my remarks I wish to join with those hon. members who have already spoken in expressing regret that the Minister of Agriculture is indisposed and unable to be with us at this time to discuss a very important estimate of his department. The minister was extremely kind to the members of the party that went west some days ago to attend the funeral of the Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner. Undoubtedly the severe weather in Saskatchewan at that time contributed to the minister's catching 'flu. I wish him a speedy recovery and a rapid return to his place in this house. I am sure hon. members understand that while in debate we are sometimes very sharp and critical one with the other, our good wishes go forward to any hon. member or friend who happens to be ill. May I say for the record that I greatly appreciate the telegram sent to me from the office of the Minister of Agriculture on his behalf and on behalf of his assistant wishing me a speedy recovery when I sustained a slight illness last fall.
We are discussing an estimate to provide for the payment of $1 an acre to western farmers up to a maximum of 200 acres. A number of reasons have been put forward concerning why this item has been brought before us. When it was first discussed in this
Supply-Agriculture
chamber in August of 1958 the original rationale of the Prime Minister was that the payment was in lieu of a two-price system. It was explained that a step was being taken through which the people of Canada would make a contribution to western grain producers who, in the opinion of the government and hon. members generally, were not receiving an adequate price for wheat and certainly not for that going into domestic consumption.
Our position in relation to this item has been clear from the beginning. We feel the farm organizations were correct in asking the government for deficiency payments on wheat, oats and barley, to compensate for the effects of the cost-price squeeze, for the fact that since the end of the war the costs of production of the agricultural industry have increased alarmingly, while the prices of grain in general have increased only slightly if at all.
At the time of the initial announcement of these payments I was highly critical of the government. I said the government did not go far enough in offering this assistance. I am critical again tonight. I do not feel that this present measure is adequate. I feel the government is not keeping faith with the western producers in introducing this item at this time.
I wish to make my position clear. My opinion in this regard has not changed. On August 30, 1958 as reported at page 4351 of Hansard, I had this to say, in part:
This is not a permanent policy, this $40 million item in the estimates. We would naturally welcome any continuation of this as a permanent policy-
Approximately two years later the government announced the payment of $1 an acre once again, making it applicable to a previous period. Today, a year and a half after that, the government is again announcing the payment of $1 an acre, but this is to apply to the present term. The government has skipped a year. We thought this government had a policy. We thought at least the policy meant a dollar an acre, a total item of $40 million a year, in order to compensate for the low price for wheat going into domestic consumption. However, the government has missed a year. This is not a permanent policy; it is a hit or miss policy. When the Prime Minister announced in Prince Albert on December 12 that payments will be recommended, Rudolf Usick, president of the Manitoba farmers union made a statement which reads in part as follows:
The net effect will be that farmers will have missed a whole year's payment because the Prime Minister has not made up his mind on the basis of payment. All farmers need the payments, but they don't appreciate the Prime Minister changing the

Supply-Agriculture
basis of payments again on this hopscotch deal. It means the government has not made a final decision that farmers are entitled to an annual payment.
I suppose even a leader of a farm organization should be careful of his language owing to the supersensitivity of this government. As long ago as 1958, I called this thing "peanuts", in relation to the farmers' costs. Then a strange revelation was made in this House of Commons by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. He told us why the government missed a year. As found at page 265 of Hansard he said this:
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.
I shouted "peanuts" in 1958. I guess the Prime Minister did not quite hear it because in 1960 he paid it again. But apparently in 1961, this single word that was used in 1958 suddenly hit the government and terrified them and they could not bring forward an estimate then because somebody had called out "peanuts". However, they bring it forward today. This is really a bit far fetched, Mr. Chairman, from a group of members who assert that they are getting everything for the farmer when they are speaking in this house. However, I would ask them-and I should like to hear them all do it-to stand up in this debate and call upon the Prime Minister to make a payment in addition to this one for the year that has been missed. This is what the farmers want to know in western Canada. Is this huge number of Tories from the prairies going to say to the Prime Minister, "We want this legislation made permanent; we want this payment for the year that you have missed"? According to his own words the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre is not timid and he knows what he wants. As found on the same page of Hansard to which I referred previously he stated:
When I left home to attend this session of parliament I promised farming groups that I would press for early action in regard to acreage payments. They had asked me to do this.
More than a month earlier the Prime Minister had said he was going to do it. Apparently the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre did not know about it.


Mr. Pascoe:: I said "early payment".


Hazen Robert Argue: Oh, he thought that the Prime Minister would do it but that he might wait too long. You will observe the determination of this man, Mr. Chairman. The Prime Minister says, "I will recommend it to parliament" and the hon. member told the farmers when he left home that he would press for early action with regard to acreage payments.


James Ernest Pascoe: We get results.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is the hon. member in favour of paying it for the year that has been missed? That is what I should like to know. Let him stand up and in a clear voice tell the producers of western Canada that he is not only in favour of payment for the present year but that he is in favour of the Prime Minister recommending a payment for the year that has been missed.
We know what hon. members on the other side of the house think of themselves, Mr. Chairman. According to his own words the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale thinks that you must be on the government side of the house or you are useless. That is what he said. He said that the former hon. member for Peace River, Mr. Solon Low, had been in the house for twenty years and had never got anywhere, and that all he did was to whine.


An hon. Member:: What are you doing?


Hazen Robert Argue: That is not right. The former hon. member for Peace River, with whom I disagreed on a great many occasions represented the people of his constituency in a faithful and conscientious manner in my opinion; and I think it ill behooves any member of the House of Commons to say of a man who has served this nation in parliament for 20 years that he was able to get nothing and that all he did when he was here was to whine. We have a distinguished member of this House of Commons who sat on the opposition side for a long time. The hon. member for Prince Albert sat in the opposition for a long time. He whined. He was probably the loudest whiner in the opposition. He whined day after day. He took the hide off the government time after time. He was a good member of the opposition. I think the Prime Minister was an effective member in the opposition.


Mr. Pearson:: And he will be again.


An hon. Member:: Self-delusion.


Hazen Robert Argue: I think it ill behooves hon. members opposite to try to paint a picture indicating that if you sit on the right of the Speaker and are a Tory, you can get everything done. Who knows, Mr. Chairman, but that the hon. member for Prince Albert might once again in the near future sit on this side of the chamber when he would be obliged to revert to whining again from a bench on the opposition side. The hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale apparently is not satisfied that there are 47 Tories in the 48 ridings in the three provinces. He apparently wants a one party state.


Mr. Rapp:: Ask the people of Saskatchewan?


Hazen Robert Argue: He wants them all of one political stripe. I may tell him that I am pleased that in our best democratic system we not only have a government but an opposition and I hope we shall always have a good and effective opposition in this House of Commons.


Reynold Rapp: That is what the people of Saskatchewan did.


Hazen Robert Argue: We should like to know from these self-appointed champions what they think about the year that was missed. Let us double the estimates. Let us not have the Prime Minister face an electorate who will say, "You are inconsistent; you gave us valid reasons in 1958 for payment and you gave us valid reasons to make a payment for 1959. What is wrong with a payment for 1961? What happened?" Mr. Chairman, only one thing has happened, apparently, and that is the government's getting closer to an election. Hence they are going to pay it but they are not going to make it permanent by presenting legislation to the House of Commons. They are going to do it by an item in the estimates.


An hon. Member:: Before the election.


Hazen Robert Argue: I ask the government, I ask the Acting Minister of Agriculture why he does not recommend to the House of Commons legislation to place this provision in the statute books. By so doing he would save the Prime Minister a great deal of embarrassment. A great many people are going to think this is a payment for an election that is about to come up from a Prime Minister who is so inconsistent that he will not bring forward an item to pay the producers for a year ago. I suggest that the government can be accused of inconsistency. I suggest that the government can be accused of doing this for political purposes.


Mr. Graffiey:: The people are not as cynical as is the hon. member.


Hazen Robert Argue: The government has a way- an honourable one, and one in keeping with parliamentary democracy-in which to do this, namely to have the item placed in legislative form. How often has the Prime Minister from this side of the chamber said to the former government that they should not try to legislate through items in the estimates. How often has he said that the way to treat parliament is to bring in legislation, place it on the statute books. Give the people of western Canada a feeling of real confidence that there will be legislation on the statute books and that the moneys will be forthcoming.
I challenge the government to do two things. First, I challenge them to recommend
Supply-Agriculture
payment for the year that has been missed. Second, I challenge the government to bring in legislation. Then they can boast about consistency; then they can boast about a policy of greater permanency. They have overlooked the producers; and the government's 47 members from the west are silent on the question of the year that has been missed. We would like to hear from them as well as from the Acting Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Chairman, in rising to speak on this particular item of the estimates I think I should first of all say something about the need for it. In the last year western Canada has gone through an exceptionally dry period. Some may not realize, and I know it is hard to do so, just how dry it can get. In western Canada we experienced some dry years in earlier periods and the last year compares well with them. In fact, many oldtimers in the area say that the last year was the driest they ever experienced.
In my particular part of the country there was no grain whatsoever and very little hay, and a lot of feed had to be shipped in to feed the cattle. Just to give hon. members an idea of how dry it was, the farmers in my particular region were cutting hay with diskers. That may be hard to realize but it is a fact. That is how short the crop was. I point this out, Mr. Chairman, only to indicate to hon. members that there is certainly a need for these acreage payments.
Western Canada suffered not only a feed shortage but also a water shortage. Manitoba and Saskatchewan brought into operation water pumping facilities to pump water to livestock. Alberta went so far as to implement a water pumping scheme but only to pump water to towns. Under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act facilities were provided in order to fill up dugouts that had been dry for the past three years. Western Canada faced a very difficult year, one which would have been much worse if it had not been for the devaluation of the dollar by the government.
We all know that last year there was a great deal of worry about the cattle market because trucks loaded with cattle were lined up going into Winnipeg. Some members felt that there might be a glut of cattle on the market and prices would go down. One can look at the export statistics and see that as soon as the dollar was devalued our cattle started to move across the line to the United States. This not only saved the livestock producers of western Canada but it did a lot for Ontario and Quebec farmers. After all, I come from the province of Alberta which is widely known to have great numbers of cattle

Supply-Agriculture
but it is second among the provinces in that regard. The government stepped in at a crucial time, devalued the dollar and helped the livestock producers to get out of this difficulty. To a great extent the government rescued the mixed farmers of western Canada.
There was also a condition which created a scarcity of feed. At one time Saskatchewan farmers came into the irrigated areas of Alberta and forced the price of hay up to $30 a ton. This happened because of the demand for hay and the fear that there was not going to be any hay to bale. The Alberta and Saskatchewan governments accepted the federal minister's proposal with regard to freight assistance on feed. It was realized that feed could be shipped into these dry areas and sold for less than $30 a ton.
This action in effect put a ceiling on the price of hay. Hay was available in the northern areas of Alberta and the irrigated areas of southern Alberta and could be moved to the buyers at a very small cost. This action went a great way towards saving the livestock industry.
I have no hesitation in supporting this item now before us. I think it will fill to some extent the gap that perhaps has not been covered fully by the other measures to which I have referred, the devaluation of the dollar, the water pumping facilities and the freight assistance on feed.
Western Canada, as I said, faced a difficult year and came through it in relatively good condition. The optimism in western Canada is high today. Why is this so after facing such a difficult year? Because the people of western Canada realize that all through the difficult months of last summer the Minister of Agriculture was on his toes prepared to help and demonstrated to the full his preparedness to help in a difficult time. The minister was not idle abroad. He went out and sought and found markets and convinced the cabinet that these markets should be filled even if we had to sell the grain on credit. This is a very important point because for years farmers and farm groups in western Canada have been asking the federal government to sell a little more grain on credit.
The late Jimmy Gardiner was mentioned, the former minister of agriculture. Although he was an ardent fighter for western Canada, he never did gain the support in cabinet of the hon. member for Essex East. If the hon. member for Essex East had been as ardent a spokesman for the farmers at that time as he is today, he would have given the late minister some help in convincing the former government that some grain should be sold on credit.
In the last year alone approximately $100 million worth of grain has been sold on credit.

This will give hon. members some idea of what this means to the farmers of western Canada and certainly they are grateful for it. They realize that they had a dry year with poor crops in 1961 but were able to sell whatever grain they could harvest and grain they had carried over from previous years. The fact that they were able to sell the grain they had carried over gave them a cash income that they would not have realized if we had not had a minister of agriculture who went out and sold grain and convinced the cabinet that Canada should sell grain on credit. The minister put forward a tremendous effort and moved this grain. This has done a great deal to help to improve the mood of the people of western Canada as they face another year with the hope that there will be more snow this winter and more rain and that things will more or less return to normal.
For the first time since 1952 quotas have been removed. A few years ago those same farmers who could grow nothing this year were realizing that surpluses were their biggest headache. They were afraid of a surplus in cattle. The hon. member for Assiniboia tried to convince us that if we forced the farmers into more livestock production there would be a surplus of cattle. This was the kind of talk that built up fear amongst the farmers in western Canada. Today, we have a Minister of Agriculture who has proven he can sell wheat. We have the markets. We have proven that we can get cattle into the United States market because we have a government that will act. We have captured the faith of the people in western Canada. They know that we are behind them and that their plight is not going unnoticed.
Now, these are very important considerations because I come from a part of the country which is known as the "next year country". When you felt no one was aware of the situation in this part of the country you looked forward to the next year with a certain amount of reluctance, a certain amount of hesitancy in so far as planting a crop is concerned. I can say, Mr. Chairman, that the farmers generally are prepared to go ahead. For the first time since 1952, they realize that they can sell grain if they can grow it. The Minister of Agriculture has told them to produce more livestock if they can, and they are prepared to do so. I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Welland say the other night that he supported this measure. I was pleased to hear that because last Friday afternoon I listened to the hon. member for Essex East and I could not determine whether he was for it or against it. I listened to him all afternoon. He had a difficult time expressing himself about farm

problems, but I must congratulate him because he was probably doing the best he could at the time.
Today and on Friday, Mr. Chairman, we heard very little comment on the deficiency payment scheme which was blasted at us in the house in 1958. Those who spoke skipped over it rather lightly. I think it has been proven that this present measure affords the most farmers some help from the federal government. I believe most people, even the hon. member for Assiniboia, is convinced of this fact. They realize that in a dry year such as western Canada experienced last year the farmers would not receive too much under the deficiency payment plan referred to by a great many people in 1958.
I realize that in 1958 a lot of people were convinced that perhaps the farm unions had something useful in this deficiency payment program, but the government wanted to make sure they were doing the right thing. This might have been some reason for not carrying out the plan in 1959. Certainly, in 1960 it was clearly stated that this scheme was similar to paying a dollar per bushel for wheat consumed in Canada. All the members of this house know the extent to which the farmers of western Canada lost during those years in which our wheat sold below the world price.
The last time these acreage payments were made there was some difficulty experienced because they were made on the permit book for the year previous. I recall that the hon. member for Essex East had a great deal of difficulty understanding the permit book set-up when we debated this matter last year. I happened to have a permit book in my office, so I showed it to him after the debate and I am sure the hon. gentleman was greatly enlightened. Many of the farmers had crops snowed under in 1959, so they did not take out a permit book that year. When the acreage payments were based on these permit books, a lot of farmers experienced a difficult time in obtaining a permit book in order to collect these payments. While we may have missed a year, we are bringing the program up to date. Anyone who has not taken out a permit book this particular year can apply for one, sell some grain if he is fortunate enough to have any, and collect the acreage payment.
This program is designed to help the small farmer who may have been hesitant about taking out a permit book in the previous year but who is entitled to one. I believe this is a good way of doing it. The hon. member for Assiniboia has pointed out that this government has been inconsistent. I have tried, Mr. Chairman, to point out where it
Supply-Agriculture
has been consistent in helping the farmer, in recognizing the situation of the farmer in western Canada. If the hon. member feels the government has been inconsistent in making acreage payments, then he has only himself -to blame because he strongly attacked this policy. Today, we find him in favour of this policy but demanding more money. At times on Friday I thought the hon. member for Essex East wanted more money. However, it seems he did not know whether to go ahead or to go back. He was something like a balky horse, making one plunge ahead and then jumping back. A team of horses pulling that way will never move a load very far.
I should like to point out that you cannot demand a balanced budget, as some members of the official opposition have been doing, and still ask for larger and larger payments under this program. Even the hon. member for Assiniboia was demanding a budget the other day, and I suppose if one had been introduced he would have wanted it balanced. He would have been trying to have his cake and eat it too.
There is just one other point I should like to put on the record and that is with regard to credit assistance in western Canada. I should like to compliment the minister for revamping the Farm Credit Corporation. I should like to advise other members through you, Mr. Chairman, that this program has worked to the tremendous advantage of the small farmers in Saskatchewan, and particularly in Alberta. I have every confidence that this program will continue to serve these farmers in western Canada, and throughout the whole of Canada for that matter. There has been some talk about the rest of Canada being left out of federal assistance. I should like to point out to those members who feel that way that western Canada exports very little butter. Ontario and Quebec receive most of the assistance from the butter support program which represents the other large subsidy being paid by the federal government.
In addition there are those members who feel this support was wrong. The hon. member for Leeds spoke at great length about this the other day, by suggesting that, but he is only hurting the farmers for whom he speaks. We have placed added revenue in the pockets of the farmers by our support of butter prices. I think I have taken up enough time on this particular item and I thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On rising to take part in this discussion. I should like to join with other members who have expressed their regret at

Supply-Agriculture
the fact that illness has prevented the Minister of Agriculture from being in his place during the debate.
We all, of course, wish him a very speedy and complete recovery. Perhaps I might also take advantage of this opportunity to thank the minister for his kindness and his courtesy on the sad occasion of the death of our colleague, Mr. Gardiner, in Saskatchewan, by making transport available for some of us on this side of the house to attend the funeral. As the hon. member for Assiniboia pointed out, it was on that occasion the minister contracted the chill which has kept him indisposed since that particular day. We appreciate all he did on that occasion. We have criticized the minister in this house for some of the policies he has adopted. We are criticizing him today and we shall criticize him in the future but, we acknowledge his characteristic kindness on that occasion.
I venture to say a few words on this item because, among other reasons, there was some reference last Friday to the fact that I had not participated in this debate of such importance to western agriculture and, indeed, that I had not said anything about agriculture in my address on the reply to the speech from the throne. I certainly would not want to disappoint hon. gentlemen opposite, and especially I would not want to disappoint my hon. friend from Essex East who gave the committee an assurance that I would participate. He also gave me some good verbal advice as to what I might say.


Mr. Starr:: Oh, no.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is very interesting to note, Mr. Chairman, that when it was suggested opposite I should participate in a debate on agriculture the scope of that debate-and I am not complaining about it-was at once limited by your decision to the particular item of acreage payments. For that reason it is very difficult, under the terms of your ruling, to deal with the speech from the throne and with agricultural policies that might have been based on it.
Perhaps I might be permitted to say that when I did take part in that debate I remarked that agriculture was dealt with in a very cursory way and that we intended to deal with other facets of the subject as the debates proceeded in this session. I now have the opportunity to deal with one aspect of agriculture, acreage payments. I would point out, however, that in the debate on the speech from the throne I dealt at some length with one matter which is of the greatest possible importance to agriculture, that is, the widening of our trade opportunities and the removal of obstructions to trade in face of
developments occurring in Europe and other parts of the world. Nothing could be more important to the western farmers and Canadian agriculture generally.
My hon. friend from Acadia, who has just preceded me, in the course of his interesting observations expressed the view that it was difficult to follow the position of the official opposition in their attitude towards this particular item in the estimates. He also said that the hon. member for Essex East spoke about this matter in such a way that it was difficult to find out whether he and the party for which I am now speaking were in favour of the item. He could not have been listening very carefully because if he reads page 261 of Hansard for January 26, 1962 he will find that the hon. member for Essex East said, "We give support to this measure." Surely that is clear enough.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He must have clouded the issue as he went along.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am on my feet at the moment to confirm that particular declaration of support. We presume that this item in the estimates, and I should point out we are proceeding with this matter by an item in the estimates and not by legislation, though it is very difficult to find evidence to support the presumption, is designed to carry out the sentence in the speech from the throne which reads:
The drought in the prairie provinces during 1961 has resulted in severe losses, however, and you will be asked to provide assistance by means of acreage payments to the farmers who have been affected.
It is perfectly clear, as has been pointed out by some other speakers from this side of the house, that this is not an item designed to carry out the pledge in the speech from the throne. This is an acreage payment item for income maintenance without any specific relevance to drought conditions. If this is the only measure to be brought forth by the government to deal with that proposal in the speech from the throne, then it is completely inadequate for the purpose and, indeed, is not specifically designed for that purpose at all. I do not think it will deceive farmers who have suffered from drought, for the reasons I have just mentioned.
It will of course, be welcomed by those farmers who qualify to receive it but it has nothing to do with the drought as a special, and in places, a tragic situation for certain western farmers. The reason for that is obvious. It has been pointed out by other speakers that this acreage payment will be paid, on exactly the same basis, to all farmers who qualify, whether on the acreage in question they produced no wheat, or whether they produced an above average crop of wheat on

their particular 200 acres, whether they produced wheat for sale and tried to sell it, or whether they produced wheat for feed and did not try to sell it.
To describe this particular proposal, which is one of income maintenance applying to all farmers who qualify, as a drought relief measure such as is described in the speech from the throne, is to say the least misrepresentation.
I believe it has been pointed out by some speakers that those farmers who particularly suffered from drought, and who need special assistance, would get that assistance under a piece of Liberal legislation known as P.F.A.A. I would ask the Acting Minister of Agriculture when he winds up this discussion to tell me if I am not correct-and if I am not correct, I am sure he will tell me- whether there has not been a greater amount of money given to farmers on storage payments under legislation introduced by the previous government than has been paid out to farmers on these acreage payment items in the estimates.
We have another criticism of this measure. This has already been made by speakers on this side of the chamber and I am not going to spend very much time repeating it. We criticize this measure because it is not a cure, it is a palliative. It is not based on* any principle which could be applied to all producers in the future who operate under the same conditions. It is an expedient; it is ad hoc legislation brought in by the government at a particular time when the government may desire to do it-and at this particular time they are doing it on the eve of an election.
It certainly does not begin to carry out the principles and the policies so often laid down by the Prime Minister for parity, not charity and for the necessity of doing something to meet the cost-price squeeze.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Chairman, what alternative does the hon. gentleman suggest?


Lester Bowles Pearson: When the time comes we will have some very good suggestions to make, and-


Richard Albert Bell: When?


Lester Bowles Pearson: -on which to base agricultural policy; not on ad hoc expedients but on principles of general application.
Som hon. Members: Hear, hear.


Richard Albert Bell: Would the hon. gentleman tell us tonight what they are?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman,-


An hon. Member:: The secret weapon.
Supply-Agriculture


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, there are
also circumstances attending the introduction of this item in the estimates-this has also been pointed out-that are unusual to say the least. We all recall that when the Minister of Agriculture was out west last November he expressed regret that it would not be possible to make any acreage payments to farmers during the year 1961. He did not base that regret on solid, constitutional reasons, that the item had not been passed, that parliament had not been asked to deal with it. That would have been, if not a satisfactory explanation, a very complete one. He based the reason for the delay in payment on the fact that the cheque-writing machines were overworked and they were busy on other duties at the time. Therefore any payment to be made would have to be made in the new year.
The reason, of course, why he postponed giving anything but a negative announcement on this occasion was that this was to be left to the Prime Minister who, when he was out west on December 13, made the announcement himself in Prince Albert that somehow or other the cheque-writing machines would be all in action again at the beginning of the year, that the House of Commons would be asked to pass this estimate and it would be made available then for those farmers who qualified for it.
There is another very interesting aspect to the background of this legislation. The Minister of Agriculture, in dealing with the reduction of our surplus grains-and we are all very glad to see those surpluses reduced, Mr. Chairman-said the conclusion could be drawn from the fact that our surplus had been so reduced that it might be unwarranted to increase acreage for wheat in the coming wheat. As evidence of the fallibility of human judgment it was only about a year ago when the Minister of Agriculture was going around the west pleading for farmers to increase their acreage of wheat, and indeed the Acting Minister of Agriculture made the same suggestion when he spoke on this matter last Friday.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I did nothing of the kind.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I expected the minister to say that, so I had better read him back his reference.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, read it back.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is on page 245 of Hansard. Let us just recall the background for a moment, the statement of the Minister of Agriculture warning farmers against increasing their wheat acreage because the surplus had been reduced and if there happened unfortunately to be another bad year

Supply-Agriculture
this year-a drought, for instance-it might be difficult to meet all the commitments which were coming up. That perhaps was a very desirable warning. But in the face of that the Acting Minister of Agriculture said on January 26, at page 245 of Hansard:
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.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is correct.


Lester Bowles Pearson: So the ministers had better get together on this. The acting minister had better get together with himself. The hon. member for Acadia who has just resumed his seat has something to say about the fact that the previous government had never taken any steps to sell grain on credit abroad. The hon. member was not here at the time, or perhaps he would remember-some of my hon. friends on the front bench should remember-that there was a grain agreement made with the Soviet union a good many years back.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: How many million bushels?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It was a very good agreement, under which we sold grain to the Soviet union on credit, more grain on credit than is being sold now under the revised agreement.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We also had credit agreements with Poland, and I think with Czechoslovakia.


An hon. Member:: A point of order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He is too chicken to permit a question.


Mr. Drysdale:: I thought the Liberals had the answer.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You know how badly the answer would show you up.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member does not seem very aware of the facts of this situation. Hon. members may also recall that grain was disposed of before the present government came into office under counterpart arrangements under the Colombo plan treaty. Therefore to say that no arrangements had been made by the previous government to extend credit to the purchase of grain is completely wrong, to say the least.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I did not say you
never sold any grain. I said you never sold any amount of grain on credit.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member will have the opportunity of reading his own speech of this evening in Hansard and he will see that I am correct.


Lionel Chevrier: He would not understand it anyhow.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member, having raised this question of trade agreements under which grain has been sold, may also be interested to know-there has been so much misrepresentation on this question that I should refer to it, Mr. Chairman, as he and other hon. members have raised it-that it was many years ago that we on this side of the chamber took the stand that anything that could be done to sell our surplus food commodities to any country of the world would be a desirable policy. I have before me clippings going as far back as-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Lamontagne never put the answer in your speech. That is my trump card.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I did not interrupt my hon. friend, and perhaps he will sit down quietly.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The secret weapon.


Hazen Robert Argue: Order for the government members also.


The Chairman:: Would hon. members allow the Leader of the Opposition, who has the floor, to continue.


Mr. Bourgei:: It is about time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was about to say before I was interrupted by my hon. friend opposite, who was allowed to speak without interruption, a courtesy which is not always extended to us on this side of the chamber-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -that these statements have misrepresented and distorted our position, which has been the position on this side over the years, that anything that can be done to dispose of our food surpluses to any country in the world, irrespective of its government, is a good thing to do. Any statement to the contrary distorts, misrepresents and denies the policies we have adopted consistently. This can be proved from the record-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Why, of course.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. gentleman said that the position of the Liberal party was that anything that could be done would be done to dispose of food surpluses. Why did

the Liberal government not take action to remove the embargo placed on cattle going into the United States before 1947?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I am speaking about grain surpluses and now the hon. member-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member said food surpluses.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member now rises-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. gentleman referred to food surpluses.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member for Acadia who seems a little disturbed at the moment now rises and asks me why I did not do something about the cattle embargo in 1947 at a time when I did not have the honour of being in the government.
I wish to clear up one point-and I have lots of evidence to support it-in the hope that this will be the end of these misrepresentative statements that emanate from the other side of the house in respect to our attitude toward the sales of surplus food to any country in the world to which we can sell this food. Of course we are delighted when our wheat, barley and food products generally find their way into any market of the world, communist China or any other market of the world-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The other day it was
said to be treason.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, it is extremely difficult to proceed with these continual interruptions which Mr. Disraeli once referred to as the harebrained chatter of irresponsible frivolity.
In view of the fact that the debate has ranged so far and wide on this matter I thought this would be an excellent opportunity to clear up this question once and for all. It is a fine thing to see our wheat surpluses going into the markets of the world It is, of course, a cause for some preoccupation when we lose our traditional markets, when they are diminished. We cannot always count on starvation in communist countries to take care of our surpluses and that is why we have been fortunately able to move those surpluses into those countries at this time.
If my friend the hon. member for Acadia and other hon. gentlemen opposite will look at the export returns for the first nine or ten months of this year they will be happy, as we are happy, to see that there has been an increase in food exports. They will not, I am sure, be so happy to realize that that increase is not in our traditional markets. If my figures
Supp ly-A griculture
are correct, and I think they are, 70 per cent of that increase is with respect to communist countries and Cuba.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: So that leaves a 30 per cent increase to the traditional markets.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. We are now in committee. I would ask all hon. members to cooperate so that the hon. member who has the floor may proceed. If any hon. gentleman has observations to make he may rise and do so when he is given the floor.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This increase is welcome, Mr. Chairman, because it reduces our surplus stocks of food, but one cannot help feeling anxiety arising from the fact that we cannot count on the continuation of exports to communist markets which have taken our goods because their people have been starving.
We on this side have complained, I think justifiably, that whereas, when we made an agreement with the Soviet union in regard to the export of food and other products all the details and the full terms of that agreement were made public and laid on the table of this house, we do not know even yet the terms of these agreements, letters of intent or contracts to which reference has been made. As I think this question is related to this item, it would be extremely helpful if the Acting Minister of Agriculture, before the debate on this item is concluded, would give us all the details of these contracts that have been made and which have resulted in the reduction of our surpluses and the increase of our wheat exports.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That has nothing to do with the item under consideration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The acting minister does not want to hear it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will admit this has not very much to do with the item under consideration but I ask my hon. friend who brought up these matters?


Douglas Scott Harkness: The colleagues of the Leader of the Opposition raised these questions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps I may conclude, Mr. Chairman, by repeating this one thought which did not seem to have made an impact on hon. gentlemen opposite when the hon. member for Essex East made the statement. We will support this item in the estimates as a measure of relief to farmers who deserve it. We deplore the fact that this kind of relief has to be given in this way through ad hoc items in the estimates brought in for a particular purpose at a time that seems most satisfactory to the government. We feel that this kind of thing should be based on principle and, when the time comes, we will bring in

Sup p ly-A gricu Iture
the type of legislation which will base it on principle and which will be much more satisfactory to our agricultural producers than anything the present government has done.


Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a question to the Leader of the Opposition. Does the hon. gentleman agree with the basic principle expressed the other day by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo which I took to be that we ought to be very careful, when we sell our wheat, that we do not also sell our freedom?


Lester Bowles Pearson: In answer to that question, Mr. Chairman, I would say this. We should be extremely careful to do nothing that would sell our freedom. We export for our own benefit primarily rather than exclusively for the benefit of the receiving country. With all respect to any other hon. member I do not think that in selling our wheat to countries which need our wheat we are selling our freedom.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Mr. Chairman, I had not planned to take part in this debate relating to an item of assistance to western grain producers in the amount of $42 million but after listening to apostle Paul and his ardent disciple from Assiniboia, last Friday and this evening respectively, I feel compelled to rise at this time. My determination to speak is given added weight as a result of the remarks we heard this evening from the lips of the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of this grand new party. After listening to his views on agriculture I feel it necessary to deal with some of the arguments that have been presented to the committee.
The matters raised by the hon. member for Essex East are easily answered. I propose to ignore them. After all, the hon. gentleman does not know anything about agriculture. As for the hon. member for Assiniboia, I shall deal with him a little later on.
It is small wonder that the Leader of the Opposition participated in this debate. He did so because the Liberal party is completely embarrassed by what the Conservative government has done for the Canadian people in the last four years.
I have before me some significant figures. During the last three years the Liberal government was in office it contributed to agriculture the total sum of $272,200,350. During the first three years the Conservative government has been in power it contributed to agriculture a total of $556,909,734.25. No wonder they are embarrassed. Hon. gentlemen opposite, to relieve their embarrassment and get themselves off the hook, are carping about a small item of $42 million being paid to western farmers.
The Leader of the Opposition indicated that the Liberals have a new agricultural policy which they will announce in due course. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will not take the advice of the Liberal party's adviser's Mr. Kent and Mr. Lamontagne, or we might have socialism in our farming industry.
The Leader of the Opposition spoke about P.F.A.A. The Liberals brought in P.F.A.A., he said. I will admit that the Liberals brought in P.FA..A. but the Liberals used the P.F.A.A. in western Canada to distribute Liberal propaganda. The Liberals were more interested in spreading propaganda than in assisting the farmers of western Canada. Let hon. gentlemen opposite rise and deny it. They cannot do so.
Let me relate a personal experience. Back in 1953 a by-election was held in our area. There was a Social Credit and a Liberal candidate. I supported the Liberal candidate because I did not want a Social Crediter sitting here doing nothing. They sat here for 17 years without accomplishing anything. After the election was over I was invited to the P.F.A.A. school. About 100 of us were in the room. The superintendent rose and said, "You fellows are all good Liberals or else you would not be here today. Go out to the farmers and do not take more than nine claims. And while you are doing that, preach Liberal politics to the farmers." That was the position of that Liberal with respect to P.F.A.A. Let hon. gentlemen opposite stand up and deny it. I challenge any hon. member opposite to deny it. They cannot do so.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: They have the answers, all right.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: When the Conservatives came into power the scope of P.F.A.A. was expanded. More farmers are receiving assistance today under this measure than ever was the case before. Approximately $60 million will be distributed to farmers this year under P.F.A.A.
We heard the hon. member for Assiniboia make reference to the march on Ottawa by the farmers. What was the hon. gentleman's attitude to the march on Ottawa? The C.C.F. hired a brass band which played "Happy Days are Here Again".
An article in the Winnipeg Free Press describes the actions of the C.C.F. in this respect. It states:
As delegates began to enter the station from the first train, C.C.F. members of parliament also outjockeyed the cabinet ministers for positions in what amounted to an informal receiving line.
C.C.F. House Leader Hazen Argue commented to a reporter, "It's all good clean fun".

That was the attitude of the hon. member for Assiniboia. He complained that the Prime Minister visited only northern Saskatchewan-


Hazen Robert Argue: You are wrong again.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: -and that the Minister of Agriculture visited only a large farm in Saskatchewan. However, I drove through southern Saskatchewan this summer and I found that grasshoppers were jumping all over the place. I said to the station agent, "You are not getting much of a crop this year". He said, "We are used to it. We never get a crop here. But if we had a decent government in Saskatchewan they woud rehabilitate that land and take care of it as was done in Alberta".
We have another statement of the hon, member for Assiniboia when the Minister of Agriculture was appointed. It is as follows:
The C.C.F. leader said he also is disappointed that the administration of the Canadian wheat board is to be dropped by the department of trade and commerce and to be taken over by the department of agriculture-
Mr. Argue posed the question: Will the department of trade and commerce give up its interest in selling the grain and further greatly weaken necessary export markets for wheat, oats and barley?
We do not need to say more about that. The Leader of the Opposition gets to his feet and says that the people are hungry. But this government sent men across the country to sell that wheat. Today we have cleaned up the surplus in western Canada. I felt sorry for one of the Liberal members here today who was called to order. I refer to the hon. member for Kent, New Brunswick. He rose in his place and pleaded for his little farmers in New Brunswick, and well he might do so. I went through that country three years ago. Many of those little farmers down there are destitute. Here we have a Liberal member who had to wait in order to get a Conservative government to do something for them. These people are going to get help from this government. We have a rehabilitation act coming into operation. It is a long term matter. These little farmers will be receiving help over the years not from a Liberal government but from a good Conservative government.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: That is the Liberal answer, "Let the Conservatives do it".


Clifford Silas Smallwood: We remember what started all the difficulties in western Canada.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate probably wants to start fishing or something now, I suppose.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. member would give me a chance to do so, I should like to talk about fish.
Supply-Agriculture


Clifford Silas Smallwood: It would be nice to hear the hon. member talk about something he knows something about for a change. Back in 1946, when the Liberal government signed the wheat agreement, it cost the farmers in western Canada millions of dollars. What did our friend from Assiniboia say then? As reported in Hansard of August 15, 1946, at page 4839 the hon. member for Assiniboia said this:
I agree with the leader of this group (Mr. Coldwell) who stated that we in this party welcome the agreement.
A little farther on he said:
I welcome the wheat agreement.
He betrayed the farmers of western Canada. He sold them out. Now he comes to this House of Commons and wants us to subsidize them for what was done then.


Hazen Robert Argue: We are only a little group.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: We will ignore that remark.


Hazen Robert Argue: Just a splinter group.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: We know where it comes from. It is like getting kicked by a mule. Let us consider where it comes from and forget about it. Surely on an item like this, Mr. Chairman, we can stop this foolishness of trying to talk politics. Let us pass this item. It is what the farmers of western Canada need. They need acreage payments up to the 200 acre maximum. I am sure that every western member is in favour of it. I know they would like to see this legislation put on the statute books so that it is established on an annual basis for the farmers in lieu of the two-piece system. We get opposition every time we bring it in. The opposition parties want to make hay.
I do not wish to take up any more time, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for the opportunity accorded to me to express my views.


Mr. Gundlock:: It is always with humility, Mr. Chairman, that I rise to speak in this House of Commons, particularly when I follow the Leader of the Opposition and at a time when so many remarks have been made about an issue with which I wish to deal.
I should like to place on the record at this time the statement that I heartily support this motion. Through you, Mr. Chairman, I should like to put on the record some remarks that in my opinion have not been made as yet. The Leader of the Opposition is a man whom I respect greatly and whom I hesitate to follow and to criticize because I am a farmer. I farmed in the dirty thirties, in the dirty forties and in some of the fifties and I still am a farmer.

Supp ly-A griculture
There is one point that I think this committee and in fact the Canadian people should be reminded of. In speaking in support of this measure, one that is part of an over-all policy, I feel sincerely that there is one thing that should be put on the record. I have reference to some of the work behind the scenes. When I say that, what I mean is simply this. A few moments ago the Leader of the Opposition said that they counted on markets. Through you, Mr. Chairman, I should like to remind hon. members that this government has not counted on markets. They have done something about them. As I said before, the acreage payment is part of an over-all government policy. The thing that I should like to reiterate and put on record in reference to the agriculture economy of Canada is simply this. Much hard and sincere work has been done by this government. As a farmer I am proud to be here and to have an opportunity to speak in support of this measure.
You may recall, Mr. Chairman, when only a few short years ago-four or five years ago, as a matter of fact-in reference to wheat, our customers abroad in particular were giving us some trouble with regard to accepting purchases from Canada. When cargoes reached their destination there were often complaints and rejections for various reasons. When ships reached their destinations the cargoes did not measure up to the samples so far as quality was concerned. The reason for this was that cargoes were often contaminated by oil, coal dust or other foreign objects. The holds were not cleaned and in addition there were germs and insects in the cargoes. Something had to be done about it and the result was what we commonly call quality control.
You may think I am straying a little, Mr. Chairman, but this is all part of the same policy. I want to emphasize the work that has been done behind the scenes by the government. I should like to pay tribute to the former minister of agriculture because I know he did a great deal of work along this line. In fact, as a result of the work of the former minister we are assured now of satisfied customers almost universally. It was not easy to bring this about. Comparing the situation today with that prior to 1957-I need say no more as to dates-when our customers today receive a sample of our wheat and other export products as well, as a matter of fact they can rest assured that the cargo will be the same as the sample. Quality control is the answer.
What did this mean? It meant legislation and a great deal of work behind the scenes. As I said before, I should like to pay tribute

to the former minister of agriculture in this regard. I had not heard any reference to this point during this debate and there was very little I wished to say, but as far as I am concerned this is a great achievement because a satisfied customer is the best type of customer, particularly when he repeats his order. The reason why our customers are repeating their orders is that they can depend on the quality of Canadian products, not only agricultural products but every other product. The holds of ships have been thoroughly cleaned and for the first time our customers can be assured that the cargo will reach them in first class condition, whether the cargo be wheat, other types of grain or any other commodity. In other words, for the first time in history Canadian salesmen can go abroad and lay a sample on the table, and the customer can be assured that the product when delivered will be of the same quality as the sample. I think this fact should be recognized by hon. members opposite and the Canadian people generally and that is why I put it on the record.
With all deference and with great respect, as I said before, I should like to remind the Leader of the Opposition that we have not just counted on business but have been working for it. We have not counted on markets. I should like to join in complimenting the present Minister of Agriculture for the work he has done. Certainly no one can criticize his salesmanship. Unfortunately he is ill at the present time. This year we have sold 354 million bushels of wheat and flour and for this he should be commended to the utmost.
As a real farmer and having regard to parity of income I support to the utmost this measure making provision for acreage payments. Hon. members opposite can talk about business. I think I can talk about business as well. We all love election campaigns. I can recall that during the 1957 campaign certain people said, "You are a farmer, but what do you know about business"? All I could do was to remind them that any farmer who had his head above water financially at that time must have been a good businessman.
I rose with great humility to add my support to this measure and to remind hon. members and Canadians generally that such measures are not what they are said to be in certain quarters. This measure is part of an over-all policy. Actually it goes further than that. It represents co-operation among all segments of our nation because without the support of the eastern members the western members could not get very far. We appreciate the fact that all segments of the Canadian economy support this measure.

Finally, I should like to recall to hon. members the co-operation between the federal and provincial governments that has brought all this about. Certainly we can look forward in the very near future to much greater benefits from the policies of the present government.


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Chairman, the item under consideration was not unexpected by western grain producers. The Prime Minister has compared it with the acreage payment made in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1959, and that made in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1961. I should like to quote from Hansard for August 30, 1958, page 4347. The Prime Minister was speaking and this is what he had to say:
-farm organizations over the years have contended that the Canadian consumer has been getting wheat too cheaply. Just as other producers expect a fair market price for their goods, so the Canadian wheat producer should receive a fair price for the wheat sold in the domestic market. That has been the general contention through the years.
Over a seven-year period the average domestic human consumption of wheat has been 45 million bushels. This is only 10 per cent of the total annual disposition of western wheat. An increase of 50 cents per bushel in the price of wheat for domestic consumption would be reflected in an increase of only 6.5 cents per bushel on the basis of total marketings. To achieve this would require a contribution to be made by parliament to the wheat board, or it would result in an estimated increase to the consumer of 2 cents per loaf of bread. Such a contribution would amount to a figure considerably lower than that which is proposed for this year only-
He went on to say:
This amount, which is designed to meet the needs of the small farmer, will be distributed by the Canadian wheat board to producers on the basis of one dollar per specified acre, including acreage seeded to flax, up to a maximum of 200 acres.
In the estimates for the period ending March 31, 1961, vote No. 576 of the supplementary estimates for that year, the payment was described as follows:
Payment of an amount, as a higher return for wheat used for human consumption in Canada, 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.
The amount was $42 million, the same as it is today. The severe drought in some areas of the prairies is a matter of concern to all of us. It emphasizes the income problems in western Canada. However, acreage payments can hardly be considered crop failure payments. Members from western Canada have no intention of being drawn into that position by the opposition.
In order to deal with this matter effectively, it is necessary to recall the circumstances under which this party came into
Sup p ly-A griculture
office in 1957 and again in 1958. The situation in western Canada was desperate. During the preceding decade, a surplus of over 700 million bushels of wheat had been allowed to accumulate. Our country and terminal elevator systems were congested. Rigid quota regulations were necessary to ensure some equality of opportunity for delivery to country elevators. Elevator companies were forced into costly temporary and semi-permanent building programs in order to service a limited quota. Parliament found it necessary to establish the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. The St. Laurent-Howe administration reduced the initial price for oats by five cents per bushel. This was another indication of the negative attitude that was developing at that particular time.
After the final settlement of the famous "have regard to" clause in the grain agreement with Great Britain, government policy drifted from one of selling to one of storing grain. During that period the bootleg trade of grain to feed mills, feeders and businessmen developed rapidly. This trend was accentuated by the failure of the St. Laurent-Howe government to adopt a policy of cash advances on farm stored grain. The sale of grain outside the Canadian wheat board was often completed allowing substantial discounts which were lost to the producer forever.
At that time, western Canada was represented in parliament by a strong opposition. The province of Alberta was represented almost entirely by Social Credit members led by their leader, Solon Low. The provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan sent large numbers of C.C.F. members led by their national leader, M. J. Coldwell, and strongly supported by Hazen Argue and Stanley Knowles. In addition to these members, the opposition could claim John Diefenbaker, Gordon Churchill and Douglas Harkness, all from the prairies. The government was represented by a numerical minority from the prairies. These Liberal members were led by the late Right Hon. James Gardiner and by Walter Tucker. There were some outstanding men among their numbers. Their impact on the large government majority from other parts of Canada was almost negligible. Indeed, the experience of my immediate predecessor in office on the question of cash advances revealed the extent to which party discipline had destroyed the effectiveness of parliamentary representation under the St. Laurent-Howe regime. The cash advance question was also vigorously advocated by the opposition, but without success.
After the election of 1957, the Diefenbaker administration effected a system of cash advances on farm stored grain. This relieved
3 42

Supply-Agriculture
some of the pressure on the farm cash position. It should be pointed out that cash advances were only an emergency measure. They became necessary only because of the continued failure of the St. Laurent-Howe government in its efforts to sell grain. The attitude of the Diefenbaker administration in 1957 and early 1958 encouraged the people in western Canada to reinforce his representation from the prairies. They did this despite the promises of Pearson and the Liberal party. They ignored the regional cry of the C.C.F., "Fight for the west.''
The Diefenbaker administration faced a mammoth task when it took office in 1958. The decay that had set in during the latter days of the 22 year tenure of Liberalism was widespread, and overlapped into almost every department of government. The Hon. Douglas Harkness was appointed minister of agriculture. It required almost two full years to effect the reorganization of the Department of Agriculture and to clear the way for legislation that might come to grips with the serious problems that required solution. The backlog of legislation requested by farm people was considerable and included farm credit arrangements, crop insurance, conservation, and the ordinary modernization of statutes already in effect, many of which had not been looked at since they were first placed on the statute books several years before.
It is small wonder, then, that farm people were impatient. They had waited a long time. The record of the previous Liberal government with regard to promises had been most frustrating. Thus it was that the "On to Ottawa" delegation was organized. The deficiency payments controversy was born. This government led by the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, was not stampeded. This government made its decision.
The debates leading to that decision are a matter of public record. The record of the opposition groups cannot now be erased. The hon. member for Assiniboia chose to ignore the plea for a positive solution. He advocated an outright handout, a handout that would have aggravated our wheat surplus.


Hazen Robert Argue: You are wrong again.


Edward Nasserden: This handout would have encouraged the trend to larger farms and would have cost the treasury of Canada over a billion dollars.


Hazen Robert Argue: Wrong again.


Edward Nasserden: His attitude was clearly stated on April 23, 1959, as recorded at page 2973 of Hansard. I quote:
Western Canada today is being betrayed by members of parliament of the Conservative party who

represent them, in that they are opposed to the legitimate requests that have been made by the mass delegation.
In reply to that I said, as reported on the same page of Hansard:
No one has betrayed the western farmer more than those who during the years, not only this session but in past parliaments for the last 10 or 12 years, have taken stands in parliament that were so far from what the western Canadian farmer wanted that they engendered ill will from the other parts of this nation.


Hazen Robert Argue: Silly talk.


Edward Nasserden: The Liberal party, with its laissez faire outlook has consistently taken a negative stand on this matter. Their friends in Saskatchewan have been advocates of acreage reduction. The hon. member for Assiniboia, representing his party, has just as consistently advocated deficiency payments and he reiterated that stand on Friday last.


Hazen Robert Argue: $100 million instead of $40 million.


Edward Nasserden: The policy of the government has never been one of handouts. We refused to go back and pay for the short change policy of the former Liberal administration. Our ministers chose the positive approach in this matter.
The "On to Ottawa" delegation requested a payment of 31 cents per bushel for wheat in the year 1957-58, 12 cents for oats, and 23 cents for barley. I have their brief before me and also the prices for these grains in January, 1962, and the prices a year ago. No. 2 wheat is today $1.89 per bushel. Last year it was $1.62 and in March, 1959, it was $1.66. If we take the difference between 1959 and today, wheat is selling for 23 cents a bushel more than it did when the delegation came to Ottawa. No. 1 feed oats are selling at 90 cents a bushel today.


Hazen Robert Argue: There is no crop.


Edward Nasserden: Last year they sold at 70 cents a bushel-


Hazen Robert Argue: You cannot sell what you have not got.


Edward Nasserden: That price represents an increase of 20 cents per bushel. No. 1 feed barley is selling at $1.26 per bushel. Last year the price was 91 cents and in 1959 it was 99 cents. The difference between the price in March, 1959, and this year is 27 cents per bushel.


Hazen Robert Argue: But there is no crop.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order.


Edward Nasserden: In other words, the government's marketing, trade and fiscal policy has

resulted in achieving very closely the objectives requested by the "On to Ottawa" delegation.


Hazen Robert Argue: But there were no crops.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Order. The hon. member should be allowed to proceed without interruption, so that he may be heard.


Edward Nasserden: I can understand the reason for the interruption because the hon. member does not like to hear of the achievements which this administration has been able to effect. The present vote proposes to continue the acreage payment for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1962, on the same basis as in 1960-61. Calculated on the basis of normal consumption in Canada, the returns on wheat used for human consumption are at or above the levels that farmers and farm organizations have maintained to be a parity price.
I can understand the consternation so evident among the members of the opposition. The hon. member for Assiniboia has called this acreage payment "peanuts", time and time again. However, he cannot defend that stand, particularly after renewing his old argument for deficiency payments. Without batting an eye he reversed his tactics and urged that this vote be made permanent and statutory. His conversion comes a little late; in fact, it comes four years too late.


Hazen Robert Argue: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, does the hon. member remember that in August, 1958, I asked that the legislation be made permanent?


Edward Nasserden: You called it "peanuts" four years ago. You called it the same thing last year. When we first introduced acreage payments that was the time for the hon. member to give his support and endorsement of them.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is what I did.


Edward Nasserden: All we got at that time was a sneer and a snarl. The constituency of Assiniboia might just well have been represented in Timbuktu as in the House of Commons.
Liberal speakers have had a different purpose in their contributions. They have again been trying to divide Canada into east and west. The hon. member for Essex East used to impress us with his air of experience. All I can say is that he has learned little during the last four years except perhaps to stoop a little lower than he felt necessary when he was nearer his prime. That exhibition is becoming more pitiful with each passing day. Let us consider his reference to A.R.D.A., "that it is not designed to meet current situations". That is exactly the difference in attitude between the administration in which he was a leading
Supply-Agriculture
light and the administration of today led by the right hon. Prime Minister. They never planned for the future. They never moved except late and little. They blindly shut their eyes to the days when easy sales to Europe would come to an end as Europe recovered from starvation and the ravages of war.
The pledges made by the Prime Minister to the grain producers in western Canada have been fulfilled during the life of this parliament. The choice made by the people on the prairies in 1958 was a good one. Never before in Canadian history has their confidence been so influential here in Ottawa. Never before has the future held such promise for western grain producers. The Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. Alvin Hamilton, is one of the greatest living Canadians. His approach to farm problems and his sympathy for farm people have won him the respect and confidence of farm people from coast to coast.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about his predecessor?


Edward Nasserden: The Minister of Agriculture has been able to take farm problems to our urban neighbors and win their understanding and good will. This party and the people of the prairies are proud of him for the measures he has introduced to meet long range needs, and without which there can be no worthwhile future for people engaged in agriculture. All of us wish him a speedy return to the house and to the activity that he enjoys so much. It is hardly necessary for me to add that I support this measure.


Mr. Cadieu:: I am glad to have the opportunity of participating in this debate because I have had so many requests for acreage payments during travels through my constituency. I told my constituents I was sure the government would not let them down.
I know I shall not be permitted to list the many sound pieces of legislation pertaining to agriculture introduced by the government under the great leadership of our Prime Minister, the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker. He is very highly respected and I can assure you that my constituents appreciate the co-operation we have had from the former minister of agriculture, the Hon. D. S. Harkness, and from our present Minister of Agriculture who is held in the greatest esteem throughout the dominion.
As all the western members with the exception of one from the three prairie provinces made strong representations seeking these acreage payments I was quite confident in telling my constituents that I was sure they would not be let down, particularly in a year such as this. As these representations favoured the two-price system they agreed that this

Supply-Agriculture
was the fairest way it would be paid. When one looks at how the acreage payments are made, he can easily see how the present government is trying to protect the family farms. The fact is that out of a total of 223,994 permit holders 179,951 are under 500 acres per permit, leaving only 44,043 over that amount.
The farmers in my constituency were very severely struck by drought, except in a few small areas. This made things very difficult that year, and this measure will certainly be greatly appreciated. Many farmers will be receiving the full benefit of prairie farm assistance. There are a great number just about on the line, who went over the 12 bushels, and I am sure that they, as well as those farmers who were under this amount, will very much appreciate these acreage payments.
I had the pleasure of having our Minister of Agriculture visit my constituency. I am more than happy with the wonderful job he did when we were faced with one of the worst drought conditions we have ever experienced. We very much appreciate the quick action taken by the minister and his department in alleviating the difficulties which might have led to a real panic on the livestock market. He took a great interest in the movement of grain and feed. The action of the minister and his department levelled the whole thing off and we did not run into any panic. Everything went along quite smoothly. I can assure hon. members that the farmers in my constituency, and all western farmers, very much appreciate what the government has done on their behalf.


Mr. Milligan:: Mr. Chairman, as a farmer in eastern Canada I should like to make a few remarks in connection with this legislation. First of all I wish to say that I am very much in favour of the acreage payment. I am very pleased to see it being brought forward at this time. I feel that the farmers in western Canada are very much entitled to some sort of assistance and this acreage payment will be very much appreciated by them.
I do not like to see it used as a subsidy to agriculture because I do not think it is such a subsidy. I should like this acreage payment to be placed on the basis of a direct subsidy to the consumer, a direct subsidy to the cost of living index, which is only one of the subsidies that those of us who are farming in other fields are helping to provide.
I think we all realize that the price of wheat on the export market is the selling price of grains in western Canada. We all

realize it is not the cost of production price that should be coming back to the farmers. It is based on a highly subsidized program from every country in the world and those of us in Canada, particularly the western farmers, have not been able to obtain a realistic price for grain.
We realize that there was a drought in western Canada and those of us in other parts of Canada think that anyone who loses a crop is entitled to some assistance. On the other hand, those of us from other parts of Canada are feeling the effects of that drought perhaps just as strongly as those who were affected in western Canada. Certainly the price of grains that we have to feed in the east has increased considerably, to the point where it is unprofitable for farmers in the east to feed these grains, having regard to the price of livestock. I hope the western farmer is getting the benefit of this increase in price that we have to pay.
To give hon. members some examples I obtained some prices the other day from some of our local mills. Sample wheat, with which hon. members from the west will be familiar-I think it is a sample 5 and 6 and some other grades mixed with it; it would be below No. 5 grade-is costing our retail outlets, with the freight assistance and subsidy taken off, $1.97 a bushel. Oats are today costing our own co-operative, with the freight subsidy removed, $1.09 a bushel. That is No. 1 feed oats. No. 1 barley is costing us $1.44 a bushel. The cost of the operation of the mill is about $6 a ton, which is added to that price before the farmer gets it on his farm to be fed. Hon. members will realize that if the farmer has to pay these prices for grains for his livestock he certainly is not in a position to make very much profit. I think this is the position with most of the farmers in Quebec and the maritimes.
Therefore I feel that if this policy is going to be a permanent one it should also be extended to other parts of Canada, because there are sections of eastern Canada which contain a great many farmers in the low income group. I hoped this policy would be made a two-price system because I think the man who is selling his wheat should receive a fair return for it. The subsidy would be placed in its rightful position. It might be a basis for subsidizing the low income farmers from other areas if this scheme were continued on an acreage payment basis and extended to other parts of Canada.
I think farmers in eastern Canada are very pleased if we see one section of the economy receiving some assistance, because

those in agriculture certainly need assistance regardless of where they are situated.
The minister of agriculture of Ontario, speaking at a farm meeting in Toronto a couple of weeks ago, suggested that the farmers of Ontario must grow their own grains. We cannot afford any more to buy grains and feed it to livestock at the prices we have to pay. The minister of agriculture in Ontario maintains that we have enough land in this province to do that.
I wonder what would happen if farmers in other parts of Canada did not buy western grains. We certainly appreciate what the Minister of Agriculture has done since he has been in office. We appreciate the amount of grain he has sold. This has certainly helped the west and it has helped those in the agricultural industry in all parts of Canada. It has helped those not only in the agricultural community but in every walk of life, because if the agricultural industry is down it affects the whole economy.
Business of the House
We realize that the minister has made some very good sales and this is reducing the surplus grain position in western Canada. I hope the minister will continue to make these contacts and these sales in other parts of the world.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it ten o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the house will be doing tomorrow and the next day?


Gordon Minto Churchill: We will carry on tomorrow with the supplementary estimates. If they reach a conclusion, hon. members of the house should be ready for the four resolutions standing in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, January 30, 1962