1963-12-12

[Stage Direction]
Third and final report of standing committee on veterans affairs-Mr. Forgie.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. T. Pennell (Branl-Haldimand)
presented the first report of the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the consumer credit, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to present a petition under standing order 70. It is a petition by Chief Albert E. Thompson, Councillor Allan McPherson, Councillor Robert Kipling and Councillor Arnold Favel, all of the Peguis Indian reserve at Dallas, Manitoba. I have read the petition and according to the rules have inscribed my name thereon. I am satisfied that the petition meets the rules of the house and the form of petitions in every respect. It refers to, and asks a solution for, what the petitioners claim is an abrogation of their rights under a treaty between the crown and the members of that particular nation of people.



CANADIAN WORLD EXHIBITION CORPORATION ACT


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (for the Prime Minister) 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 amend the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation Act to increase the number of directors of the corporation by two and to provide for the expenses of the said two directors: to authorize the corporation to pay to the commissioner general and to the deputy commissioner general such allowances as are fixed by the
governor in council:	to establish an executive
committee of the board consisting of three directors in addition to the commissioner general and the deputy commissioner general and to authorize the payment of remuneration by the corporation to the said three directors; and to make further changes in connection with the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Does the hon. gentleman consider as an example of the new co-operative federalism the statement made by Mr. Lesage, yesterday evening, to the effect that it is the people of Quebec who will suffer from the central government's refusal to meet his requests?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the statement referred to by my hon. friend. At any rate, I do not intend to comment on a statement I have not seen.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assomplion-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? The Acting Prime Minister will find, when he sees the statement, that this is really an ultimatum on the part of the premier of the province of Quebec.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Acting Prime Minister tell us if Mr. Lesage is right in saying that the responsibility for the double taxation will have to be borne by the federal ministers?


Lionel Chevrier: I doubt very much that the premier of Quebec said such a thing, in the terms used by my hon. friend. In any case, as I said, I shall have to see the text before making any comments about it.
However, as my hon. friend from Three Rivers knows, there is going to be a conference on taxation and federal-provincial relations next spring, and those questions will be discussed.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: As happened last time?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lionel Chevrier: They were very well disposed, last time.


Paul Raymond Martineau: In view of the remarks made by Mr. Lesage, not on television or to the press but in the Club de Reforme in Quebec, can the minister tell the house if he or the government have received a new request from Mr. Lesage since the federal-provincial conference took place?


Lionel Chevrier: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour. I should like to ask the minister if he has received from some chambers of commerce and businessmens' organizations representations to the effect that in addition to the $500 bonus in respect of homes built during the winter there should be a bonus of $50 per $1,000 spent on the renovation of homes, apartment blocks and commercial premises? Is the minister giving consideration to these representations, and is he likely to adopt them as a means of reducing unemployment this winter?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: I should like to take this question as notice and reply to the hon. member tomorrow.



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has he informed his colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mr. McEachen), of the projects he had in mind, some years ago, to check unemployment and provide work for the
300,000	unemployed people there are now throughout Canada?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think the matter is obvious, for we have a labour minister who accomplishes much for the unemployed.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could he simply answer the question I put to him?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I gave the hon. member a very good answer.



WINTER WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. P. Antoine Belanger (Charlevoix):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can he tell the house whether, following the great number of protests made by the municipalities, he intends to revise the deadline set for winter works, that is April 30, and extend it to May 31, as was done last year?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, aside from the preliminary remarks of the hon. member, which are not entirely accurate, there is no intention at the present .time to change the dates specified; because the expectations are that this winter the winter works program will be more extensive in man hours, labour content and dollar volume.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. According to newspaper, radio and television news reports the Prime Minister assured the Canadian Labour Congress yesterday that he saw eye to eye with them on the use of budgetary deficits to assist in the solution of the unemployment problem. Does this announcement indicate a new policy on the part of the government, or does the Minister of Finance have an explanation to make of this apparent conflict with his previous policy.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member will allow me to reply. I should like to say on the Prime Minister's behalf what he has told me he would have said in answer to this question if he had been in the house. Some press reports have interpreted remarks of the Prime Minister to the Canadian Labour Congress delegation yesterday as if he were taking a view of budgetary deficits different from the view of the Minister of Finance. This is completely without foundation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: The substance of what the Prime Minister said yesterday is what he has said many times before. It is what the Minister of Finance has said many times and

what has been said by many others on behalf of the government and the Liberal party.
We accept the necessity, indeed the desirability, of deficit financing when it is the effective way to stimulate the sound and steady expansion of the economy needed to increase employment. The Prime Minister also believes, as the Minister of Finance believes and the government believes-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: -that it is important not to permit an indefinite continuation of the chronic, very large deficits we have been experiencing. Deficits should be incurred only by deliberate decisions of economic policy; to allow them to continue or to expand indefinitely for other reasons would undermine confidence in the currency and impede steady economic expansion. Therefore one of the objectives of the government should be, and is, to move toward a more balanced budget as the economy gains strength; to see that deficits are reduced with improving economic conditions. That is the government's policy; it is the minister's policy and it is equally the Prime Minister's policy.
The Minister of Finance is making every possible effort to reduce budgetary deficits, among other things by reducing unnecessary expenditures. But he has not hesitated to support expenditures for necessary social and economic purposes, in particular for the reduction of unemployment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: In following these policies the Minister of Finance has, and will continue to have, the full support of the Prime Minister. I thank the house for the very courteous manner in which members have received this statement.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of this secondary revelation of second thoughts by the Prime Minister, may I ask the Minister of Justice why it was, if this represented the consensus, that the Prime Minister turned to the Minister of Finance as he made that statement yesterday and said "I have not consulted with him and I do not know whether he agrees"?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I was present at the meeting which took place yesterday. It was an excellent meeting, as my right hon. friend knows. It was one of the finest meetings I have experienced.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: But if I may answer my right hon. friend's question I would say he should not be disturbed too much about
Inquiries oj the Ministry budgetary deficits in view of the $3 billion budgetary deficit which took place while he was in office, and he should not be worried too much about what this government is likely to do.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there does not seem to be the clarity in that answer that there was in the prepared answer. I now ask the minister, did he hear the statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister to the Minister of Finance, which in effect was "I have not consulted with him and I do not know whether he agrees"? Does this agreement represent an agreement overnight?


Lionel Chevrier: I am not sure that I heard the words to which my hon. friend refers, but I have one recollection and it is this. As I tried to say a while ago when I was interrupted, I have attended no finer meeting between labour and government than the one which took place yesterday.


Robert Norman Thompson: May I ask a supplementary question. I wonder if the Acting Prime Minister would agree with the story my mother used to tell me when I was a boy-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Norman Thompson: -about-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Now that the Acting Prime Minister has given the views of the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister, in absentia, has given us the views of the Minister of Finance, could we hear from the Minister of Finance himself?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to the very clear statement which the Acting Prime Minister has just made. I agree with every word of it.


Paul Raymond Martineau: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Finance. In view of the statement the Acting Prime Minister has just made, could he tell the house if he foresees an unprecedented peacetime deficit for the current fiscal year?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am looking forward, and I think we are all looking forward, to a good year in 1964. We will be making more detailed statements about this at the proper time and in due course. At the moment I think it is fair to say that conditions look good.



Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: May I ask
a supplementary question of the Acting Prime Minister. In view of what he has just said, how is it that under a Conservative government all these deficits were a disgrace and a national shame, but apparently they have become a national grace under this government?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, as far as the first part of the question goes, I suggest that my hon. friend direct it to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). As for the second part, it will be necessary to wait for developments before a statement can be made.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the Acting Prime Minister, and it is a serious one. In view of the almost complete agreement the Prime Minister expressed yesterday with the proposals contained in the brief of the Canadian Labour Congress, can we assume that those proposals will be in the speech from the throne at the start of the next session?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I take it the hon. gentleman was present, together with his colleagues, at the meeting, because I saw them there. I thought I saw them agreeing with most of the things the Prime Minister said. I cannot add anything more to what was said on that occasion.


Léon Balcer: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we not going to hear what the mother of the hon. member for Red Deer had to say?


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. Would the Acting Prime Minister maintain that the current expected deficit was deliberately planned by the government and the Minister of Finance?


Lionel Chevrier: Well, Mr. Speaker, if one has regard to a comparison between what is taking place now and what has taken place before, the comparison is as between day and night, and I would not want to go into the matter any further.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lon-gueuil.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Longueuil.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: What is your point of order? [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is related to the standing order which provides that a minister must reply to the question directed to him. He is not obliged, of course, to reply if he does not want to. However, I submit that, as far as the last question put to him is concerned, the Minister of Justice, as has been the case in many occasions lately, answers anything but does not answer the question directed to him. I think it is time to put a stop to that way of answering questions. Proper replies should be given to the questions put.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will kindly resume his seat when I get on my feet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows the standing orders as well as I do, and when I am on my feet the hon. member should be seated.
The hon. member for Longueuil.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Cote (Longueuil):: I shall put. my question later, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister a question?
In view of the statement he made in this house this afternoon to the effect that he was in favour of a budgetary deficits policy and in view of the statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) some days ago in Edmonton that she was in favour of a pay as you go financial policy, could he tell us which one of those two statements is official?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I would ask my hon. friend to be at least kind enough to read tomorrow the statement I made in the house this afternoon and which will appear in Hansard, because the preamble to his question does not tally with the statement I made.



FEDERAL INSURANCE CARRIED WITH NORWICH UNION COMPANIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. L. Klein (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public

Works. In view of the Arab boycott now being conducted against the state of Israel, resulting in the resignation of Lord Mancroft from the London advisory board of the Norwich Union insurance societies, will the minister ascertain whether the government of Canada or any of its crown corporations are presently carrying any insurance contracts with the Norwich Union insurance societies?


Hon. J. P. Deschaielets (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend will realize, this question involves a lot of research. We are going to do it with the greatest pleasure, but in the meantime I wonder if it would be acceptable to the hon. member to put his question on the order paper.


Milton L. Klein: If the minister so wishes. POWER



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs which arises out of the reported agreement on the Columbia river treaty amongst the negotiators representing the three governments concerned. Does this mean there is now complete agreement among the negotiators as to the price that should be paid for downstream benefits, or is there still some latitude being left in this respect?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to send over to my hon. friend a copy of the communique that was issued at the end of the meeting last night. That release said in part that after three days of discussions, during which substantial progress was made, the negotiators were in general agreement on a report that would now be submitted to the governments concerned. This represents a very considerable advance in the matter-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: -and I am sure that no one will be happier at this news than my hon. friend.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gustave Blouin (Saguenay):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport. Is he aware of a public notice given on December 9 by the shipping company Nord-Sud Limitee to the effect that
Inquiries of the Ministry the daily service provided by the ferry-icebreaker Pere-Nouvelle between Father Point and Baie Comeau in my riding, will be discontinued on January 4, 1964?


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Order paper.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have received notice of that action being taken by the ferry company.


Gustave Blouin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Does the present government intend to give effect to the commitments made by the previous government to maintain this public service between both shores?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the present government is not responsible for the breaches, if any, of commitments made by the former government; but the question-


Mr. Mandziuk:: How about the nuclear arms?


George James McIlraith: -of subsidy to the ferry is being examined at the moment.


Léon Balcer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. We are entitled to know what breach of commitment was there by the previous government. As far as the Pere-Nouvelle ferry is concerned, we worked very hard to establish that ferry and it should be given sufficient subsidy to carry on.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the point I made was in answer to the question of the hon. member, and I repeat "the breaches, if any". However, since the hon. member for Three Rivers has asked the question, the breach they complain of is contained in a letter written by the hon. member in which he indicated that his government would admit the ferry duty free.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
[Translation}
Mr. Jean-Paul Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the technical and other difficulties that seem to be involved in the building of the Three Rivers bridge, which is greatly needed, has your department considered suggesting to the corporation to build that bridge

Inquiries of the Ministry in Cap de la Madeleine instead of Three Rivers, so that some of the difficulties might be removed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This really is a question for the order paper.



NATIONAL MUSEUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources a question arising out of the report carried in the press yesterday with regard to Dr. Loris Russell, explaining why he felt he had to get out of the national museum. I wonder whether the minister has any comment to make on this report or any indications as to how he plans to meet the criticisms contained in Dr. Russell's statements, for example by putting them before the house or one of its committees.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I read with considerable interest and some dismay the statement attributed to Dr. Loris Russell yesterday. This would seem to culminate a great many years of disturbance within the management of the affairs of the museum. I regret it very much, because Dr. Russell is a distinguished Canadian scientist who indeed in the last several years during which tumult has existed there had contributed enormously to bringing peace and some measure of tranquility to the museum.
I can assure my hon. friend that my one purpose now with regard to the museum is to re-establish over a period of years a degree of tranquility. I am only sorry that Dr. Russell will not be part of it. We have lost not only Dr. Russell but I think six or eight scientists in all, including several holding doctorates. This is an unfortunate state of affairs. I hope it is not a tendency that applies to that particular degree of study. But we are not going to establish a sound museum until internal peace is restored. We propose to make appointments to the museum, the staff of which will be headed by Dr. Glover from the University of Manitoba, and we hope to establish a degree of extended growth and peace in the museum as rapidly as we can.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which may seem narrow. Dr. Russell in his statement refers to representations that were received which were critical of the course of the museum, particularly from

members of the Canadian historical association. I put a request on the order paper in the form of a notice of motion for the production of papers in relation to these communications. The reply was that there were no communications of this character.
I wonder whether the minister has any explanation for this, because here is a civil servant who knows the correspondence exists, yet the minister has given a reply that there is none available.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member made such a request-I cannot recall it fully now-and we told him there were no such communications, I would say that we told him the truth. However, I noticed the statement of Dr. Russell that pressures had been put upon him to give up his post. I want to say to the hon. member that neither I nor any member of my staff at any time endeavoured to persuade Dr. Russell to leave his post. We were aware that he was dissatisfied in the current post and indeed was hoping, I think, to be made chief of the museum. I think delay in such a decision contributed in part to his discomfiture. However, with regard to the statement that pressures were put upon him to resign, I want to assure my hon. friend that this was not my policy, the policy of the deputy minister or of anyone on the staff.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindi (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, having attended university with Dr. Russell and watched the development of his work in the national museum of Canada over the years, I want to say that in Dr. Russell the Canadian government had one of the finest geologists who ever graduated from a university in Canada.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MEMBERS OF ANTIGUA GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I wonder whether he is aware that in our diplomatic gallery today we have two very distinguished gentlemen from the West Indies area, Mr. Bird the chief minister of the territory of Antigua, who does not have to delegate the responsibilities of minister of finance as we do because he is the minister of finance as well, and his public works minister, Mr. Williams.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of the presence of the chief minister

of Antigua and the minister of public works of that territory, but I am looking forward to seeing both of these gentlemen in my office later this afternoon.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence in the absence of the Minister of National Defence. Two days ago I asked what was the estimated number of personnel involved in the reduction in the armed forces, and also in the civilian workers. Is the minister now in a position to give an answer?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am in a position to inform the right hon. gentleman that a total of 2,293 service and 2,751 civilian personnel will be affected by these reductions. I should point out, however, that in so far as the servicemen are concerned, for the most part they will be transferred to other units to fill vacancies or take the place of others who retire.
As for civilians, approximately 800 are employed on the northwest highway system and at Fort Churchill, and it is expected that there will be little change after the transfer of administrative responsibilities from the Department of National Defence. Of the remainder, positions will be found for some in other government departments in lieu of personnel who would normally be recruited from outside the public service. A few will be retained in the Department of National Defence, where their experience and skills can be used to good advantage.
Every effort will be made to ensure that as many as possible of the employees affected will be taken care of in one way or another, and it is expected that a number will obtain employment in private industry through the agency of the national employment service. I might add that, as my colleague pointed out last week, the discontinuance of or reduction in certain defence establishments will be done on a gradual basis, and every endeavour will be made to minimize any possible hardship or inconvenience for those personnel involved.


Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: I wish to ask a supplementary question on this point, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Can the Associate Minister of National Defence tell us whether he has given consideration to the pension fund which was accumulated by the employees who are being displaced and could he tell us what the government intends to do in that respect, in order to protect the employees concerned?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, all those things are being considered.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I have a supplementary question for the associate minister. He mentioned that approximately 800 personnel were employed on the northwest highway system. My understanding of the most recent figures was that 1,200 personnel were employed on the highway. Does the minister's mention of 800 mean that there is to be a reduction of approximately 400 personnel when the Department of Public Works takes over the operation?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I am relying on the figures of the department, and I understand the number of civilian personnel on the northwest highway system and at Fort Churchill is 800, not 1,200.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have been trying for 35 minutes to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Public Works. It arises out of the discrepancy in the figures that the Associate Minister of National Defence appears to have given the house with respect to personnel on the northwest highway system. Can the minister assure the house that, regardless of whether the figure is 800 or 1,200, there will be no reductions in the civilian personnel on the highway as a result of the take-over of the maintenance operation by his department?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will not expect me at this time and on the spur of the moment to give any assurances of any kind. However, I am going to look into the matter, and within the next few days I will probably be able to give the hon. member an answer.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and ask him whether he has yet been able to get in touch with the British Columbia minister of labour, Hon. Leslie Peterson, in Victoria, with respect to

Inquiries of the Ministry finding a replacement for Mr. Justice Dryer in the arbitration in the fishing industry dispute.


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday in reply to a question from the hon. member, Hon. Mr. Peterson is away but he will be back in his office on Monday morning. I have left word for him to call me on Monday morning, when this matter will be discussed with him.


Frank Howard: As a supplementary question, is the minister aware that as long ago as October 25 Mr. Justice Dryer expressed the thought that because of his duties as a member of the maritime union trustees he would be unable to perform his duties as an arbitrator in the fishing industry dispute, and suggested that the parties get in touch with the minister? Further, is the minister aware that as long ago as November 14 at least one of the parties got in touch with the minister and expressed that point of view?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: In reply to the hon. member I wish to state that on November 18 I contacted Hon. Mr. Peterson, and he advised me he had no notification from Mr. Justice Dryer to the effect that he would not be able to carry on as arbitrator. The next day, November 19, as I said yesterday, I contacted Mr. Justice Dryer again and he advised me he thought he was in a position to carry on with the arbitration. I also said yesterday that on December 4 he wrote me and mentioned in his letter that if we felt he could not carry on as arbitrator to the satisfaction of the two -parties concerned and that an unexpected delay would occur, we were free to replace him, and this is the action I have taken since.


Frank Howard: As a supplementary question, can I take it from this that we should place less trust than normal in the government of British Columbia?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry. Would the minister report to the house following his conference with the Ontario minister of trade and industry?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would probably be more convenient if I made a report when the estimates for which I am responsible come up for consideration next week, rather than on orders of the day.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Could I ask the minister at this moment whether the Ontario minister of trade and industry requested that the Brantford area be withdrawn from the list of designated areas?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: He did not.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Pierre-Andre Boutin (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Would the minister be kind enough to give the house a general outline of the federal-provincial conference on agriculture which will take place here on December 16, 17 and 18?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Well, Mr. Speaker, there are many, many subjects that are coming up, and I would be very glad to give the hon. member a copy of the agenda on Monday morning. Further, my estimates will be up for discussion in a short while.


Pierre-André Boutin: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question?
Could the minister tell us whether the question of a wheat board for eastern Canada will be considered at the next conference?



REPORTED SPEECH BY MINISTER IN CHICAGO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to direct a brief but important question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that when speaking to the Chicago farmers club on December 2 the minister is reported to have informed his audience that the government of Alberta was a Conservative and republican type of government, is he supporting the campaign of the hon. member for Lotbiniere against Her Majesty.


Harry William Hays: I have not seen this speech.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Did the hon. gentleman see the speech before he delivered it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture will explain how he can read his speech without seeing it.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Wait and see.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day: lTranslation]
['Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer the question of the hon. member for Villeneuve next week-I will not be here Monday\n\nsince I am not in a position to answer it right now.\nInquiries of the Ministry']
Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Acting Prime Minister?
Can the minister tell us whether he deliberately replied in French to the question put to him in English by the hon. member for Villeneuve?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Gilles Grégoire: This proves that they are both bilingual.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Enns (Poriage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs who represented Canada at the independence day celebrations in Kenya earlier this day? I am certain all hon. members want to welcome this new member nation of the commonwealth, but I would like to know who performed this pleasant duty for Canada?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house joins in the observation made by the hon. gentleman in expressing a warm welcome to Kenya on the occasion of its independence. Canada is represented on this occasion by the head of our mission in an associated country.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could the minister indicate whether security measures have been taken to protect the many Canadian missionaries who are in Bolivia, in the Oruro, Catavi and Siglo XX areas, in view of the uneasiness which prevails in those regions at this moment?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer the question of the hon. member for Villeneuve next week-I will not be here Monday

since I am not in a position to answer it right now.
Inquiries of the Ministry



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether she has had time to prepare an answer to the question I asked last Thursday. While I am on my feet I should also like to ask her whether she is now prepared to give us the names of the members of the advisory committee that she promised or stated on November 7 would be chosen from recognized university authorities and other sources?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have been carrying the answer to this question around hoping that the hon. member would be in the house some day and would ask it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


An hon. Member:: Privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Simcoe East on a point of order.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I have been in this house-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I did not mean any offence to my hon. friend; I meant since my return to the house. I know he has been here when we have been dealing with other legislation, but he has not been in the house during recent question periods. The question asked in my absence while I was at the dominion-provincial conference was taken as notice by my parliamentary secretary, and it is one which requires a fairly elaborate answer.
The information now available to us concerning the University of Toronto project on the measurement of strontium 90 in the primary teeth of Canadian children suggests that a widespread misunderstanding may exist with regard to the purpose of this project. It appears that the study is designed to serve two purposes; (1) to obtain an accurate estimate of the discrimination against strontium 90 as it passes from cows to milk to humans; and (2) to study the uptake of strontium 90 by calcified tissues which have different metabolic properties than bone. From the information available to us there is no reason why these objectives cannot be met by the University of Toronto program. Such studies are of course research studies, and should not be confused with public health monitoring programs.

Inquiries of the Ministry
In my department we are concerned with the public health aspects of nuclear fall-out. The objective in this case is to determine the radiation dose to sensitive tissue such as the bone marrow. The most direct method of assessing the current public health significance of the cumulative effect of fall-out in the past is through a program of measurement of strontium 90 in human bones. My department is engaged in such a study. At the same time we are concerned also with the future significance of fall-out, and for this purpose we have developed a comprehensive nation-wide system of fall-out studies in air, precipitation, soil and food products.
Analyses for strontium 90 in teeth do not provide data which can be used directly for estimating the present or future radiation dose to bone marrow. This is because primary teeth, unlike other parts of the skeleton, are fully formed by the end of the first year of life and there is subsequently little exchange with minerals in the diet. Indirectly, teeth analyses may be used to reflect the levels of strontium 90 in the diet during the period the teeth were formed, that is to say, four to six or more years earlier. If such data are required for public health purposes, a program such as my department's milk monitoring program provides data right up to the present time.


Philip Bernard Rynard: A supplementary question. I do not think the minister has answered the second part of my question as to the committee which she was to appoint to study radiation. She was going to name the committee which she said on November 7 would be appointed.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: My hon. friend asks me whether I am prepared to name them?


Philip Bernard Rynard: Yes, that is what I asked.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I asked the department this week for the names, and the senior official with respect to radiation measures is out of the city for the week, so I have been unable as yet to get this information.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It is reported that the air transport board yesterday authorized Transair of Winnipeg to suspend or abandon its run which serves Swift Current-Medicine Hat-Calgary-Regina effective January 11. Does the govern-


ment concur in this suspension and, if it does, what arrangements are being made to service this run?


George James McIlraith: My understanding is that the order granting the right to suspend part of the service referred to by the hon. member was subject to the decision to hold a public hearing to deal with the question of whether or not the service should be cancelled. It is merely a suspension order which has been granted; the question of whether the service should be cancelled will be dealt with subsequently at a public hearing. Also at that hearing any other applications for a different or a substitute service to cover these points will be heard.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I will direct to the Acting Prime Minister. Is the suspension of the prairie run referred to by the hon. member for Regina City an indication that the Liberal government is again forsaking western Canada?


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: A supplementary question. The reply of the Minister of Transport did not indicate when this public meeting would be called. I should like to ask him now whether that meeting will be called prior to the suggested suspension date of January 11, and whether the government is prepared to maintain the service until the hearings are held and a decision respecting an alternative service is forthcoming.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is a matter for the government to provide the service; and it is not the prairie run which is involved, it is part of the prairie run. I have not had the opportunity, not having had notice of the question in advance of the sitting of the house, to get full information. I think perhaps the interest of all concerned would be best served if I were to get accurate information and answer the question more fully tomorrow.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid  Scoll@Danforlh: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice arising out of the sensational disclosures that are again taking place in regard to the Coffin murder trial, namely that the prosecutor has now asked the Quebec bar to investigate his conduct of the prosecution, and a Toronto newspaperman has been implicated in the disappearance of a key piece of defence evidence. Would the minister now give consideration to appointing a royal commission

to investigate and clear away all the rumours and clouds which are surrounding the most mysterious murder trial in Canadian history?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, if there is to be a royal commission I am sure the proper place for it is in the province where the trial has taken place, notwithstanding the statements which my hon. friend has made. However, as I said yesterday, my officers are reading the book which has been published by Mr. Hebert to ascertain whether there is any federal aspect to it. I am also reading it myself, and when this reading has been completed if there is any reason to do so, I will make a statement.


John George Diefenbaker: I can understand the answer of the Minister of Justice, but I wonder whether an examination has been made with regard to representations which were made following the sentence of death so as to determine whether, during those representations, any of these matters were raised at all.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the right hon. gentleman for that question. I think it is going to be very helpful. But what I had in mind to say-and I am sure the right hon. gentleman remembers this-was that this case was appealed on one, if not two, occasions and judgment was rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada. But I will give consideration to the implication contained in the question.


Mr. Scoff:: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that it was the federal cabinet which refused to commute the sentence to one of life imprisonment, does the federal government not feel it has some responsibility in this matter? If the cabinet had acted differently, Mr. Coffin would still be alive.


Lionel Chevrier: Certainly the federal government has no responsibility for what antedated that decision; but from there on, as I have stated, I am having the book studied. I cannot make any comment in that respect at the present time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Surely the minister will admit that as Minister of Justice it is his responsibility to investigate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is an argumentative question, as is apparent from the way in which it is being put. Perhaps the hon. member would care to rephrase it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then I ask the minister if he would not agree that if evidence is turning up to show that an innocent man has been executed, he and the government have some responsibility to look into the matter.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lionel Chevrier: If the hon. gentleman had listened carefully to what I said, I think he would have understood the statement I made. I said that those things which antedated the action taken by the governor in council were it seemed to me, matters to be adjudicated upon under provincial jurisdiction. So far as the rest of the question is concerned, I will say this. It may be there are other matters which will arise out of the study which is being made of the book at the present time. If, following that study, there are matters which are of interest to the Department of Justice, then the minister should, and will, take the steps which are necessary.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Did I not hear the minister say that if there was to be a royal commission to look into this matter it would be set up in the province and by the provincial government?


Lionel Chevrier: I did say that. In so far as the case is concerned, the allegations concerning the case and the statements which have come out in the press from time to time, it would seem to me that if a royal commission were to be set up, such a commission should be a provincial one.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piciou):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport, but first may I express the hope that he enjoyed his trip to the maritimes. I should like to ask him a question regarding a statement he made while in that area. When does he expect to reach a decision concerning repairs to the coastguard ship Nanook for which tenders have been called? Work on these repairs would provide a considerable amount of winter employment in this area.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is a question for the order paper.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY    CLEARANCE BY ALL OCEAN GOING VESSELS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister advise the house if all ocean going vessels have now cleared the St. Lawrence seaway?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the last one cleared the seaway the day before yesterday at 10.40 in the morning.

Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



LOSS RESULTING FROM CONTAMINATED


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. It is the same question I addressed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce last Monday and it has to do with the contamination of several cargoes of Canadian wheat by glass. Has the minister ascertained whether these cargoes can be cleaned and, if not, who will have to sustain the loss?


George James McIlraith: No claims have been made. That is the simple answer to the hon. member's question. So his question as to who will sustain the loss does not apply at this time.



FOREST PRODUCTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Pierre-André Boutin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry. Following the statements he made in San Francisco recently to the effect that the world demand for forest products will double in the next twenty years and that Canadian industries must get a large share of that market, can the minister inform the house how the federal government intends to do its share to help those industries?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Forestry is absent, I will take this question as notice.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES REQUEST FOR RETRACTION OF STATEMENTS BY PRESIDENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice  Cole@Chicoutimi: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Could he inform the house whether the government will force Mr. McGregor, chairman of T.C.A., to withdraw some inaccurate statements he made concerning the French aircraft Caravelle which is used by 22 air transportation companies and which has carried more than seven million passengers since it was put into service in May 1959?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George James McIlraith: The government has no intention of forcing

Mr. McGregor to retract any statement he made. As far as I know, he made no inaccurate statement.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister a supplementary question. Does the government intend to suggest to the members of the sessional committee on railways that they invite a representative from the Sud-Aviation Company to reply to the charges made by Mr. McGregor?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, or should know, the standing orders of the house are quite specific on that matter. The members of a committee manage their own discussions and they are the ones who decide whether or not they will ask a witness to come before a committee.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Did the minister in fact say that the statements as made by Mr. McGregor were accurate and that he has examined them accordingly?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. The hon. gentleman appears to be referring to the proceedings of a committee which, of course, is against the rules of the house. For that reason it seems to me the question should be ruled out of order.


Paul Raymond Martineau: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member was referring to the reply given by the Minister of Transport and not to something that occurred in the committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then I apologize.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport gave an answer a few moments ago regarding a statement made by the president of T.C.A. with respect to this French plane. He said "I know of no statement made by him that was inaccurate". I submit that the question asked by the hon. member is quite proper, because it certainly should be cleared up as to what the minister means by saying the statements have not been inaccurate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize for my intervention.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the first question probably should not have been answered at all, because it contained a great number of statements and was quite different from what the Leader of the Opposition has now

indicated. Perhaps I should look at the answer and the question and see if my answer was sufficiently complete, but if I understood the question correctly my answer was quite accurate. I was troubled by the question. Quite frankly, it had so many allegations in it that I was not sure what construction should be put on it. There were so many of them wrapped together.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. We have learned from Quebec that an aerotechnical institute is going to open in Montreal, in 1964. Has the minister received any request for assistance or co-operation from the government of Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is obviously a question for the order paper.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Can he tell us if the federal government has the intention to issue a stamp bearing the effigy of the late President John F. Kennedy?


Hon. Azellus Denis (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been taken on that matter.


Raymond Langlois: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Considering the nature of the question and of the answer, are we to understand that the matter is under consideration?


Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, all suggestions are taken into consideration, and then a final decision is arrived at.



INQUIRY AS TO CONTRACT WITH RHODESIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday the hon. member for Cumberland asked me about negotiations for a long term sugar contract
Inquiries of the Ministry with Rhodesia and when they might be concluded. I informed the house on November 12 that we have been approached by a number of sugar exporting groups with respect to the negotiating of long term contracts. These discussions are still going on, and there is nothing I can say at the present time that would be appropriate.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has he yet been able to make his inquiries into the arrangements at the Winnipeg international airport for international air line passengers who have to stop over there between flights?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I regret not giving the hon. member before now the answer to the question he asked some days ago. I hope he will be tolerant of my absence the last few days. The matter raised by him has to do with the provision made for in transit passengers from a foreign aircraft flying over Canada and landing at Winnipeg for a short time.
This is a matter for decision by the air line concerned, since it is the air line that makes the arrangements for the handling of these passengers on in transit flights. It must determine if it wishes to hold its passengers on the aircraft, have them get off but remain as in transit passengers, that is not cleared by customs and immigration, in which case they may not move around the building, or be cleared by the inspection services so they can circulate freely within the terminal building.
On the flight referred to in the press I gather that the stop was made for 40 minutes only, and that the period of two hours reported in some press stories was not accurate. Accordingly the air line determined that the passengers should be held in transit and not cleared in a way that would permit them to move around the building freely.
Transit facilities at airports normally have limited use. Those in the Winnipeg terminal are comfortable and well furnished. Arrangements have in fact been made to offer additional rooms to the air lines for this purpose when required. If user air lines wish special services provided in these rooms or other adjustments, this is a matter for them to take up with the inspection services or the Department of Transport, according to what their

Pensions Acts
requirements may be. Basically the responsibility rests with the air line concerned for the arrangements it wishes to make for its passengers, and suitable facilities should and can be made available for this purpose.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lon-gueuil.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, I shall wait until tomorrow to ask my question.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, if other members had not asked so many questions, I would have also waited until tomorrow. But, as I wanted to put my question yesterday, I shall do so this afternoon.
My question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Is he aware of the statement made by the Quebec workers federation rejecting the findings of the Gill commission report? If so, what consideration does he intend to give that statement?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it will be the desire of the government to consider carefully all views expressed with respect to the recommendations of the Gill committee. I may tell my hon. friend that the Gill committee recommendations are now under study and will be considered by the government.



PENSIONS


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: the third reading of Bill No. C-125, to amend the Old Age Assistance Act, the Disabled Persons Act and the Blind Persons Act.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, as the house is well aware we in the official opposition, particularly during the debate on second reading, indicated our displeasure with the effective date of the legislation. We feel that the effective date of these increases should be the same as the starting date for the old age security increases.
I do not wish to repeat the many arguments that were presented on second reading', but we do feel that the inequities created [Mr. Mcllraith.l
by the effective date in the present measure should be rectified. We feel that possibly at this stage the government may have reconsidered its position and may wish to do something about this.
In consequence, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill):
That Bill C-125 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole house for the purpose of reconsidering the effective date set out in clause 4 thereof.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before putting the motion, Mr. Speaker, I suppose Your Honour will give the usual consideration to the question of whether it is in order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If Your Honour has any intention of commenting upon the point of order which has been raised by the Secretary of State, I trust you will hear argument first.


Mr. Speaker:: I have already given a very quick consideration to this matter. The motion is in general terms and I see nothing in it which would make it out of order. Therefore under the rules of the house it is my duty to ask if the motion meets with the pleasure of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The way you have put it, Mr. Speaker, is of course the easiest way to get the determination as to the wish of the house. We can do that by a vote, but perhaps it might be said for the record that we in this party also feel very strongly that the effective date of this bill should be reconsidered. We are delighted that the hon. member for Perth has moved an amendment in general terms so that it is in order. The import of the amendment is quite clear, namely that reconsideration of the effective date should result in that date being changed so that these increases in old age assistance, blind allowances and disability allowances will be effective on the same date as was the increase in old age security. The date of that increase was October 1.
We think it is unfortunate that thus far that is not the effective date of these three pieces of legislation. As was pointed out the other day, every time there has been an increase in old age security and in the other related programs the effective date has been the same. It is a shame to spoil the record this time. These three increases should also be retroactive to October 1. We support this amendment very strongly, and we are prepared to show our support by our vote.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: When this matter was raised the other day I pointed out-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am not
quite sure at what stage we are with this amendment, whether Your Honour has put the motion or whether we are speaking to a point of order. However, I should like to say that this party is in favour of making the retroactive date October 1. In fact we, like so many other members, are in favour of increasing old age pensions, assistance to the blind, the disabled and so on.
However, I believe we have to be realistic and practical. We have to realize that the federal government is only paying 50 per cent of the increases that are under consideration in these three fields. If this matter were to be referred back to the committee for reconsideration I suggest to you we would also have to refer the matter to another federal-provincial conference so agreement could be reached for the provinces to pay the other 50 per cent. If I understood correctly, some statements were made in this house earlier that the effective date of December 1 was in some respects a compromise. There were provinces which expressed the desire to make the effective date of this increase April 1 or some time later. I think the interests of the people who are actually going to receive these increases would best be served by passing this measure now when we have agreement from the provinces on the effective date of December 1.
If we referred this matter back to a committee and then parliament did set the effective date as October 1, I submit that the actual increases would be held up for a considerable length of time while another federal-provincial conference was called to ascertain whether the provinces were willing to participate to the extent we all know they do. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, while a lot of high sounding platitudes can be used in referring to these measures, we want to be realistic and practical, and when we have this agreement between the ten provinces and the federal government on this date we would do these people a favour by making the measure law as quickly as possible.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: rise merely for the purpose of pointing out that a change in the effective date of this legislation will not hold up in any way the payment of the increased pensions. This is enabling legislation. Its passage will simply indicate that the federal government is prepared to pay its share of these pension increases as of October 1. Any province which does not want to pay these increases will pay on the old basis and the federal government will pay its share on that basis. There are provinces which will want, as I suggest most 28902-5-366
Pensions Acts
of them will, to pay the increases and make them retroactive as of October 1.
I certainly oppose very strongly this suggestion that the passage of this amendment and the proposed change in the effective date will hold up payment of the increases. There would be no need to call a federal-provincial conference. This is purely enabling legislation. It would merely allow the provinces to make the increases retroactive to October 1 if they so chose. It would leave them the alternative of paying the increases when they are prepared to do so.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the remarks of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat.
First, when we passed the legislation concerning old age pensions, all of us received representations from disabled persons, blind persons and crippled people who also asked for an increase in their pensions.
I am of the opinion that the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) is absolutely right when he states that if the federal government passes this legislation and makes it retroactive to October 1, it says that it is ready to supply the necessary 50 per cent as suggested to the provinces, the provinces being free afterwards to accept or refuse the offer of the federal government.
Then the Canadian people will not blame the federal government if the pensions are not paid. I do not think that the passage of the amendment will delay in any way the passing of the legislation concerning pensions for the disabled or the blind, as of December 1, as was agreed with the provinces. As far as retroactivity is concerned, it would be accepted by provinces that would so desire as of October 1, exactly at the same time when our older citizens received a $10 increase.
We on this side of the house do not see how a member can be against the amendment of the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith). So we agree entirely to the amendment and ask the federal government to offer to the provinces 50 per cent of the increase in the pensions for the disabled and the blind, at the same time as the pensions granted to our older citizens.


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


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has suggested that passing such an amendment would not have the effect of causing a delay

Pensions Acts
with respect to these payments. Hon. members would have no reason, I suppose, to understand that these payments are made on the basis of individual agreements signed with each province. Thirty six agreements in all will have to be negotiated and signed in order to make these payments. I asked my department a couple of days ago what would be the latest date by which this legislation could be passed so that we would be sure that the recipients of these assistance payments could receive them before the end of this year. This, unlike old age security, is not a matter where we can mail out cheques in time if we pass a certain date. Agreements cannot be negotiated and signed until we have royal assent. All hon. members of the house know there is about a week to go in which this legislation might be passed in the other place and receive royal assent. After that time the agreements would have to be negotiated. It seems hardly likely it would be possible to have the agreements executed in time for December payments to be made.
There is, however, another point, and it is one which I ask all hon. members to consider. It is this. In this parliament there has been a great deal of talk from all sides of the house about the necessity for agreement, discussion and understanding between the federal government and the provincial governments. This matter was, as the house was frequently advised, on the agenda of the last dominion-provincial conference and was discussed during the whole of the day given over to pension matters. While a number of provincial premiers indicated that their own governments were prepared to match the federal government's share should there be increases under these assistance programs, at the conference, attended as it was by the ministers of health and of welfare of the various provinces, not one premier suggested that there was any merit in a retroactive payment.
The administration of this plan lies not with the federal government but with each of the provincial governments. The hon. member for Perth must know, since he had the responsibility for this department, that there are a number of differences in the way the administration is handled by the various provinces. Their advice to us was that the administrative difficulties were very great in making such payments retroactive. These are assistance programs; most of them are based on satisfying means tests. It is not as simple a matter to administer such programs as it is to date back legislation to make flat rate payments retroactive.

All hon. members have agreed that it is a good thing to consult the provinces in advance. Some hon. members in the house and outside the house have directed certain critical remarks to me, suggesting that I have not consulted others in advance in certain instances. But the course of advance consultation was taken here, because it is not only federal money that is committed, and it is late in the fiscal year. We would be imposing a burden on the provinces, and let us not have any sophistry about this. While it is true that provincial governments may decide whether or not to pay their share, let us have reference, as a matter of practical politics, to the fact that no provincial government could resist the pressure to make the increase available if we had in fact enacted this legislation. Each one of the provinces thus would have to assume a burden for which they did not budget in the spring of this year.
No hon. member in the house can have failed to observe what every provincial representative said in this capital only a few weeks ago; that they were all short of money for the programs which they themselves had already brought in. They were here seeking additional revenue for this purpose. What is involved in this amendment is, I suggest, an invitation to the federal government now, after full consultation, after hearing the opinions of the provincial governments, to act in breach of its word; to deliberately put a gun to the head of each provincial government and say to it "You try and resist the pressure from your own people now. We have really forced you into a deficit position because we have decided upon this. Notwithstanding what you said, we know better".
Well, Mr. Speaker, it is sometimes suggested from the opposite side of the house that we on this side have taken the position that we know better. We have tried to show in our actions with respect to these shared-cost programs our desire to consult with the provinces, who are closer to the people in this respect; and we have, in consultation- as I explained to the house earlier-and after considerable discussion as to how difficult it is to make a retroactive payment of this kind, decided to make it payable at the earliest possible time, which is December 1.
If this legislation is not proceeded with now even that may not be possible, and it may very well be that in at least some provinces the passage of this amendment would result in needy individuals being deprived of this $10 increase. It would depend, of course, upon the final decision of the provincial government concerned. Those who would pass such an amendment must bear the responsibility for that. I ask my hon.

friend, who was minister of this department and I am sure has at heart the best interests of these recipients of such allowances, to consider for himself and his colleagues the position which could result. I ask the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam and his colleagues to consider what might happen; and I ask, sir, bearing everything in mind, that the vote be against the amendment and we be allowed to make these payments effective December 1, to keep faith with the provinces and to be sure that we get the money out to these people as quickly as possible.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I rise very, very briefly simply to say that the specific references made by the minister are somewhat irrelevant in considering the general terms of the resolution, and we suggest that the question be now put.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask Your Honour for clarification with respect to the point raised by the last speaker. It has always been my understanding that a motion is not in order if it seeks to do something indirectly which cannot be achieved directly. This motion is couched in general terms. I assume that if the date of October 1 had been written in, it would have been out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am very sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but at this point the Chair does not know exactly what means the opposition are going to use under the terms of the proposed amendment. The motion is in general form, and to my way of thinking is in order. I have already given a decision on the point, and I do not think the hon. member can contribute much by continuing his line of argument.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, just before you put the question I would like to say a few words on this amendment. I think this is just another example of the Minister of National Health and Welfare trying to put across a piece of legislation as terrifically messed up and jumbled as anything that has ever been before this house. If the whole matter had been conducted in the proper way and the old age security assistance and blind persons and disabled persons allowances had been discussed and studied with 28902-5-366i
Division
the provinces, we would have had this program decided upon all at once and there would have been no discrimination.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I was paired with the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Mackasey:: I was paired with the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

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



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration including the national co-ordinating committee on agricultural services, $1,057,600.
Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned a week or

so ago, I thought that probably many members on the other side of the house were missing me. I realized this when they complained so much that I was away. I am pleased to be here today. I am pleased to present the estimates. I might also suggest that this is a happy time for agriculture.
The main estimates of the Department of Agriculture for the 1963-64 fiscal year total $171,848,900. Of this amount $129,365,900 is to be voted and $42,483,000 is statutory. The statutory items include provision for the payment of carrying costs of temporary wheat reserves and payments in connection with the Prairie Grain Advance Payment Act. I should explain to the committee that the present main estimates were drawn up under the previous government and before responsibility for the Canadian wheat board was placed with the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It is for this reason that funds required under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payment Act appear in the main estimates of the Department of Agriculture this year.
In addition to the main estimates, two supplementaries have been tabled containing votes for the Department of Agriculture. Supplementary estimates A provide for a total of $372,250, covering various items for which additional funds are required. Supplementary estimates D contain an item for $1 million to provide for the payment of winter storage on western feed grains in eastern position, which I shall refer to later.
In my brief period of office as Minister of Agriculture I have been impressed with the services and the leadership provided by the department to the farming community. It is obvious, of course, that these functions cannot remain static. They must be arranged to meet the changing needs and circumstances of Canadian agriculture, as indeed they have been periodically over the long history of the department.
In the beginning, before the turn of the century, when science was making its first impact on farming, the major preoccupation of the department was in assisting farmers to introduce new cultural and husbandry techniques. This was the period of the inauguration of the experimental farms system and also of the department's veterinary work.
In the earlier part of this century the department's interests expanded gradually into the marketing field, notably in the standardization and grading of a wide range of farm products. The Hon. W. R. Motherwell was particularly responsible for these developments during his period as minister.
The department's entry into the field of rehabilitation and water conservation started

in the 1930's under the leadership of the Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner. This was the era which saw the beginning of the prairie farm rehabilitation and maritime marshland rehabilitation administrations. In the 1940's, price supports for farm products became a part of agricultural policy. In the late 1950's, under the then minister, the hon. member for Calgary North, crop insurance was introduced, the Farm Credit Corporation was established to take over and enlarge the previous functions of the farm loan board, and a start was made on a wider rehabilitation program which was subsequently introduced as the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act. Thus step by step over many years the activities of the department and its associated interests have been adjusted to meet and serve the needs of Canadian farmers.
In the present circumstances of Canadian agriculture it is becoming clear we are concerned with two broad groupings. On the one hand we have a viable, progressive farming industry made up basically of efficient farms operating on good agricultural lands. Increasingly this is becoming an industry of strong family farm business enterprises. While this side of farming does have occasional difficulties in its various segments, it is essentially in a sound position and is able to benefit from the wide range of government activities in such fields as research, production and marketing policies and credit arrangements.
On the other hand we must recognize that we do have a segment of our agriculture where underemployment is serious, the standard of living low and the size of the operations marginal. This segment, unfortunately, does not benefit greatly from the type of policies which are helpful to the more fortunate section of the farming community. In the main, the less productive segment of our agriculture is located in our poorer land areas, individual operations are small by present standards, and the people concerned endeavour to augment their farm income by other employment. This circumstance is not peculiar to Canada. It is being experienced in many countries and farm policy generally is being shaped to include measures to alleviate the circumstances of people in this lower income segment of agriculture.
The objective of rehabilitation and development programs must be to enable people to stand on their own feet and become a viable part of the economy. The necessity of policies for this purpose is recognized and strongly supported by the government. As an indication of this I might point out that since May 1, 1963, 112 ARDA projects have been approved
Supply-Agriculture
involving expenditure commitments of $4,610,000. This compares with a total of 136 projects approved prior to May 1 with expenditure commitments of $2,119,000, or since May 1 we have almost doubled the dollar expenditure in this area. In addition, in six provinces the government of Canada is financing research projects to secure information on which sound programs of rural development can be initiated in problem areas.
Rural development is a particularly challenging aspect of rehabilitation and the one under which, in co-operation with local interests, the circumstances in less productive farming areas are examined and means sought to improve the employment and income opportunities of the local people. This a complex problem and there is no simple or single approach to it. My department will continue to work closely with other departments of government, with the federal-provincial technical and vocational training programs, with the Department of Industry and particularly the area development agency, and with the Atlantic development board and, of course, the provinces to help assure the kind of co-ordinated approach that is surely required.
It is basic to the rehabilitation program, both P.F.R.A. and ARDA, that we develop as quickly as possible a complete inventory of all our lands now devoted to farming to determine the most appropriate use which can be made of them. We refer to this as the Canadian land inventory. Under this the classification of lands according to their suitability for agriculture is now well under way in co-operation with the provinces. Since I assumed office I have signed agreements with eight provinces to carry on this work at a total cost of $126,000. This is in addition to the resources of my department which are being devoted to it.
The Canadian council of resource ministers has agreed, at our suggestion and with federal financing, to sponsor the extension of this inventory to assess the extent to which present farm lands may be more suitable for forestry, recreation and wildlife. In short, we need this particular inventory as a basis on which to build joint federal-provincial policies and programs.
Soil and water conservation is also extremely important. In addition to substantial action programs under P.F.R.A., M.M.R.A. and ARDA we are working with the provinces on research into longer term water conservation problems. These include irrigation areas in Alberta, ground water supplies in Saskatchewan and water sheds in Ontario.
The present master ARDA agreement with the provinces is in effect until 1965. The agreement was deliberately limited to a three year

Supply-Agriculture
period to enable both levels of government to gain experience on which to develop a sound basis of operations in the years ahead. There will, therefore, have to be extensive consultations over the next year to decide on long term rehabilitation programs. While rehabilitation matters must command our attention, we must be concerned also with strengthening the ability of our farmers to compete with the produce of other countries on export markets and in their home market. This requires continuing attention to efficiency in both production and marketing.
This, if course, is the purpose of research. I am sure that any minister coming to the department would be impressed with the ability and dedication of the scientists who serve agriculture in the department's research activities. We spend considerable money on research. Over 20 per cent of departmental funds are devoted to it. However, the benefits which have flowed to Canadian agriculture have justified those expenditures many times over. In fact, the difficulty is to apportion the available funds to meet the demands for research from different parts of the country and from various segments of the industry.
Since I assumed office, I have visited several of the department's research establishments and have appraised service which they are rendering. I intend to continue this practice as opportunity affords. Some are outstanding. Most are of high calibre. A few need strengthening, both in relation to their programs and in respect of their relations with the farming communities in the areas they serve. The responsible officials are appraising this. I support the requirements for research, believing as I do that research directed to the needs of agriculture is fundamental to our farming industry.
One area where the department's research programs needs to be strengthened is in the province of Quebec. We have decided to establish a research laboratory in association with the faculty of agriculture at Laval University and to develop an enlarged horticultural research station at St. Jean.
I am convinced, too, of the need to strengthen livestock testing programs to ensure that our livestock operations remain fully competitive with those of other countries. This is necessary with beef cattle. It is necessary with hogs. On the matter of livestock, while the department has been able to improve its veterinary staff position to some extent, there is still a basic shortage of veterinarians in Canada, as indeed there is throughout the world. The department employs about 25 per cent of all Canada's veterinarians. To help improve the situation, the government offered to assist to establish a veterinary college in western Canada by
[Mr. Hays.j
contributing 25 per cent of the capital cost to a maximum of $625,000. The western provinces accepted this offer and they have decided the college will be established at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon. In fact, it is well on its way.
As I said previously, this is necessary with beef cattle. It is necessary with hogs, where we are gradually losing the quality advantage we have enjoyed for our pork in the United States market, as that country improves its hog quality. On my visit overseas this summer, I was impressed with the hog programs in some European countries. I had sent a mission of our technical people to Europe to look into these in depth. As a further step to strengthen livestock testing, we have removed the earlier restrictions on r.o.p. testing for dairy cattle.
On the international trade front, exports of Canadian agricultural products for the first nine months of this year amounted to $861 million, compared to $803 million for the same period last year. All but a small part of the increase is due to expanded wheat sales. For this crop year, exports of Canadian wheat and flour are expected to be in excess of 550 million bushels. The largest quantity exported in any past year was about 400 million bushels. This year we will export 150 million bushels more than in any previous year.
A number of events which could prove significant for the future of agricultural trade have been taking place. As my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, reported earlier this year, a meeting of ministers was held under the general agreement on tariffs and trade in Geneva last May. The ministers then decided that a new round of comprehensive trade negotiations would begin in May 1964, that these negotiations should cover all products, and that they would deal with both tariffs and non-tariff barriers to trade. The non-tariff barriers have assumed particular importance in agricultural trade in recent years.
A trade negotiations committee was established to prepare for the negotiations, and during the past summer they set up a committee on agriculture to consider and submit to the trade negotiations committee recommendations in regard to the rules to govern and the method to be employed in the creation of acceptable conditions of access to world markets for agricultural products in furtherance of a significant development and expansion of world trade in such products. This agriculture committee met recently and made an initial study of the many problems that will be involved in the agricultural negotiations.

For particular products for which special trade arrangements might be more appropriate, such as wheat and coarse grains, meats and possibly dairy products, the GATT ministers decided that special groups should be established as negotiating bodies. The cereals and meat groups have begun their work and a pilot group has been established for dairy products to review the trade problems in dairy products and determine whether a special group would be the most effective way of dealing with these products. The cereals group has agreed to move into actual negotiations early in the new year. These negotiations would be expected to take several months and would aim for a new world grains agreement to cover wheat, flour and the principal coarse grains. These could prove to be important and far reaching negotiations and it is likely that access to important markets as well as production and price policies of both importers and exporters would be brought into the framework of the negotiations.
What progress will, in fact, be made in the over-all agricultural negotiations is not yet quite clear. The members of the European economic community have still not reached agreement among themselves on a number of basic policy decisions about their own agricultural arrangements. The United States has stated on a number of occasions that if progress is not made in the negotiations on agriculture, it will be unable to reduce its industrial tariff. Much will depend on the extent of the participation of these two major trading partners. Canada, of course, will be playing her full part, with the interest of our own relatively efficient agriculture industries very much in our minds.
Reverting now to domestic matters, X might say a word about crop insurance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I might interrupt the minister, since he is starting now on a new item? I have an indication that there might be agreement to go on until just a minute or two before six, since there is one private bill, I think the first one, that there would be some disposition to consider briefly. If that were the unanimous wish of the committee, it would give the minister a chance to complete his remarks without interruption.


The Chairman:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Harry William Hays: Reverting now to domestic matters I might say a word about crop insurance. The crop insurance schemes are operated by the provinces. Under the Crop Insurance Act, the federal government supports approved provincial schemes by paying 20 per cent of the premiums and reimbursing the
Supply-Agriculture
provinces for 50 per cent of their administrative expenses. If the claims in any one year exceed reserves plus $200,000, the federal government will lend a province 75 per cent of that.
I am sure we are all hopeful that crop insurance will expand so that farmers may protect themselves against serious crop failures due to circumstances beyond their control. However, an impediment to its expansion, particularly in some of the western provinces, is the concern of the provinces that a serious, widespread crop failure before adequate reserves had been built up may put a severe strain on their financial resources. I can inform the committee that the government is entering into discussions with the provinces with a view to working out an arrangement under which the federal government would be prepared to reinsure a part of the residual risk which now falls completely on the province.
We are also examining whether the present provisions with respect to farm credit are adequate for the present needs of Canadian agriculture. This is a matter of considerable interest to farm organizations and a brief with respect to it has been submitted to me by the federation of agriculture.
The farm credit corporation, at my request, has been studying the matter and examining programs in existence in other countries. I have asked the corporation to undertake a survey of a cross-section of Canadian farmers to determine their views and requirements.
There is a matter which has some association with farm credit which I would like to mention briefly. It is associated also with the net income position of farmers, which is dependant on two considerations. One is the revenue from the sale of produce; the other is farm operating expenses.
Many measures have been taken by governments, at both the federal and provincial level, to help stabilize and improve farm income. Farm operating costs, however, continue to rise and it is becoming increasingly important that farmers, with government guidance and leadership, look for ways to economize in their operating costs. One field which we are exploring is that of farm machinery. In 1961, depreciation on machinery, interest on investment and repairs represented 20 per cent of total farm expenses. A survey of a sample of grain farms in the prairies in 1962 showed that these items contributed about 50 per cent of the expenses there. An additional consideration is the heavy capital cost of farm machinery and equipment, which often is financed at a high interest rate. This capital cost of machinery is, indeed, one of the most serious stumbling blocks to young

has been successful in achieving an increase of about 20 per cent in our cheese production. All present indications are that this increased volume will be handled without serious difficulty. Indeed, I am impressed by the fact that the demand in export markets for top quality mature Canadian cheese exceeds the available supply, and my department is exploring means to direct our dairy assistance program to encourage an increase in the production of this type of cheese.
Mr. Chairman, in all these matters involving agricultural policy it is important that there be close discussion and co-ordination between federal and provincial interests. I met with the provincial ministers of agriculture at their summer conference in Edmonton and we will be meeting again at the federal-provincial agricultural conference here on December 16, 17 and 18. The provincial and federal governments have important roles in the development of policy in the interests of Canadian agriculture. I regard it as important, and I know the view is shared by my provincial colleagues, that there be close liaison between us in the common interest of agriculture.


Mr. Hamilton:: Mr. Chairman, do I understand that we are to revert to private members' hour at a few minutes to six o'clock?


Lucien Lamoureux: Yes; the understanding of the Chair is that we are to go on until a few minutes before six.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be an understatement if I said that the house was awaiting the minister's statement with some interest. I think you can readily understand that in view of some remarks which the minister made over the last six or seven months, we were awaiting his statement on these estimates with considerable interest. But now that we have had this statement some of us are wondering what kept it so long, because quite frankly I believe as a Canadian there is a future in farming. However, in view of the minister's statement, I sometimes wonder how that is going to come about, unless there is a very serious realization on the part of the government that fundamental problems now before us need fundamental solutions.
First, I am going to mention a few of the things mentioned by the minister, and then suggest where I think the emphasis should go; because in talking about agriculture we should never lose sight of the fact that a big problem existed, that it was tackled a few years ago, and that we want nothing to interfere with the solution to the problem.
The minister mentioned that there are two broad groups in Canada, the farmer who has
28902-5-367
Supply-Agriculture
adjusted to the conditions of agriculture today and who can be labelled as efficient, and then the marginal farmer. I listened intently as the minister spoke to see if there was any sign that he understood not only the depth of this problem but the fundamental nature of the solutions that must be undertaken.
Not so long ago, on October 14, it was my privilege to move a motion of no confidence in the government on the basis that no action was being taken on a short term solution to meet the problems of eastern farmers. In the over-all picture today we have one basic fact to consider, that with the tremendous and rapid growth of technology in agriculture in the western countries, the industrialized countries where agriculture has almost led the way in technological changes, these countries have a capacity to produce far greater than the ability of their domestic populations to consume.
That fact can be looked upon as a threat to the well being of our farmers, or it can be looked upon as a great asset to be used in the over-all process of developing the income of our country and serving the people of the world in general. When I heard this mention of the two groups I thought we would also hear some indication that there was complete understanding of the necessity of what could be done to take this great ability to produce and harness it for the good of the world, and at the same time have policies in effect that could do something to lift up these farmers in the marginal group.
It was a buckshot treatment of the subject. Some of the matters that I think come close to meeting these two problems were mentioned, but there was no evidence I could find that there was a deep understanding of what the main problem is.
On October 14, when I outlined the extent of this problem, I indicated from the statistics provided by the 1961 census that 43 per cent of the farmers in Canada had a gross income, before deduction of expenses, which could only be considered as verging on slum conditions. The minister spoke after me on that occasion and said that these figures were for losers, and this was all a bunch of junk. I do not know how the people on these marginal farms in Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes feel about his saying their problem is just a bunch of junk, but I did think that after the couple of months elapsed since that speech was made, there would be an indication of some action, and less talk. I say this because away back on October 14 we heard all about what had to be done with respect to machinery costs. The minister said this was going to be studied, but today we are going to study it once again.

Supply-Agriculture
For the minister's information I can tell him we have been studying this problem of machinery since the 'thirties, and there have been innumerable committees set up and innumerable proposals made, but still we wait for the action. A committee was set up during the administration of the previous government, which was trying to get at the basic troubles and was making good progress. However it was cut off with the change of government, and this matter has not come again before the committee on agriculture and colonization.
Therefore I would like to suggest here, with regard to the action that has to be taken, both on behalf of making use of the tremendous capacity to produce of the efficient farmer and finding him markets at remunerative prices and, second, with regard to getting at these marginal farmers' problems, that I listened in vain for some indication of a deep understanding of what these problems implied and the actions that must be taken. Instead, we had this rambling account, covering the whole broad field, without the evidence that there is something deep behind these various suggestions.
Mr. Chairman, I will give you an example of what I mean. The minister said that up until May 1, there had been 122 projects signed under ARDA. Then he said that since May 1, there had been 136 projects signed and, ipso facto, he was doing a better job than the previous government. Well now, I wanted to hear something of his philosophy of ARDA. Is he going to make ARDA purely a question of signing contracts with provincial governments to do certain things, or does he intend to insist in his department that the philosophy of ARDA, agreed on by the provinces and the federal government, shall be maintained?
This philosophy I am talking about is that ARDA will not degenerate into simply doing things like draining a marsh or building a dam, but will go to the guts of the question, which is to raise the farm income in these marginal areas by looking for income opportunities; and if those income opportunities come in any line whatsoever, then they should be made available to the people on that land.
If studies indicate there is over population in some areas, then what is going to be done with that over population? Here is one of the biggest tasks that can be placed before governments all over the world. It applies to many other countries besides our own; but after 50 or 60 years of this problem's developing, finally, in the year 1961, a government took hold of it. There was no intent or intention of trying to solve the problem in one

year, two years, five years or 20 years, but to start the ARDA operation accurately and make it work.
I will give you another example, Mr. Chairman, the philosophy of ARDA is to make every possible use of the land, and if ARDA is narrowed down into just a concept of agreeing with the provinces to build, as I have said, a drainage ditch or a dam, that is not the answer. The answer is to make the best use of that land.
When the minister mentioned the question of the land inventory I hoped he would then mention that this was tied in with the philosophy of ARDA, because this question of land inventory is not new. However he did mention, when he talked about the inventory, that he would look to see if this land could be better used for forestry, recreation or wildlife. This is what I mean by extra opportunities. We must not consider ARDA purely in the traditional sense of agriculture, but rather as a device, as administrative and legislative machinery to make the best use of our land and to increase the income of the people on it.
These various agreements under ARDA will be watched very keenly by those of us in opposition. This is legislation which I think pioneered a concept that was at least equal, if not superior, to legislation in any other country of the world. The provinces support it wholeheartedly. The farm organizations support it wholeheartedly. Where it has been explained to the farmers, in many cases they know it is their only hope. Not only do I plead with the minister to dig into ARDA to try to understand its philosophy and its principles, but I ask that he become the living exponent of it and make sure that it is never narrowed down just to the traditional agriculture, but also exploring of all possible uses to which land can be put.
Still speaking of ARDA, Mr. Chairman, the organization of ARDA is not complete. If we are to carry through to the end the philosophy and principles of ARDA we are going to have to recognize that it must be a completely co-operative venture with the provinces. There can be no more of this business of the federal government deciding every little detail of what the provinces do. This problem is so immense and so close to the people who live in the country that the government closest to the people has the best knowledge of what to do; and when recommendations come up through the ARDA chain-through the group of ministers at the provincial level to the group of ministers at the federal level-the project in question should be looked at to see if it is in conformity with the general understanding of the general ARDA agreement, and there should be no quibbling over dotting

the i's and crossing the t's. It is the provinces' responsibility, and if in the opinion of the federal government these things do not fit into the over-all agreement and are at variance with the principles of ARDA, the provinces have to be told very plainly that the federal government will not support that program any longer. But ARDA will die if you try to control every dollar and cent which is spent. Surely if you make an agreement under the master agreement to cover the principle of a project, the provinces are in the best position to decide whether control should be confined in the first place to the local level. All that we should be concerned with is whether it follows the principles of ARDA, and we should make sure that the provinces do not abuse it in any way, go beyond the principles of ARDA or narrow down its concepts. So I say that there is need for a comprehensive look at the requirements of the country, and that is the job of ARDA at the federal level. Let the details of the administration and supervision of these projects rest largely with the provinces. Certainly we can maintain control of our dollars invested in them by a general perusal of those programs; but if we kill off each program by watching every nickel spent and by taking a year to decide whether or not a project should be approved, it is the quickest way to stop any progress under ARDA.
Still following along the line of the concept of redevelopment, the minister mentioned water conservation. He also mentioned irrigation in Alberta and groundwater table surveys in Saskatchewan; and I think he mentioned one more. These are good in themselves, and I have worked hard and long to get that groundwater survey started. But I waited today for one of the most important statements that the minister could have made. Speaking now of western Canada, surely he must be aware that for many years the great need of western Canada has been for a physical and economic survey of the Sas-katchewan-Nelson river system. Surely he must be aware that the western Canada reclamation association and the South Saskatchewan river development association have both pleaded with governments to bring forward some form of joint study. Surely he must be aware that the federal government proposed to the three provincial governments concerned that we be all prepared to share the financing.
I know that this matter is one of constant interest, but I want the minister to know what is our feeling on this side of the house about this study. This is not just a study of the amount of water that flows down the river. We can ascertain that just by looking at the records of the northern affairs water resources branch. What we want to know is 28902-5-3674
Supply-Agriculture
what are all the forms of water which we can get the use of over the next 30 to 40 years in the west. This has to be a co-operative study because the economic study of the area will lead to solutions which must be reached co-operatively. What I am frightened of is that some single department-I am referring to northern affairs and national resources-will say: "We want to do this study because we have a water resources branch".
If that happens, Mr. Chairman, the first thing the government will run into is the opposition of one or two of the provinces. The machinery for this study is ready now. We have the prairie provinces water board with three members from the provinces on it and two members from the federal government. This board should be authorized to carry out the study. The study should be speeded up, because we have wasted the last two or three years trying to get agreement with one of the provinces, and now that province shows signs of giving its agreement. This study should be both physical and economic. I am looking at all the possibilities of that river basin. I suggest that this prairie provinces water board realize that the P.F.R.A. organization has certain opinions; they realize that the P.F.R.A. has certain machinery to carry out the big aspects of the study. They know what the Saskatchewan research council is doing in this matter. With all this information available I ask them not to duplicate what is being done but to correlate it and fill in the gaps. I suggest strongly that this is something which would indicate that there is a comprehensive approach to redeveloping many of these areas of Canada; and on this particular aspect I am speaking about the prairies.
I am going to skip some of the subjects, Mr. Chairman, because I realize that I have not time to cover them all, and I am turning now to the question of the eastern farmer. Generally speaking, if one measures the health of agriculture by looking at the realized net income per farm over the past 10 or 12 years, this is the best knowledge that we have of finding out where the trouble lies. It is obviously not the final way but it is the best way that we know. I put on the record of the house two months ago some of the income statistics per farm by province and regions so as to indicate in a general sort of way how the income in the prairie provinces in the last five years has risen and is beginning to look fairly good. It is coming up. In Ontario it is just fair because the income of the good farms is balanced off by the low level of income from the marginal farms. In Quebec it can only be described as poor. There is an increase but it is a poor

Supply-Agriculture
level of increase. In the maritimes it can only be described in one short word, "bad". If we are going to look at the health of agriculture-and the income figure tells us where its health is bad-surely there should be a concentration of interest on the problem of the marginal farmer who has not been able to adjust, at the same time not letting down on our program to help the efficient farmer.
What evidence did we have in the minister's statement that there was a real and serious effort to get at this program? Almost none. What the minister said was that we are voting $1 million in these estimates and the supplementary estimates to pay for storage for grain stored in eastern positions for domestic use. He thought that this would answer all the eastern farm problems; that this would bring down, and has brought down, a sufficient supply to meet the needs. I am not going to repeat what has been happening in the standing committee, Mr. Chairman. I am going to put it in this way. There is a long range problem here. We have set up the machinery, both legislative and administrative, under ARDA to look after the long range program of adjustment. But we have to remember that there are short-range measures we can take, I should like to suggest five or six in number.
One of these is to get at the biggest single cost of the eastern farmer, the cost of feed grain. The minister suggests that by spending $1 million for storage in terminal elevators in Montreal, Quebec, Three Rivers, Halifax and other places this whole problem will be solved. I simply say, as I said on October 14, that this will not solve the problem. A farmer who is feeding stock wants to know what the price will be for the six months he is feeding. He wants to have stability of price. I do not know why the government shies away from this. This whole matter has been discussed in the committee, and we are working there. As you may know, Mr. Chairman, between 15 and 18 Progressive Conservative members, not only from the east but from the west, are there attending the committee every day, attempting to find some solution to this problem. Drawing evidence from witnesses is, sometimes, like pulling deeply rooted teeth, but slowly and inexorably we are reaching the point where we can make suggestions. Even if this government has no suggestions to make, the rank and file of that committee do have suggestions which will meet the needs of eastern agriculture.
There is no secrecy about it. We had a bill ready a year ago. The whole of this year has been wasted. Nothing has been done about the long range task of stabilizing the price of feed to eastern producers, who need to know what the price will be over the whole

of the six months period. The eastern farmer is not complaining about the price the western farmer is getting. He is complaining because when he starts to feed he cannot be sure the price will remain stable. In the past the price has gone up during the feeding operation, and as a result eastern farmers have lost their investment. We have been waiting to see whether an announcement would be made on the occasion of these estimates to show that the government had produced a policy to meet the situation. But we are disappointed.
The minister went further and told us there should be some body set up to provide liaison between all the agencies of government and private business concerned with the supply of feed grain. I do not wish to go into detail about the work of the committee but I think the questions which were put to the witnesses and the answers which members of the committee received indicated that this suggestion cannot possibly meet the needs of the eastern feeders. I know this proposal was put forward by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, but the representatives of that body did not look like very happy witnesses after they had been questioned by the members of the committee. Once again, the government is shying away from the main problem.
A government which is not prepared to move to help eastern agriculture in the face of the figures on record should not be sitting on the government side of this house. I speak harshly on this question because I feel deeply about it. The minister must be aware that a study was made last January of conditions in the five eastern provinces. I asked the provincial governments to pick areas in Ontario, Quebec and the three maritime provinces where income was below the average level. We sent in competent people to interview the farmers in these areas in depth. This study is now available to the hon. gentleman. I do not intend to ask for its reproduction, though I sometimes wish that a summary of it might be published. I honestly believe that if the people of Canada were made aware of the situation in 22 areas of eastern Canada, as disclosed in that study, the shame of it would force any government into taking action.
There are many things to be done. I suggested that we have five or six in mind. The first is to stabilize the price of feed grain, and this is going to be done, if the opposition has any say.
To return briefly to the situation of the efficient farmer. The efficient farmer has a tremendous capacity to produce. We have demonstrated that if we go out and search for markets, as we have done in the case of markets for grain, these markets can be

found. Today we face a prospect that by the end of 1965 the western farmer producing bread grain can increase his production by 15 or 20 per cent, using all the techniques available to him. I am not the least pessimistic about that. What a contrast with what was said in the Gordon commission report, in 1956, to the effect that we could look forward only to exporting 250 million bushels of wheat a year until 1980. Today, in 1963-64, not only are we going to hit an export figure of 550 million bushels, as has been suggested by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but our exports are likely to exceed 600 million bushels and be closer to 625 million bushels. Russia has now come into the market as a regular buyer requiring definite quantities of wheat. The countries behind the iron curtain are saying they want to trade with us on a permanent basis. China wants to trade with us on a permanent basis. In these circumstances we must look forward to providing for export at least 400 million bushels a year. All this shows what can be done. I wish to turn, now, to eastern agriculture.
Who is carrying the mail for the dairy industry today? All we have heard today is that 15 million pounds of surplus butter have been got rid of. Is this the answer? The minister said the cheese market has been expanded. That is good, but I am thinking about a world which needs proteins and which is willing to pay for them if the stuff is available for sale. I know there are limitations. We have allies in New Zealand and Denmark, friendly democratic countries, and we would not think of putting our products on the world market at a dump figure. If the world price for butter is 32 cents. I am sure no Canadian government would sell it for less. If they did, and if, as a consequence, the world price fell to 27 cents or 28 cents, a serious charge could be laid against the minister that in exporting our surplus he had lowered the world price to the great detriment of our friends in Denmark and New Zealand.
I listened carefully to what the minister said about the desirability of an international agreement covering flour and coarse grains. Discussions in this direction should include dairy products, because this is the field in which agreement is most needed. We are, fortunately, in a sellers' market for grain and we can talk good terms. Today, the need is in the dairy industry. The answer to the difficulties of that industry will not be found in making a modest change in the price of cheese or in the price of skimmed milk powder, though all this helps. I have before me a speech made by Mr. Hannam-the last speech of a man who had given over 20 years of service to the farmers of this country. He says that short term solutions are not enough; there
Supply-Agriculture
must be long term solutions. This particular speech was delivered in January, 1963. Then he went on to deal with the dairy industry. He said the government was working with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to reach a national dairy policy. Well, I have not heard anything about this idea in the last eight months, although it was conceived more than a year ago. I have not heard of the birth of any policy. Has there been an accident in the meantime? Has there been a stillbirth? I do not know. But I do know this: The dairy farmers of Canada, particularly of Ontario and Quebec, expect some action to be taken by this government, not just a few words about what is happening to the price of butter, and so on. There is to be discussion with the provinces, not only next summer, at the summer conference, but in the conference to be held next week.
I would hope that the minister would concentrate on the problem of a national dairy policy. We had a conference on February 22 last. There was an election on April 8 and the government changed on April 22. I have waited all this time for some sign that the little idea we started with over a year ago resulting in the conference on February 22 last is going to flower into something tangible, because in addition to looking at the short term situation you have to look at the long term.
My time is nearly up. I could discuss crop insurance, net income and a few other things, but I think I have made my point clear.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Has the hon. member the unanimous consent of the committee to proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will still shorten my remarks because I do not want to trespass on the committee. The minister likes to say that he is a pretty knowledgeable person with regard to agriculture. When any person points out the terrible conditions that exist in some segments of agriculture, he likes to say that this is junk. But he has come out today with this bits and pieces type of announcement that indicates to me he has no concept whatsoever of a broad, comprehensive policy to get at the fundamental needs of agriculture. Fortunately, even though he does not recognize it, he is operating today on the momentum of the seven point program announced in the house on August 20, 1958, and put into legislative form and administrative practice in the years that followed, which today is moving agriculture to higher and higher plateaus. As long as he does not understand it, fine; but I hope that with all the juggling he is doing he will not rock the boat.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. Would the committee consider this an opportune time to proceed to the consideration of private members' business?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Chairman, may I draw your attention to the fact that I think this was to hinge upon the return of the sponsor of the bill standing first under private bills. He is not here yet. It also hinges to some extent upon the return of the hon. member for Danforth who is also interested in this bill. I understood the bill was to await their return, and the indication of agreement or otherwise.


Mr. MacNaughi:: That is substantially correct, and I suggest we carry on.


Siegfried John Enns: Mr. Chairman, since we are considering a change in the business I am wondering whether we could not go on with consideration of item No. 150 under private bills.


Lucien Lamoureux: We can consider that when the Speaker is in the chair. At the moment we are still in supply. The hon. member for Timiskaming.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, we have waited for some time, as I am sure agriculture has waited, for a statement from the minister which I presumed would follow along the lines of the speech he made, indicating that there were at least four major problems facing agriculture today. We are surprised and I am sure all those connected with agriculture will be surprised at the statement made by the minister today, a statement prepared by civil servants revealing some of the problems of agriculture. Having read some of the minister's own speeches I am sure the one today is not in the same category.
Some things have been said this afternoon by the former minister of agriculture which I think warrant a reply by the minister, and I will be very interested in that reply because since I have been in the house there has always been a tendency to say to the government of the day: You are just carrying on something we started; you are simply amending it and making it a little better. In this case I would think it would be very difficult

to carry that very far because there does not seem to be much change in the situation at all.
In my opinion agriculture is in a very bad condition in much of Canada. It is quite true that the government through various agencies has been very successful in the marketing of one of our major products, wheat. It is quite true that we were very fortunate, and this really has nothing to do with government but is related to climatic conditions and the ability of the farmers to grow wheat, in that we were able to harvest a bumper crop of wheat in western Canada and have been able to sell a large portion of it through various agencies. We have now reached a stage, Mr. Chairman, where we must ask ourselves, if we remain as a prime exporter of wheat, whether or not we are holding sufficient grain in storage to take care of any calamity that may occur, such as has happened to other exporting nations. If such an event occurred, would we be in a position to take care of our needs for a sustained period of several years? I would think with the maintenance of the stock this year, we probably will be in no worse position in this regard than we were in former years.
However, I believe that before long a study has to be initiated of the potential of Canadian agriculture and our role as an exporting nation, in order that we can be sure of maintaining sufficient stock to take care of the fluctuations that are inherent in an agricultural economy. As we all know, the crop depends on the weather and we should maintain good stocks in storage as a protection for the years when crops may not be up to standard. The situation in which Russia finds itself today could easily be repeated in Canada because, to some extent, we are subjected to the same kind of climatic conditions. Over the years, Russia has built up production, and this year they find themselves faced with their terrific shortage because they did not maintain sufficient stock in storage.
The Minister of Agriculture has several thoughts of his own in that October 14 speech. One of these related to the problem of farm machinery. I am not sympathetic to a government-and I am not referring just to this government but to the previous government as well-which has committees available on which there are agricultural people with some knowledge of this subject and who are willing to spend their time discussing these particular subjects, but who are not used by the government. I blame the previous government for not reconstituting the farm machinery committee after it had done so much work in this particular field. In October the Minister of Agriculture said he felt the high cost of farm
Supply-Agriculture
machinery was one of the major problems and therefore, I expected he would do something about it. I believe the statement he made was considered by other agencies. I refer particularly to the Searle Grain Company which, in one of their publications, mentioned this problem in an article entitled, "Farm Machinery Costs Bearing Upon the Small Farmer." I quote in part from this article:
It would be interesting to know exactly what the Minister of Agriculture had in mind the other day when, in discussing some of the major problems faced by western farmers, he suggested that "if we are going to have the family farm we must have some sort of rental deal whereby the fanner will be able to rent the machinery he needs when he has good crops."
We have always been quite interested in this subject. From time to time various Department of Agriculture officials and economists have warned that operational efficiency could be seriously affected through over-capitalization in farm machinery. At the same time they have cautioned against purchasing sizes and types of farm machinery that were uneconomic to the farm operator. Others have gone so far as to say one of the main reasons for the difficulty facing many of the small farm operators in western Canada can be traced to an over-investment in high priced farm machinery-that is the purchase of combines, swathers or other high priced units by operators whose size of farm or scale of operations could not possibly justify such an outlay or provide an opportunity for the full utilization of the equipment purchased.
There is no indication that this matter is going to be discussed in the statement the minister made today. He certainly did not refer to any activity that would indicate the subject was going to be discussed, yet it is one of the major issues faced by the government.
There are other things which the minister mentioned, such as the credit we need to make farm units economical. The Farm Credit Corporation was good, but not good enough, said the minister. Our third big problem is crop disaster-that is, when many farmers had their crops hailed out, dried out, blown out or frozen out. There are farmers who need help, and the sooner we do it the better. The minister asked: "How can we do it when we waste so much time in this house? I have never seen such a waste of time; it is just fantastic." I do not think the minister needs to worry about that. He is the least well known member of this house. He is almost unknown in his own department. I have talked to officials who have never met the minister. He need not worry about the time wasted here. I do not believe this is good enough for agriculture. I think we need to do something about it, and the Canadian public are demanding that we do something about it.
I should like to adjourn this debate and return to this subject at seven o'clock.

Supply-Agriculture


John Watson MacNaught: Since there are one or two formalities to be performed before six o'clock, I suggest the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again later this day.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Government House Ottawa, December 12, 1963
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Gerald Fauteux, a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 12th day of December, at 10.15 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
X have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.


Lucien Lamoureux: 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 7 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration including the national co-ordinating committee on agricultural services, $1,057,600.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, before the recess I was commenting on the fact that the minister in a speech in October had indicated that one of the things needed in this area was assistance to the dairy industry. I think this is a field to which the minister should give his full attention. We thought at one time that the second minister of agriculture would probably work in this field, and we have been surprised that so little has been accomplished in this respect. In the field of eastern agriculture, particularly in the dairy industry, there is room for expansion and government assistance, because the dairy industry has not by any means reached a capacity position and if assistance is given it is quite likely there will be an expansion in almost every part of that industry.

Ontario has given consideration to some of the problems. A speech made recently by the minister of agriculture of Ontario indicated their desire to explore the methods of marketing agricultural products, and lamented the fact that some difficulty had been experienced in maintaining the agreements negotiated between producer and distributor in the dairy industry. There has been, and is, government interest in the field of establishing grades in the dairy industry, particularly in the matter of cream, and establishing a price based on quality of the product rather than just on the quantity. We are all aware that some fields, such as the premium export of cheese, the field of unpasteurized cheese for export, can be greatly increased. This is a field for which there is a large market in Europe and it is a market we have not been able to satisfy for some time.
Perhaps some hon. members are not aware of the fact that much of the cheddar cheese produced in Ontario and eastern Canada today is generally of the quick pasteurized type which is difficult to sell in Britain, in particular, because of the difficulty in maintaining a grade. However, cheese that is naturally cured has a ready market and is a field which I think many cheese producers should be encouraged to enter. Additional assistance should be provided which will allow for the storage facilities necessary in competition between the two types of cheese. In producing milk the dairy industry has also run into many problems to which I was very surprised to learn the federal Department of Agriculture had given little consideration.
The problem of surpluses has bugged the dairy industry, particularly the fluid milk industry, over the years; but now the industry has found a new way of making use of milk surpluses, converting them into sterile milk which is manufactured under the trade name of multimilk. This is a development which is quite prevalent in northern Ontario, and I should at once point out that there is nothing wrong with multimilk. Through a process of vacuuming, manufacturers are now able to sterilize products, removing the bacteria from them so that, for example, when meat is packaged it can sit on a store shelf without refrigeration for several weeks without any deterioration in its quality.
Multimilk is a vacuum treated, water removed product which the housewife can leave on a kitchen table or shelf for quite a period of time. She has only to add water to the product, in the ratio of two quarts to one, to turn it into liquid milk. However, the complaint of the dairy industry, particularly the fluid milk industry, is that this milk which is coming on to the market as a fluid milk is not classified by the department as

a fluid milk but as a processed product; yet it is in competition with fluid milk.
This is further complicated by the fact that the milk which goes into its manufacture is bought at surplus prices. Normally fluid milk in Ontario is marketed at over $5 a cwt. while surplus milk fetches only $2.85 a cwt. Yet when the surplus milk is processed it has a premium price over fluid milk, but the farmers only get the surplus milk price for it.
There is another side to this problem. One has only to walk into a grocery store and look at the dairy counter to find pounds and pounds of what appears to be butter, but on examination it will be seen to be margarine. This product is now coloured and has the appearance of prints of butter. However the farmer gets very little protection against this unfair type of competition. A government that is interested in helping the farmers will give consideration to these matters.
The minister did bring out some good points, and in this connection I would like to point out that many Liberal candidates in the last election talked about farm credit and the extension of credit to help make good, economic, farm units. There is nothing more important to the farmer than the ability to establish good credit, and to get the money necessary to make his farm an economic unit. However the Liberal candidates failed to point out to the farmers that credit in itself is not necessarily a good thing.
Because I have a job and can go down to a finance company and borrow $2,000 or $3,000 does not necessarily mean it is a good thing for me to borrow it, unless I have some purpose for its use, some project that will bring me a return, that will enable me to pay off the loan and still be able to maintain my family or my operating unit on an economical basis. In fact, the department itself in its publications stresses this fact, and in the Farm Credit Corporation publication, "Credit for Profit" it says:
"Credit for profit" is a short way of saying that the borrowed dollars should be used to provide an increased income which will pay all operating and maintenance costs, give the farmer and his family a good living, and provide for the orderly repayment of the required credit.
This is often forgotten. In my constituency the Liberal candidate went around telling the farmers, "You have not been able to get credit under the Conservative government. We will give you your loans; just make the application." If this had happened it would have put half the farmers in Timiskaming out of business. A farm credit loan, based on a mortgage on the land, is only an acceptable credit if the farmer can prove to the person making the loan that there is a chance
Supply-Agriculture
to pay it back, and at the same time maintain his farm as an economic unit.
This matter of credit has been considered by the house several times in recent years, and the results have been fairly satisfactory. There is no question but that when we discuss this there will be complaints and some talk about the fact that all the lawyers handling the mortgages change as soon as the government changes. Patronage applies in the legal section as well as in others, but this is not my point. I believe that agriculture is an industry that is as valuable to Canada today as it has ever been. It is an industry that needs assistance because it is highly automated. The farmer must be given assistance to help him package and deliver his products to the consumer, whether the product be grain, free of glass, or any other commodity.
The farmers of the nation deserve better for their contribution to it. We have heard there is going to be a cabinet shuffle. Certainly we need it in this portfolio, because I do not think the minister is interested in his department. I do not think he is interested in the things that go on in the department. In all honesty he should say whether he is going to be in Ottawa and will do something in the department, or not. There are Liberal members of the agriculture committee who are trying to do something on behalf of farmers, and I am sure the farm organizations will want some change made in the department. I would go further, Mr. Chairman, and say that the assistant minister, who is to be designated as the eastern representative of agriculture, has done even less than the minister. Nobody has been filling this portfolio, and anyone who wanted it could step into it.
For several weeks on the agriculture committee I have sat with many young Liberals who are interested in agriculture. It is not for us to question whether the voters were right in deciding they would only send one Liberal from the prairies to parliament, but there are young progressive farm representatives in the Liberal party who have made a great contribution to the agriculture committee. I see two of them now sitting behind the minister, both the chairman and vice chairman of the agriculture committee, and I think they have an honest desire to see that something is done in agriculture.
I strongly recommend that the Prime Minister give consideration to some of these young people. If they did not want to, they would not have sat on the agriculture committee, and I would point out that that committee had a great time getting the minister to attend it for one afternoon.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest he resign. Agriculture deserves a better deal than it is getting. The minister on numerous occasions has said

Supply-Agriculture
that this place is a waste of time, that he has never seen such a fantastic waste of time. If he thinks this, then he has an obligation to the Prime Minister and his other colleagues in the cabinet to do something about it.
Yesterday I sat for an hour and a half listening to the Canadian Labour Congress present its brief to the government. It was generally agreed by everybody there that they were quite happy with the reception they received from the government. I kept thinking of the situation that prevailed a year or two ago, when the former prime minister exercised some influence in this field, and that was not the feeling then. I think the situation has changed from the position where labour was not the white-haired boy to the position where it is now that. On the other hand farmers are not any longer sure they are getting a hearing from the government and have lost faith in the Minister of Agriculture's ability to help them. They deserve better than this and I think the minister, who has had some success in other fields, would be fair to his colleagues to take this into consideration.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the members of this group we welcome this occasion, which is the first time the minister has made a major speech to outline a broad, general review of some of the agricultural policies his government has undertaken since it took office. In the few minutes available to me this evening I want to make a general statement of policy on behalf of my party and to indicate to the minister and the government some of the things we support and some of the things to which, at least up to this point, we think they have not paid sufficient attention.
Before I go to that I should like the minister and all hon. members of this committee to know that we in this group consider agriculture still to be the most important industry in Canada. For that matter it is still the most important industry in the world. Whether the meaning can be given to the remark of the minister during some of the debates which have taken place in this house about its being a waste of time, I do not know. If that is what he means, we violently disagree with him. I should like him to know that the success or failure of an organization as large and of such magnitude as that of the European economic community is in jeopardy today because not enough time has been spent over agreement on agricultural policies. I heard on the radio news broadcast yesterday that the French delegate to negotiations now under way in Brussels walked out of the discussions and went back to his government for further instructions. The reason is because President 
de Gaulle of France is demanding that agricultural policy within this market be determined now; he is not willing to wait any longer. In fact, he has indicated that unless this agricultural policy is determined very soon he may even withdraw France from the whole agreement within the European economic community.
I should like also to point out to the minister and the government that there is an article in the Christian Science Monitor indicating that the whole "Kennedy round" of negotiations respecting GATT and the E.E.C. is going to fail unless a satisfactory solution is found to our agricultural policies. In other words, agriculture to Europe, particularly to France and even to the United States, is so important that all their other agreements respecting trade will break down unless they can come to some mutually satisfactory arrangement over agriculture. I just want to make it abundantly clear that even the most highly industrialized nations of the world, such as the United States, France, and so on, regard agricultural policy as paramount, with the exception perhaps of defence. The previous prime minister had this to say, and I am not sure whether he was in the house at the time because my source does not indicate that. He said:
Trade has become a major weapon in the communist offensive. They do not care about profits. Their profits will be measured by the numbers of souls who trade their survival as free men for the temporary material advantage of the present.
So I suggest that even the past prime minister has indicated that agriculture and trade policies are of major importance.
On one or two occasions the Minister of Agriculture has referred to our surplus foodstuffs as being something of a problem. I think it would be well for him to take the attitude that a surplus of food is not a curse btu is in fact a blessing. It is far better that we have surpluses than shortages. We need only look to the countries behind the iron curtain, for example, who have been unable to develop production techniques that can fill the food requirements of their own people. I think the minister will agree that their problems are far greater than ours with our surplus food production.
I also suggest to the government that Canada can play an important role internationally as a major food supplier. We have said this on a number of occasions, and I suppose some hon. members are getting a little tired of hearing us say that Canada's ability to produce food could be a major item in our external policy, our foreign aid policy and our peacekeeping policy.
There is one other aspect of trade and agriculture which I think is worthy of

mention. I have before me some newspaper articles. I will not read them all, but I have one from Washington which indicates the amount of dollars Canada is spending on agricultural products from the United States. A figure amounting to something like $517 million annually is spent in the United States on agricultural products which are imported into Canada. Yet from time to time we have a serious balance of payments problem with the United States. In fact, the problem is chronic; it occurs each year. We imported $80 million worth of corn from the United States last year. At the same time we produced in Canada, not necessarily at points where it was most needed, grain, feed grains particularly, which could be substituted for a lot of these items we are getting from the United States.
There is one other matter we should take note of during discussion of agricultural estimates-although the Canadian wheat board, which deals with this matter, has been transferred to the department under the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who answers to parliament for their activities-and that is the matter of selling large quantities of grain on the international market, particularly to Russia and China. I think the sales over the last few months have proven for all time that the ex-minister of agriculture, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, has not any exclusive claim to being a wheat salesman. When conditions are right and there is the demand, the Canadian wheat board can and does sell large quantities of wheat whether or not the hon. member for Qu'Appelle happens to be occupying the seat of the minister of agriculture. It should be clearly pointed out too that the claim of the Conservative party that they initiated this kind of program falls by the wayside. If hon. members would take a quick glance at history they would see that one of the first deals made on a credit basis was the deal with Poland when wheat was sold under a long term credit agreement. These sales to Russia, and the additional sales to China since that government was turned out of office, simply prove to me-


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No. The hon. member will have ample opportunity to make his own contribution. My time is limited to 30 minutes.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should like to hear about the position of the hon. member's own party with regard to these sales to communist countries.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There is one thing which can be said as far as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle and his party are concerned.
Supp ly-Agricu Iture


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Let us hear about your party.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It is abundantly clear that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle is a champion of publicity and public relations. For taking credit to himself for whatever was done, he is unexcelled. Never before in our history has any minister spent so much out of public funds in order to advertise a political party. I think this is something of which the Canadian people should be aware. For example, we know now, though we did not know it then, that the former minister of agriculture got himself flown over to Hong Kong at public expense to make an announcement that a deal had been made, three days after the contract had been signed. I am sure this was good for the Conservative party, and the very fact that it was to the benefit of that party seems to impose an obligation to pay for that flight. But this trip was paid for out of public funds. Almost every day, for months on end, we could look into our mail boxes and see some press release or pamphlet or other publication from the Department of Agriculture. So I give the hon. member full credit for all this publicity. Whether it was good for Canada or not, is questionable. Certainly, it was good for the Conservative party.
I agree with the remarks the minister made concerning farm credit. I think all parties in this house, possibly all members of this committee who have interested themselves in agriculture, will agree that the supply of credit to maintain the family farm, for which we all have respect, is one of the most vexing problems we face in this country today. I agree, also, that the cost of farm machinery, its maintenance, depreciation and so on, constitutes one of the major difficulties to which we must give attention. I believe the minister said that in 1962 the cost of machinery in Canada generally accounted for about 20 per cent of the total operating costs. I believe he went on to say that in one area of western Canada they amounted to 50 per cent of all operating costs. I know from personal experience that this is so. The price of farm machinery has increased tremendously. I cannot blame the manufacturers for putting up their prices. I know that the farmers-and I am one of them-keep demanding bigger and more spectacular equipment. I happen to know that my father, farming in 1940, was able, for example, to cultivate his land with one tractor of 45/50 horsepower. Now it seems we need three of them to work the same 2,500 acres. Most of the time, these machines are doing nothing. In former days, it seemed we had men to run this one 45 horsepower tractor 24 hours a day.

Supply-Agriculture
I think there is a great deal to be said in favour of the establishment of machinery pools, or co-operatives, or similar arrangements so that farm machinery could be used for many more hours than it is being used today. I say this from personal experience, because my brothers and I are able to make use of the same equipment on each of our farms. In other words, we do not each buy the same item. Sometimes this equipment is only in use for three or four weeks of the entire year. Possibly it is in use for only two weeks. This sharing arrangement has certainly reduced our costs substantially, since depreciation takes effect only on one unit instead of on three. There is a great deal which could be done in this direction.
I should like to refer, now, to this report put out by the Searle Grain Company Limited, to which the hon. member for Timis-kaming referred. This publication discusses the advisability of forming machinery pools in order to cut down operating costs. I notice the hon. member did not quote from the end of the article where it says:
Whether or not it might be possible for groups of farmers in western Canada to form a local association in this way we cannot say.
Then, a little further on, the report says:
We agree that if something were to develop along the lines suggested by the minister, it might be very desirable.
The article goes on to say that some leadership in this field would have to be given either by the federal or the provincial departments of agriculture. I really fail to see what the departments of agriculture, either provincial or federal, can do except to urge farmers to take part in such arrangements. If such a scheme is to be effective, the farmers themselves must initiate it in cooperation with their neighbours. I can visualize serious problems arising if two or three farmers owned one combine capable of harvesting the crops of two or three farms. Weather conditions being as uncertain as they are, there would likely be a dispute as to who was to get it first, and if one farmer got in his crop while another was hailed out, the government would be in a precarious position in deciding what was to be done about the lost harvest supposing it was connected, as a sponsor, for example, with the sharing agreement. For this reason I think any such scheme should be worked out among the farmers themselves.
I was pleased to see that in the last wheat deal with the Soviet union provision was made for a certain portion of that wheat to be supplied in the form of flour. This is the first time in several years that the flour milling industry of this country has had a break. We heard the hon. member for
Qu'Appelle, who was minister of agriculture at that time, say that provision had been made for at least some portion of the wheat sold to China to be delivered in the form of flour, or the finished product. But to my knowledge there was not one single bushel of those 112 million bushels delivered in the form of flour. I should like to point out that between 1956 and 1962 there has been a steady decline in the production of the flour mills in Canada. In 1956, the amount of flour produced here was 4,071,437 cwt. By 1962 this amount had dropped to 2,202,828 cwt. In fact, it has been cut almost in half despite the fact that in 1962 there was more flour traded on international markets than at any time in history. Canada has not lost only in absolute terms; we have lost even more in terms of our relative share of the world market. The Department of Trade and Commerce, the Canadian wheat board or the Department of Agriculture, whichever was responsible, should be congratulated for making sure, in the course of these negotiations, that the deal with Russia provided for the inclusion of a reasonable amount of flour. As a matter of fact, the total unused capacity of the flour milling industry of Canada will be entirely taken up by the 29.1 million bushels of flour content provided for in the agreement. So we could not have sold them any more flour even if they had wanted more. I want to acknowledge this and to thank whoever is responsible, because this is the first break that the flour milling industry has had and they are now assured of being able to run at full capacity until July 31 of next year. Sometimes there is a tendency toward a chain reaction in regard to these things. I have been in touch with some of the managers of the mills, whom I know since the Russian deal, and I have learned that some of their regular customers have been sending in more orders than they were a year ago. This is all well and good for the next ten months. We acknowledge it is a good thing but we are a little apprehensive about what is going to happen after that.
We think it is the responsibility of the government to give priority to the setting up of deals for flour and so on in the international field, so that we will have regular customers on a continuing basis. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle suggested that the dealings with China and the countries behind the bamboo and iron curtains are probably going to be on a permanent basis. I am really not prepared to accept at the moment that they will be buying flour or wheat from us when their own production meets their demands, as it apparently did prior to 1960.

I want to turn now for a moment to ARDA. The act was brought in several years ago and a lot of publicity was given to it. We were told by the Progressive Conservative members, who were running round the country at that time, that the act was all-embracing, that it was very broad and that it was going to solve all the problems of agriculture. It was broad, all right, but it was so vague in its terms that nobody knew anything about what was intended-that is specifically what projects would be acceptable. As a matter of fact, I do not believe that the provincial and local ARDA committees yet have a clear concept of what specific projects the federal government has in mind.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is because the provincial government of Alberta will not co-operate.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We have all these people, like the former minister of agriculture, pointing out all the problems. He has analysed the problems. But then he winds up by saying the government should do something about them. If there is anything that leaves me cold it is a long discourse about problems, and then no suggestions as to what should or can be done about them. This is exactly what took place before the ARDA bill was introduced. The Conservative members of that day pointed out all the things that were wrong with agriculture and all the problems of the farmers of eastern and western Canada. Then the government of that day introduced a bill that said, in effect: "We are in favour of doing everything that is good for the farmers," -and that is about all.
I do not believe we need any further studies on some of these matters. It has even been suggested that we need to have another study of the South Saskatchewan river basin. I happen to know there is a royal commission report in the hands of the government now and I have a couple of copies in my office. I refer to the Hogg commission which studied this matter.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In what year?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In my view what we need for the farmers of this country is some action and not more studies. As far as specific projects are concerned, one hon. member mumbled something which I understood to be: What is your solution; what is your suggestion? I have many suggestions. There is the matter of community pastures, a project that should get under way right now. There is the matter of upper level storage for the drainage basins. I do not know whether the hon. member for Macleod is here tonight, but he has talked about all these things year in and year out. In 1957 they were going to do them then.
Supp ly-A griculture
In 1962 they were going to do them then. But what they are saying now is that they will do them as soon as they get back into office.
The former minister of agriculture pointed out all the problems. He had the problem of the eastern grain feeders completely analysed but now he criticizes the present government because they have not done anything in the last six or seven months although he had the problem completely analysed, and had the solution available.


Mr. Fane:: What about crop insurance in Alberta? What does your Social Credit government think about that?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There are a lot of mumblings over here, but these members will have plenty of time to talk and say what they want to say before 10.30 tonight. P.F.A.A. has been in effect in western Canada for the last 20 years, and we want it to be abundantly clear that we believe it has been a truly beneficial program for that area. It has been in effect for more than 20 years and I have heard some rumours that the present Minister of Agriculture is disposed to cut the program down a little. If it is true that he is thinking along these lines I suggest that he take a long, hard look at the large area of western Canada that has received a great deal of benefit, with a resulting stabilization of the agricultural economy in that area. In some areas it has applied in cases of drought, but we have also seen very beneficial results as a result of this program in cases of freezing, hail, flooding, early snow and so on. The farmers of western Canada are paying large premiums toward this program. In fact, I think they pay more than 50 per cent of the cost with the exception of the farmers of Saskatchewan. Therefore I suggest to the minister that if he has any idea of cutting down on the P.F.A.A. program he should reconsider the matter.
So far as crop insurance is concerned, we are pleased to hear that the government is now prepared to move into insuring some of the residual risks. I have a very few minutes left, Mr. Chairman, and I am afraid I would not have much success if I were to ask for additional time, so I had better get on with my remarks.
With regard to the matter of an eastern feed grain purchasing board, as it has been called, we agree partially with what the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has said, and I understood from the minister that the government intends to adopt this program. As I said, we agree partially but we do not believe it goes far enough. The submission of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture requests that such a board be set up only in an

Supply-Agriculture
advisory capacity. However, because of the problems that have been placed before the committee by members from these areas of Canada, we believe that we should have an eastern feed grain purchasing board with credit available to it so that it can go to western Canada and buy grain from the Canadian wheat board or in Ontario, or in any event in whatever place it can make the best deal at the most seasonable time of the year.
We are pleased that the government has appropriated $1 million to pay for the storage charges for this winter. We realize this has been helpful in moving a far larger volume of grain into position in eastern Canada. However, in order to solve the problem we think it would be well to have a separate entity that would be charged with the responsibility of buying feed grain at the best possible price. We believe it should be given credit for that purpose, so that it could then move large quantities of grain into position when the seaway is opened, and in fact do for the eastern feeders exactly what the Canadian wheat board is doing for the western producers. We do not believe it should be a branch of the Canadian wheat board, because there would be a conflict of interest. Such a board should be set up, provided with credit and given all the necessary powers it needs to do the job effectively. In our view it should deal with the Canadian wheat board as much as possible so that responsibility would fall on both bodies to see that the job was done.
In closing I want to say a few words about the matter of scrapie. There is a bit of apprehension amongst sheep breeders across the country as to this matter. I did revise my question on the order paper and I would urge the minister and his department to give me a complete and comprehensive answer. I revised the wording of question No. 1,730 so that we could look into this matter.
There is one other point I should like to mention, Mr. Chairman. We do not believe the small amount the federal government is contributing to the veterinary college in western Canada is in keeping with the responsibility the federal government has. The minister admitted the federal Department of Agriculture employs about 25 per cent of these veterinarians in Canada. Apparently, on this basis, they are willing to pay 25 per cent of the capital cost of this college. As a matter of fact, the $625,000 does not even meet the 25 per cent share. However, there are also operating costs and they are going to be substantial over a number of years. We think the federal government, through the health of animals branch, has a responsibility to pay some of the operating costs for training these veterinarians.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say we feel the minister should change his attitude concerning a number of things. These debates in this house are not a waste of time. He should move rapidly to set up an eastern feed grain purchasing board. If he will do a number of these things that we suggest, we wish him well.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, let me first of all congratulate the Minister of Agriculture for his report. I think this report will give us an opportunity to discuss our problems-I was going to say to leave the western provinces for the eastern provinces.
Since this debate started, we have been hearing about the west and its wheat, for which I hasten to say I am very happy for the western farmers. But when you think that Quebec and Ontario are the provinces where agriculture is the major industry in Canada, and that when farming problems are raised in this house, seven eighths of the discussion are concerned with the western provinces, it seems to me that either the western members defend their cause with too much zeal or the eastern members do not show enough concern to safeguard the interests of their provinces in that regard. In fact, when looking over the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, I note that more than 50 per cent of that budget is allocated to western provinces:
Production and marketing branch-
Freight assistance on western feed grains, $18,500,000.
Board of grain commissioners-
Canadian government elevators, $1,529,000;
Salaries of the commissioners, $42,000;
Administration, $173,000;
Inspection and weighing of grain and related services, $4,656,000;
Under the heading "Land rehabilitation, irrigation and water storage projects", the western provinces are much more favoured than the eastern provinces. The province of Quebec particularly does not get a single dollar for its irrigation projects, while western provinces receive over $33 million for drainage.
Under the heading of "Special estimates", there is an amount of $785,000 concerning the Prairie Farm Assistance Act administration and for the payments in respect of projects and programs under the Agriculture Rehabili-tion and Development Act, the western provinces receive $7 million. For administration, operation and maintenance, $157,000. For payments in connection with the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, $900,000, etc.
Besides that, we find payment of carrying costs of temporary wheat reserves, $41,524.

That goes to show that the western provinces are well treated in parliament.
When I look at those figures, I am tempted to think of the situation in Canada 50 years ago. At that time, the provinces of Quebec and Ontario were considered as the granary of Canada, while the western provinces were thought of as being poor lands, in need of development. Today, we spend all our savings for these provinces, which by the way, deserve it. We levy taxes on our people so as to develop these marvelous prairies of ours. I invite today our western fellow Canadians to show themselves duly grateful.
Before approving these estimates, our group would like to point out to the government three items which interest us most of all: the Farm Credit Corporation-comprising ARDA-the loans to farmers, the department of agriculture for the east and seed grains.
I suppose we cannot find fault with the amount of money the present government has made available to all Canadian farmers. After increasing the amounts paid during the past years, the present government certainly registered a point in favour of the Canadian farmers, and I avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate the minister for the implementation of ARDA, which has been in existence for several years but which has just started to be used in the province of Quebec.
The aim of ARDA, as the minister indicated, is to help the underdeveloped areas. I feel this act is misunderstood in Quebec. The main problem is draining, and for a year every effort has been made to deal more particularly with tree planting. There is a field in which I was in a position last summer to witness the government activity, and it is the blueberry fields. It is very well to look after the blueberry fields, but I believe draining has priority on tree planting, because draining accounts for 50 per cent in my area. There is only 50 per cent of the land which is properly drained.
A better draining of our lands should be put into effect in order to return those lands to farming. And I believe we shall pursue the aim of ARDA only in approaching with greater zeal that vital point, the draining of our soil.
Here I wish to make my meaning perfectly plain by saying that the prime work should first be done in Quebec, and that is why we are trying, with the provincial government's influence, to get what western people have received and to have our lands drained, so that our farmers can return them to farming. However, the government does not help farmers enough. In fact, when we look at the federal budget, we are inclined to feel sorry
Supply-Agriculture
for the minister. Yet, when we realize that the most important department is the Department of Agriculture and that only 2.7 per cent of the total estimates is intended for agriculture, we feel that there is some unbalance here which is hard to understand, and I want to remind the minister of that fact, because it is far too little for Quebec.
But there is another point which remains difficult to understand, Mr. Chairman, and that is the way those amounts are distributed among the provinces.
Here, I do not know whether I should address myself to the government or simply to the Department of Agriculture or to the minister himself, who cannot seem to find the time to go and see at least once what is going on in Quebec.
I would advise him at least to read the reports of the Farm Credit Corporation. Then, by merely reading the data contained therein, he might realize that something is not running true in my province.
The other day I heard the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent) boast about the fact that, in 1962, the Conservative government had granted 804 loans, as against 109 in 1961.
When I look at the amount of loans granted in the other provinces, compared to the urgent and ever-increasing needs of the province of Quebec, I come to the conclusion that neither of the old line party governments can pride itself in having given the lion's share to Quebec's agriculture.
And to think that the province of Quebec is now in the worst state of stagnation as far as agriculture is concerned and that it is given, with regard to its population, the least assistance.
I can see that in the past, when exclusive legislation had to be enacted for the western provinces, the governments did not hesitate and passed it in order to benefit these provinces. They did right. Now it is the turn of the province of Quebec to need specific legislation in order to revive its agriculture. Is she going to be denied that legislation any longer?
Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the minister make a special study about federal loans granted to the province of Quebec.
At first it might be enough for the minister to improve the staff of the Farm Credit Corporation in the province of Quebec, for I am afraid that the problem lies with the staff which is satisfied to administer rigidly the present legislation because it lacks the ability needed to interpret this legislation, which is too broad, and adapt it to each region, each farmer.

Supp ly-A griculture
As a matter erf fact, I have been told many times by loan inspectors from the Farm Credit Corporation that the act was not precise enough, clear enough or not suited to our regions.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that it would be worth it to have an investigation made in the field by the department in order to find out what is wrong with the legislation and the considerable harm all this is doing to our farmers in need.
I ask the minister to carry out a serious investigation to see what is going wrong in the province of Quebec.
I shall give you an example of the situation in my own area. Our farmers have an urgent need of at least 2,000 federal loans and we succeeded in obtaining only about a hundred this year. This means that 1,900 farmers will not get the money they need to resume work on their farms or to put back under cultivation 40 per cent of our farms which have been waiting only for the necessary manpower for the last 10 or 15 years.
Mr. Chairman, our farms cannot wait any longer, our farmers are forced to leave their farms for the cities. Is it because the legislation is not suited to eastern Canada or is it because the people responsible for its implementation are not able to interpret it? I leave it to you to judge.
It may also be that serious research on the part of the minister would help him to realize the need for an eastern department. This famous department has been promised us for a long time. First, in the speech from the throne, then on the order paper, where it stayed for a while third on the list, to drop almost into oblivion these last months since it is now eleventh on the list.
Yet, we had always cherished the hope that we would have it by 1963; but our hopes were dashed a few days ago when the government announced that we would get it in 1964.
We are somewhat puzzled by all that and we wonder whether this government is responsible. If it were, it would indeed have introduced the various pieces of legislation in order of importance; and since in my opinion agriculture is of prime importance all over Canada, all other matters must give precedence to it. However, it is not at all what we have seen.
Under the existing system, I said and I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that only a department of agriculture for eastern Canada will make it possible to have a well balanced and economical agriculture from coast to coast. We know that from experience. When we had the department of agriculture in eastern Canada, the western provinces were on the verge of bankruptcy. But now it is in western Canada,

and the eastern provinces have a precarious existence. So the only solution is to set up a department of agriculture for the east. And the sooner the better. Pressure is certainly not lacking. I have here an article which appeared in the December 2 issue of Le Droit under the following title:
Appointment requested of a second minister of agriculture for eastern Canada.
The article reads as follows:
The "Meuniers du Quebec Inc." requested the federal government, Friday evening, to carry out without delay its promise to appoint a minister of agriculture for eastern Canada who would enjoy the same rights and privileges of the present Minister of Agriculture.
And further on:
Ottawa was finally urged not to apply next April a first. 4 per cent portion of the Gordon tax on building materials and equipment in order to further the growth of farm production, etc.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that we are now facing facts. Must we wait a long time yet? I think the limit is reached, and if the present Minister of Agriculture does not deal very seriously with this problem and if the government does not organize the business of the house so that this legislation will be presented soon, I am of the opinion that farming, in the province of Quebec, is a long way from reaching new heights.
But outside of the two problems I just mentioned, there is a third one the solution of which can wait no longer, and it is a problem which can be solved by the present Minister of Agriculture.
On October 18, 1963, representatives of the catholic farmers' union and of the federated co-operative of the province of Quebec met our group to set forth their grievances, so as to enable us to relay their representations to this house.
We have already spent many hours listening to the evidence presented by representatives of various organizations concerning feed grains. There is an unaccountable price spread between producers and consumers and it is our duty to find out the truth about the department and so as to bridge the gap between western and eastern farmers.
Several boards have appeared before the committee on agriculture in the past few days. There is no point in enumerating all of them but I think their representatives would like us to find, concerning the problem of feed grains, a solution which would be satisfactory to everyone.
It is urgent for parliament to give serious consideration to that problem which is several years old but is getting worse all the time and gives rise to willful disagreement.

In fact, we can delay no longer the solution of a problem which is threatening the whole agricultural economy.
In the fine brief they submitted, the U.C.C. and the co-operative federee stress the two major problems we must settle to balance the economy of the eastern and western parts of our country.
Right from the start, it strikes you that neither the west nor the east and even less the province of Quebec are to blame for this extraordinary situation which spoils the relations between western Canada and the eastern provinces.
On the contrary, if you examine the situation more closely, you will be pleased to notice that western farmers like their eastern counterparts strive for the same ideal-that of achieving a better standard of living for each group and that they sincerely wish to get along together. However, a wall just like the Berlin wall has gone up, and it prevents the peace-makers from being heard.
If the good will of farmers is not lacking, why can a solution not be found? Where does the situation referred to exist? It is precisely this vital question that I intend to answer.
In this case, Mr. Chairman, I suspect that a dictatorship is being exerted by an organization enjoying special favours from governments, so as to wield its powers without fear of being ousted.
The prairie provinces are recognized as the best grain producers. The climate, the soil and the geographic location are so many factors which have made the prairie provinces the granary of Canada, enabling them to exert their influence even on world markets. On the other hand, eastern provinces are recognized for the variety of their agricultural production which goes from maple syrup to market-gardening crops and cattle.
It would merely be logical that these two regions, the east as well as the west, be given the necessary scope, and I would even say enjoy the necessary assistance, from the governments to launch into their own production.
We all know that to be in a position to produce, the farmer needs a minimum cost price. Consequently, the catholic farmers' union stresses in its brief that the eastern farmer should be in a position to earn his living with his products
We do not wish the same mistakes to be repeated as when western farmers were being paid to refrain from producing wheat or again not long ago, when the Minister of Agriculture abolished the 25 cents premium per hundred pounds of milk and went so far as to ask the Quebec milk producers to reduce their production, at a time when so
Supply-Agriculture
many Quebec families do not have enough milk, and that is particularly true in our
schools.
The purpose of our inquiry today is therefore to find who is responsible for this inconceivable inconsistency shown by a government which dares to claim it is still democratic.
On one side, we have people who want one thing only: to produce wheat, and on the other side, we have people who need wheat and cannot buy it because its price is exorbitant.
Where is the key to this mystery?
Mr. Chairman, we are fighting the very cancer of our farm economy, and it is that same cancer which affects every sector of our national economy. In every field, industrial, monetary and so on, the evil always comes from faulty distribution.
The present formula is all for one and nothing for the others. The great master of our economy is still the trust.
Mr. Chairman, when you think that the western producer gets only 55 cents per bushel of grain, for which the eastern consumer must pay up to $1.50, that is fantastic. So there is not only the case of other financiers even more brazen who, with a $10 deposit, succeed in borrowing $100, just like the chartered banks.
As a matter of fact, if you push your inquiries further, you will find that all the western wheat is delivered to the great lakes by the Canadian wheat board, which sets the price according to the price paid to the western farmers, plus the transportation costs which are borne by those same farmers. I think also that the grants paid by the governments for the transportation and storage of grain help maintain the price of grain at a more reasonable level today.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member for Roberval, but his time is up.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief because none of us on this side wants to hold up the minister's estimates. In fact, we are prepared to co-operate to the extent that I will probably be the last speaker as far as we are concerned, if we get the cooperation we anticipate the minister will give us. As he knows, a matter has arisen under the administration of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act which is to be referred to the committee on privileges and elections. The minister has received a request from the clerk of that committee to appear before it tomorrow morning. If the minister can give us the assurance that he will be with us

Supply*-Agriculture
tomorrow morning, then I will be quite happy and conclude my remarks at this point.


Harry William Hays: I am very sorry but I cannot give that commitment. I have a speaking engagement at the annual meeting of the farm union in Alberta which I am committed to, and have been for some time. But I will be back and am quite prepared to meet the committee on Saturday morning.


Erik Nielsen: This presents a problem. The committee has not decided to meet on Saturday and it is not usual for committees of the house to sit on a Saturday. Therefore Saturday is not a suitable date. The reason I raise the matter at this time is because when the minister was informed that he was requested to appear before the committee he replied to the clerk that he was unable to do so. Since that time we have heard second hand, through the hon. member for Carleton, the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand and the hon. member for York-Scarborough, of different commitments. Some mentioned Wednesday, some Tuesday and now it is Saturday. The request was sent to the minister to appear on Friday.
We are perfectly agreeable to working out some arrangement in co-operation with the minister. I am not suggesting for a moment that this is what he has in mind, but what we fear is that he might not appear before the committee at all before this session is over unless we get some commitment from him this evening. The committee meets at nine o'clock tomorrow morning. If the minister was there his evidence could be taken within an hour, and then he could get off to Calgary and meet his commitment there.


Harry William Hays: I am quite prepared to meet the
committee; as a matter of fact I welcome the opportunity. I have stated my problem, and would be quite prepared to meet the committee at nine o'clock on Friday evening, or Saturday morning, or seven o'clock Monday morning, or Tuesday morning or Wednesday morning-any one of these mornings. Next week the ten ministers of agriculture are to be here and we have a conference starting on Monday, and running Tuesday and Wednesday, so it will be difficult for me to appear any time after nine o'clock. However, as I say, I am quite prepared to meet the committee at seven in the morning.


Erik Nielsen: That is fine. If the minister is prepared to meet the committee at nine o'clock tomorrow evening and is agreeable to be the first witness to be examined on that committee, then we are quite happy on this side.


Harry William Hays: God willing, I will do that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, in rising to speak perhaps I could comment on some remarks made by the hon. member for Medicine Hat. I could not help but think that perhaps he was preaching for a call. Whether that call was to be next minister of agriculture in a Liberal government I am not sure, but that thought did run through my mind as he talked on and on, on a Liberal theme, about farm machinery being the main trouble with agriculture generally. I questioned him as to where his party stood on communist countries buying Canadian wheat. Not only did he not have time to deal with the question at that moment, but he failed to deal with it at all. He failed to deal with his party's viewpoint on that crucial issue in the last two elections. Why did he fail to do that? The only thought which came to my mind was that perhaps he was going to cross the floor of the house and no longer remain with his present party.
The hon. member talked about ARDA and how vague it was. He did not say that it has not worked very well in Alberta, because the government of Alberta has not made any real, concentrated effort to make it work or to see that it would work. The reason is that they are afraid to spend some of the money they have in their oil rich treasury and put it back into the basic industry of the country. The basic industry of Alberta is still agriculture, but we are still fighting to see that some share of their provincial money goes back to the land; but it is a hard fight in that province.
The hon. member also talked about the study on the Saskatchewan and Nelson rivers basin, which includes the Red Deer river project, a very vital project to central Alberta reaching down as far as his own constituency. According to him, no more studies were needed in this regard. He said he had a study in his own office, but he did not say what year it was. I have one too. In fact, there have been studies ever since the William Peers project in 1918, as well as 1928 and 1942. I do not know which study he has but we are now in 1963. We now have the Alberta government stingily not wanting to go ahead with any study. They have resisted co-operation with the prairie provinces water board? Why? Because here again they have been reluctant to spend some of their money, received from wealth resources below the surface on the land itself, to replenish and develop the basic industry of agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This wisecracking at the other end of the chamber reminds me of an old saying that wisecrackers rarely gather wisdom. The hon. member talked

about community pastures and the greater need for them throughout Canada. What is the attitude of the Alberta government in this regard? There has been no federal participation in community pastures within the provinces; that is what they tell us in Alberta. The province from which the hon. member comes is a Social Credit province, and he has the gall to get up in this house and say that he wants further action on community pastures by the federal government, when the federal government itself is not allowed to enter the province in this respect. There are some 70 new community pastures which have sprung up in the last four or five years in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, but not one in Alberta-except the one brought about by a severe drought. We were also able to secure a large part of the Suffield experimental station as a sort of community pasture, but on a limited basis. But this was done through the Department of National Defence. Though his remarks were interesting, he said very little. He did not take into account, in the course of his observations, the thinking of the federal Social Credit party with regard to sales to Russia, or the thinking of the provincial party, for that matter. The only conclusion I can reach is that he was preaching for a call-that he was expecting to become the next minister of agriculture in the Liberal party. This has been suggested by a learned journalist whom we have among us, namely the hon. member for Port Arthur. Maybe the hon. member for Port Arthur is right in this regard. Who am I to say?
When I rose to speak tonight I did not intend to deal with the speech made by the hon. member for Medicine Hat, but I thought it deserved comment, if only on account of what the hon. member did not say. In speaking tonight, I should like to make it clear I have no axe to grind with the present Minister of Agriculture as a person. I know he has a highly successful record in real estate, as a farmer and as an entrepreneur of most descriptions. He has a reputation in this regard and I respect him for it. But he has failed miserably as a leader of agriculture in this country, and it is in this direction that I want to direct my criticism. He has provided no leadership either to the department, or to Canada, or to the farmers across the country. His speech today was nothing more than a factual report, item by item, on the estimates of the department. There was no review of the future outlook for the Department of Agriculture. No real leadership was shown with regard to the general direction in which we are moving. It is obvious that someone inside the department wrote his speech. It certainly differed greatly from
Supp ly-A griculture
the speech which was made in Chicago some time ago when the hon. gentleman said there were only four members in the Liberal party who knew anything about agriculture. I really did not know whether he was including himself among those four or not, and I wondered who the other three might be. That speech must have been a real eye-opener for the people in Illinois, Montana, and the west, generally.
I looked in the hon. gentleman's speech today for some show of leadership. I tried to discover where the Liberals were going to lead western agriculture and agriculture in Canada generally. I thumbed through a copy of the Liberal promises with regard to agriculture. This is what they said:
A Liberal government will provide continuous, "realistic guidance on the market outlook for different crops and livestock products".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I hear members over there pounding their desks. Well, I have several other clippings here. Here is a beauty: "Hays calls for less wheat". That is from the Farm Union of October 2. Was this an example of realistic guidance on the market outlook for different crops? I should like to say a word or two more about this Liberal program because I saw nothing in the speech from the throne or in the remarks of the minister to indicate there was any consideration being given to continuing the ideas they had at the beginning of 1963. What is being forecast for 1964? What can we expect in the next speech from the throne? Here is what they said:
Under a Liberal government, a reorganized industrial development bank will be able to provide long term finance for co-operatives. Improved research services will benefit co-operatives.
I looked for that in the speech from the throne this spring but I never saw anything about it and I have not heard anything about it since. Here is another quotation from the program:
A Liberal government is pledged to increase the return to the farmer from wheat sold in Canada for human consumption.
Well, I see no evidence that this is being done. Then again, there was the $2 a bushel wheat, and there was the two price system. The program is specific about this. The Prime Minister, speaking in Saskatoon on March 6, said:
This policy (two price system for wheat) will be accompanied by a consumer subsidy so that there will be no rise in the price of bread.
No more has been heard about that. Another change forecast in that program was the introduction of deficiency payments on a quarterly basis for oats and barley and a wide

Sup p ly-A griculture
range of agricultural products. I would point out to the committee that only the other day the minister announced a policy with regard to eggs. Did he say payments were to be made on a quarterly basis? No, he did not. This, like the rest of this program, has been completely forgotten. Even the few ideas which the Liberals might have been able to grasp as possible solutions for some of the difficulties in which agriculture now finds itself, have been forgotten, too. I could read on but I see I should lose too much time if I got worked up over these broken promises. No wonder the party opposite includes so few members from the rural areas of Canada. No wonder the Liberal party is represented by only four members who know anything about agriculture. It is because they have advocated this false Liberal program over the years.
Farmers and other Canadians want leadership from a minister of agriculture. They want a future to which they can look forward. The minister talked about ARDA. What has happened to ARDA since the program became the responsibility of the present government? It has become an almost completely ineffective piece of legislation. The sum of $4 million has been made available to it, the minister has told us, though $50 million was made available by the previous government over a three year period. The hon. gentleman talked about farm credit and the leadership which has been provided in this regard. The Liberal program says:
Farmers who wish to switch from dairying to other enterprises to which their farms are better suited, will be encouraged in the Liberal plan by credit and assistance specifically adapted to this purpose.
Have we heard anything about this promise since? No. The minister mentioned farm credit a while ago, but that is all. The operations of the stabilization board remain unchanged. Perhaps the board needs some modernization. That is why amendments to acts are introduced.
The hon. gentleman spoke of the dairy industry. Well, the butter subsidy is still the same only we are able, now, to balance our production against our consumption as a result of a Conservative program for paying a subsidy to butter consumers which has brought about an increase in consumption. Certainly, there is a problem in connection with eastern feed grain. We have been studying it for three or four days now. Provisional pricing may and I think will provide a benefit. But this was already designed before, under our announced policy for legislation in the house. The storage charges on grain are going to be paid. This is similar to what we had promised we were going to do. The minister

said that an agency would be assigned to look after this matter, but the agency would have no teeth in it. It is a rather useless agency if that is all it is going to be.
In an earlier speech he made in the house he talked about farm machinery and said there must be depots and renting and pools. Any western farmer who is depending for his whole livelihood on 7,000 or 8,000 bushels of grain that must be harvested wants his own combine so he can get out and harvest it. Back in the early 'forties a lot of custom combining was done, but the trend is away from that today. It may go back to it but I do not think it will. As for renting and pools, I found renting to be rather expensive. I am in several machinery pools with some of my neighbours. With certain types of inexpensive machines which can be used at any time of the season pools will work all right. But a tractor represents 50 per cent of the farm machinery cost of any given farmer and a tractor and combine are needed if one is to engage in the farming business in a full time way at all. No pool will provide any real solution to that. When the minister talked about this a while ago I wonder whether he had read the report of the committee on agriculture set up to study that question some time ago.


Mr. Coie (Longueuil):: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am sorry but I am running out of time.


An hon. Member:: I'll say you are.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You can ask me a
question at the end of my speech. We have heard a lot of talk about why the wheat board and the board of grain commissioners were switched from the Department of Agriculture back to the Department of Trade and Commerce. The farmers wondered why. The reason is obvious. The Minister of Agriculture had something to say on June 22, 1963, which indicates the reason. He was referring to the China wheat sale and he said:
That comes under the trade and commerce department now, and I know little about It.
"I know little about it". We never had such a barefaced admission of the facts before. Of course, he was a new minister then. "I know little about it". This was obvious to many western farmers and to many people throughout Canada. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is a former deputy minister of the department. The Minister of Agriculture was appointed by the Prime Minister, and as the Minister of Agriculture knew little about the subject it was natural to switch these boards back, not for the benefit of the producers but for the benefit of the Liberal party. That is

why it was done. It is obvious, and most Canadians recognize this fact now.
The Minister of Agriculture made a tour of Russia. What did he say about wheat over there? This was before the gigantic wheat deal with that country. What did he say? He never said anything. He did not come back and say, "I saw a poor crop over there".


Mr. Dupuis:: You do not understand Russian anyway.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You can look out the train window and see whether the crop is going to go five bushels to the acre or 40 bushels. The minister came back and said: "We can sell a lot more purebred Canadian beef over there".


An hon. Member:: More bull.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Well, perhaps so. We are looking, and I mean the Canadian public, for leadership in the Department of Agriculture. Here is what the Ottawa Journal said yesterday in referring to the whole hoax of the 60 days of decision of the present government. The editorial refers to the promise of two ministers of agriculture and goes on to say:
It can hardly be said that there is even one minister.
That is a shocking statement to appear in a Canadian paper. That is a shocking statement to make about the primary industry of this country. We can hardly say we even have one. That is in direct contrast to what the situation was back in 1962 and 1961. Everybody in Canada knew then that we had a minister of agriculture, and everybody was proud of that minister of agriculture.
We hear a lot about leadership and the minister's position. At a meeting of the farmers union in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, the minister said:
I would be irresponsible if I didn't urge farmers to examine the question of wheat output-
The heading of the article in the October Union Farmer is "Hays Calls for Less Wheat". The article goes on to say that the minister said the government would do all it could to investigate the problem. We wanted leadership. We wanted guidance.


An hon. Member:: That is what you need, leadership.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This is what the Minister of Trade and Commerce had to say about the same problem on August 12, 1963 at Edmonton, as found in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix:
Trade minister Mitchell Sharp stressed the need to reduce wheat acreage and production in favour of more barley and oats production.
Supply-Agriculture
We all remember that famous speech. Is this realistic guidance to the farmers of Canada as to what they are to do and what they are to produce? Certainly it is a shortsighted attitude on the part of two ministers of the cabinet, and they took it not because of their knowledge of the subject but because they were jealous of the record established by the former minister and wanted to cut it down to their size, or below their size if at all possible. That is why they took that attitude.
We have heard some talk today about a veterinary college in western Canada and the minister's offer of 25 per cent or $625,000. I read an editorial in the Canadian Cattleman which condemned the minister for being so stingy. It pointed out that the federal government will spend $1 million to build a vocational training school. They have in Drum-heller, Stettler and many other places throughout Alberta and Canada generally. But they will only put up $625,000 for a veterinary college when the federal government is importing veterinarians into this country. Is this logical? When we are importing veterinarians from Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand is this logical? The minister wrote a very nice letter to the editor of the Canadian Cattleman and explained that he wanted to suck in the provincial governments, and he felt that if he put up enough bait one of them would grab it because he knew they were all eager to have it. With regard to the Department of Agriculture spending money, I would point out that the minister said, as reported in the Regina Leader-Post of June 28, 1963:
There would be nothing wrong with spending a lot more on agriculture in this country.
The minister knew he could suck in the province of Saskatchewan on a veterinary college because they wanted to get it before it went to the proper place, Alberta, where most of the cattle are, and the minister was quite successful. Another Social Credit Albertan is pounding his desk, but how he can do that I do not know when the province of Alberta, which is so wealthy from oil and gas, is so stingy with regard to spending money on the basic industry of that province.
I am going to have to slow up a little perhaps, and try to get across the theme of my remarks. If the Prime Minister does not choose somebody more capable of providing leadership for agriculture, and the present minister is allowed to continue to wander and squander throughout the department and throughout Canada, then I want to make a few suggestions in the hope that if he is left in that department he will heed the call of Canadians generally, and of the agriculture

Supply-Agriculture
industry, for a strong minister of agriculture, a minister with foresight and leadership.
At the beginning of the minister's term of office I was reluctant, as the record will prove, to ask him questions and to press him because I knew he was a new minister. I also know he is a capable businessman in his own personal business. But I want him to take hold, to take an interest and to go to work in this department, if he is capable of providing leadership.
In the early days of the session, there was a bit of comment concerning some of the replies the minister made in the house. If the minister was not in his seat, we pointed this out to hon. members. If he happened to be away selling cattle, we gently nudged him and said, "Now, Harry, you have a new job; you have to drop this cattle selling and assume a more important role in Canadian life." However, the minister continued his efforts on behalf of a few of my learned colleagues, like Dr. Rynard and others who are in the cattle industry and who sell purebred cattle.
If one takes a certain look at what this government has done during 200 days in office, he must conclude it is time the Prime Minister took a look at this department. We have looked at all the departments. We have gone through finance, post office, health and welfare and so on. Now, let us look at the basic industry of this country, agriculture. It is still the backbone of the country. All I am asking is that we take a look at this department. The minister must ask himself, "Do I want to be minister? Do I want to bring in new programs? Do I want to explain those programs in this parliament or do I want to continue travelling across Canada as an auctioneer for cattle breeders?" If he does continue this practice, he is neglecting his official duties.
The Toronto Globe and Mail has commented on this situation more than once. They even suggested that there was talk of having two ministers, but we have not seen the second one. We rarely see the first. Perhaps we need a third. Surely, 200 days is sufficient time for the minister to find himself and take hold of his duties.
The Ottawa Journal had this to say:
He will say, naturally, that cabinet ministers often appear on ceremonial occasions to give their blessings to buildings, fairs and other worth-while projects. The trouble with Mr. Hays is that he wants to participate rather than visit. If he were invited to lay a cornerstone we fear that he would keep the trowel and put up the whole wall.
This shows the man has energy, and I want him to use it for the benefit of the whole of Canadian agriculture, and not a special group he seems to prefer. I suggest that unless the Minister of Agriculture spends some time in

the House of Commons and in his department^ gets to know his department, becomes aware of the feeling of the average Canadian farmer,, then he should spend all of his time at auctions. At one time, the minister boastfully stated, in speaking about agriculture in Alberta, that he had 5,000 acres of land, so many hired hands, trucks and so on. This does not entitle him to boast about his personal efforts in the field of agriculture. He is now the minister looking after the welfare of a vast number of farmers who do not have that same financial backing, and perhaps are in need of some financial backing.
It may be that some of my friends on the other side of the house will think I am being a little rough on their lovable friend, Harry. I am doing this for the explicit purpose of trying to direct his attention back to the Department of Agriculture, if it ever was on the department, for the benefit of farmers generally throughout Canada. Frankly, the minister must realize that he is no longer in the position of an athlete in the prime of life. He is rather like a hockey or baseball player reaching the end of his career but still trying to continue. The minister has now been called upon to accept a higher role in the affairs of Canada. He must meet that challenge that is presented to him. He must turn his mind away from his chosen line of business and direct his attention to the new aspect that confronts him. He must show a greater amount of leadership, a greater amount of foresight in his efforts to raise the standard of living of farmers throughout Canada.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: May I ask the hon. member a simple question? Why does the hon. member spend so much time complaining, when all the western farmers are so happy after the record wheat sale we had this year?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I could have dealt with wheat sales. I imagine you are going to give me time to deal with this question, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Medicine Hat suggested something along the same line. I may point out that I asked the members of the wheat board about wheat sales in the committee the other day. I asked what government provided the first credit wheat sales, and they frankly admitted that before the first China wheat sale there had never been any other wheat sale like it. No other government had attempted to put up that kind of credit for the sale of wheat. This sale established a pattern. We in the west are proud of it.
I was a member in those days when wheat sales were not being made, and I recall the great difficulties. We urged the cabinet at that time to consider the question of credit sales. For years, the farm unions had been crying

lor this type of thing. We went ahead and did it. The farmers in western Canada know about wheat sales and they are happy with this program. They wanted it years ago, and now that it has been established it is starting to bear fruit. It bore more fruit last year and is continuing to bear fruit this year. The Eormer minister of agriculture, the Hon. Alvin Hamilton, told them to go out and grow all the wheat they could and he would sell it. He was quite sure of the market outlook at that time. Away back as far as February, 1963, he forecast record wheat sales for this year. This is nothing new to the farmers. They accepted this and they are grateful to the Minister of Trade and Commerce for continuing the pattern we established.
We want further leadership on many of the other agricultural problems, such as credit. I could go into these problems at length, but I realize, Mr. Chairman, you have been patient in allowing me to answer this question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I feel very humble indeed, after listening to my colleagues talk about the huge tractors required, and the great horsepower required, to operate their farms. I rise to speak, Mr. Chairman, only as a rancher who has a five horsepower lawn-mower. I might say also that I would not attempt to compete with the hon. gentleman who has taken his seat, so far as lung power is concerned.
Listening to these debates on agriculture throughout the years makes one realize that there have been a number of interesting personalities who have been ministers of agriculture from western Canada. We all remember the Hon. W. R. Motherwell, who I think was respected by all regardless of party; the late Hon. James Gardiner who, while we differed very sharply, was recognized as a fighter, particularly for prairie agriculture. Then, we had the Hon. Douglas Harkness who, while he was very conscientious and sincere, I always felt was more at home on the parade ground than in the village hall. Then, we had the Hon. Alvin Hamilton, who was an auctioneer of ideas. He was a very conscientious minister and left some worth-while policies behind him which I trust the present government will do something to continue and improve.
Now Mr. Chairman, I come to the present Minister of Agriculture. I cannot help commenting, as I sit in the house on this side and watch his cherubic expression, regardless of statements being made by various members of the opposition, that he is an auctioneer of livestock. We have had two very famous speeches by ministers this session, two that will probably go down in history. The first was made by the Minister without Portfolio, more correctly termed the minister
Supply-Agriculture
still in waiting. He made a very well organized, fruitful and, I thought, thoughtful speech. I read the text in one of the agricultural magazines. I can well imagine his getting the assistance of the officials and members of the profession that he knows; possibly even his good wife, because it was obvious after you read the speech that he was preaching for a call.
I intended, Mr. Chairman, to deal with another aspect of agricultural policy this evening, but I feel that owing to the development of the debate and these two famous speeches, they should be dealt with. I am going to deal with the speech the Minister of Agriculture made to the farmers club in Chicago on December 2. I might explain that I understand the farmers club in Chicago is like the members of the Rideau club in stetson hats. Anyway, the minister is almost unknown in the interior of British Columbia. I have had many inquiries and letters asking me, "What does he look like? How does he think?"


An hon. Member:: Does he?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: "How does he talk? What does he say?" Mr. Chairman, I am going to let him speak for himself. This will save me a great deal of correspondence and I think it is worth while letting the people of Canada know how the minister thinks, because if you size up how the minister thinks you get some idea of what Liberal agricultural policy is.
This famous speech in Chicago was given on the same day that the hon. member for Red Currant-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -Swift Current-Maple Creek rose on a question of privilege. The committee will remember that the minister's absence was noted, as usual, and the Prime Minister rose and explained that he was away on official business. I shall deal with the official business in a few minutes. His speech was taped; parts of it have been given on the radio and it has whetted the appetite of thousands for more. It is unique. It is unusual, and I am sure when the members of this house have heard it they will say it is a fantastic speech. It is a speech that deals with his family tree; that deals with his rise -his Horatio Alger rise from a farm boy to a position of prestige and importance in the federal government; that deals with his philosophy of life and then deals with Liberal agricultural policy. I think we owe it to the members of this house and to the nation to let them know how the minister thinks. I have a text of the speech here taken from the tape recording:

Supp ly-A gricu Iture
Speech by the Hon. Harry Hays, Minister of Agriculture, to the Chicago farmers club, December 2, 1963.
This is an authorized and authentic copy.
When it was suggested to me that I should come and speak to the Chicago farmers club, I decided that I wanted to do that job. I have the kind of Prime Minister who allows me to come down here-
Wasn't that kind of him?
-and I understand that I am the first of his ministers who has had the privilege of speaking in Chicago. In any case, I am elated to be here. Dr. Wilson, in introducing me, was pretty kind to me because generally I've been in trouble all my life-
That is an understatement, if ever there was one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: His speech continues:
To be the Minister of Agriculture, to be the mayor of a city, to be the auctioneer of a good sale, or of a poor sale, you have to be a bit of an optimist and to show you how optimistic I am about the problems of the farmers and that sort of thing I'd like to tell you a story about an uncle of mine.
This is very closely related to agriculture. You can see the minister was on official business.
I live in Alberta, which is north of the state of Montana. And our country is much the same as some parts of Montana. And we have there a government called a Social Credit government, which has turned into a very conservative republican government.
There is a point I want to raise here, Mr. Chairman. This has caused a great deal of concern. Is the minister now co-operating with the hon. member for Lotbiniere in a campaign against Her Majesty? I hope the minister explains this when he replies later on in the debate, because it is causing concern.
During the depression time, they put a moratorium on interest payments so that the farmer might be able to pay his debts. They wouldn't let anybody foreclose.
It sounds as if the minister was a bit disappointed himself.
But I had an uncle who lived in a small town where I was born, north of Calgary, who had guaranteed a couple of million dollars worth of loans. He had guaranteed the interest, so you can see what happened to him during the depression- the interest he had to pay dissipated his complete fortune.
Well, he had a heart at least:
We had a little hotel about a half mile from the cemetery.
A good place.
And we lived about four miles out of town, but he decided when this took place that he would go down to the hotel every morning to try and drink the beer faster than they could make it. He did this for 20 years. Every morning he was the first fellow there and every night he was the last guy to go home. Of course he didn't

have much money left and he was the town gossip. Not only did everybody talk about him, but during the day he talked about everybody else.
I have a great deal of respect for this uncle of mine. He was a real champion of mine because he had been very, very successful in the real estate business.
This indicates that the minister's mind is not directed toward agriculture; it is still directed principally toward business.
I remember we had an old postmaster who used to go over and pick up the mail every day when the train came in at one o'clock. He had a two-wheel cart and he'd take it back to the post office and sort the mail every day. You set your clock by him. When he was a very old man, one day he died. And they came down to the beer parlour and someone said to this group where my uncle was partaking that day, "Say, you know Joe King died" My uncle said, "Well, isn't that something".
He left a will and they wanted him to open up the will right away. So, they opened it up and (now remember I told you the cemetery is about a half a mile away from the beer parlour), he said in his will he wanted to be buried eight feet deep.
My uncle looked at it for a minute, and he finally said, "Well I'll tell you what to do. You let them bury old Joe King eight feet deep and when I die you just bury me two feet deep. And on resurrection day I'll be down to the beer parlour before old Joe King is at the cemetery gate".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is the minister who was on federal business.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: 
Harry William Hays: Why don't you give the figures?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am glad I am getting encouragement from the minister. I was afraid I was boring him.
At the moment we ship to you something like 500,000 head of beef cattle a year. Now this compares, I think, with about half as much as you get from Australia. I don't know what the figures are and the amount that you receive from Mexico and some of these countries, but this is the comparison and these are the things that we worry about when it looks as though you may cut us off.
And I'll give you these round figures which I think will be of interest to you. The total amount of beef that we ship into the United States in a year represents 5.8 per cent, that is five days of your total consumption. That is all the beef we send in. And the meat that we import represents, although it is a smaller amount, seven days consumption for Canada. Now get these figures because they are pretty important. Although the amounts are different, the amount of meat that we ship into the United States represents a five day supply for you, a bit over five days and a half. The amount that we import in beef products, processed beef, stripped beef and that sort of thing, feeds our people for seven days.
But when we take all of the agricultural products that we ship into the United States, and you are our best customers, it will feed your people for one and a half days. The amount of feed, the amount in dollars, the amount that you ship back to us will feed our people for 29 days.
So you can see how concerned we become sometimes when one segment of the industry says, "Well, we don't like these exports (or imports) coming into our country." We would hope that you would take a look at the whole picture. This is

Supply-Agriculture
a pretty big story to sell, but it's a pretty big thing to us in Canada, when we are in this position. Stop and think about poultry lor instance. We import 35 to your one in Canada; our exports are one part and yours are 35. In cheese it is four to one in your favour. In so far as grain is concerned we don't send much grain in here, but last year we imported from you 35 million bushels of corn, which we were pleased to get.
But here's something we would like you to consider in so far as Canada is concerned. Because we have to live together on this North American continent we're one and the same economy. We are a great storehouse of energy and oil and all of the things that you may need in strategic materials waiting to be used by the North American people. There are certain things in the United States that we must always have, things that we can't grow because geography makes it impossible for us to grow. I mentioned a few of these, for instance cotton. We must have your cotton. We will always need it. We can't grow cotton, we'll need your citrus fruits, oranges, grapefruit; we need your vegetables out of season. We need rice, we need soybeans-
I am sure, Mr. Chairman, I remember the hon. member for Essex East pleading with the former government to assist the soybeans producers in Ontario.
-we need peanuts. All of these things are agricultural commodities that you people produce that we cannot or never never will produce.
This all adds up to the fact that our economy is a high-cost one, compared with yours because we're north of the 49th parallel and we have to live with the elements. The United States and Canada will always be great trading nations. I was going to mention wheat. We have in Canada 60 million acres of arable land. We farm 5 per cent of Canada-just the small amount of 5 per cent. This 60 million acres hasn't changed in the last 30 years very much.
It won't change very much in the next few years because they are going to drown a lot of land in the Kootenays.
This year we had a bumper crop of wheat. We grew something like 700 million bushels-720 to be exact-which is a record crop. The highest we've ever grown from 27 million acres. And then a small amount of soft wheat which we grew in Ontario, for which you would have to add a couple of million bushels. This grain for the most part, has been marketed as you know. We grew 27 million acres at the expense of a certain amount of acreage that would ordinarily be sown to oats and barley and coarse grains and that sort of thing. But this grain is an expensive proposition for us. So are our beef cattle an expensive proposition for us. So are our dairy products.
This is a very interesting paragraph.
If we in dairy products are going to live or compete with the rest of the world, for instance Argentina or New Zealand or Australia, we will have to change our whole pattern of dairy farming. But I don't say that we will have to change it so far as the cost of fluid milk is concerned. As long as we are shipping fluid milk we will have to produce it the year round.
But we are giving great consideration to educating our people to live with geography. For instance, you can produce a pound of cheese at almost half the amount of money in the summer as you can in the winter.

I would like the minister to explain this, because it almost indicates that you milk the cows in summer and let them dry up in the winter.
Storage facilities have changed and we are taking a long look at some of these problems.
We are also at the moment taking a long look at the high cost of machinery in Canada. We think that if we are going to be producing for world markets, then we must take a look at some of these great problems. Because it doesn't seem right that you should have $40,000 invested in a section that requires $25,000 or $30,000 worth of machinery to operate it. Particularly when you think about the problems we have in Canada. One year we might have a big crop like we had this year and a farmer has 6,000 bushels of wheat on 300 acres. And he hasn't had it marketed and his neighbour has the same thing so he goes out and buys an $8,000 or $9,000 combine. And then the next year he's sitting there with the combine and he got hailed out and his neighbour got hailed out and everybody else. So he's got no place to put the combine. And the third year he got dried out and about that time the old lady ran away with the hired man and he's in a real mess, this fellow.
I suggest that it is not fair to the farm housewife of the prairie provinces to suggest that they are in the practice of running away with the hired man.
These are some of the problems that confront the Canadian farmer, and I'm sure you have the same problem here. Another thing that we're taking a look at is crop disaster. When a man is hailed out, blown out, frozen out, all of these are a great worry to him and we think that we admire some of your crop insurance and we are going to take a long look at this.
We shall be interested in the minister's intentions in regard to that.
When we were in Holland we saw it was costing $2,000 an acre to reclaim land from the sea. And we were told that they were selling this back to the producer at greatly reduced prices and giving him 60 years to pay for it at 3 per cent interest. This will show you the important place the farmer holds in these older countries. The producer of food is the very backbone of their economy.
I agree with the minister there.
Mr. Chairman, I would think that we have the same problems here. We in Canada would like to work very closely with you in agriculture. I suggested the last time I saw your secretary of agriculture, Mr. Freeman, that we would like to ship a little more cheese into the United States. And because we only send in 500,000 pounds and we Import 2 million pounds it looked to me like we had a real good argument. He said "Well, but you have Cheddar cheese". I said to him "I think this is a specialty cheese and I'm going to call it Freeman cheese from now on."
I hope that if he is elected again-
Actually, the secretary of agriculture is appointed over there, not elected-
-we will be able to export more cheese into the United States.
Now, I'm being a little facetious about this, but these are some of the problems that confront us in Canada. We have a great deal of admiration for our friends in the United States, the farmer

particularly, because you have given us the very foundation of our dairy cattle; most of the best ones come from this country.
I differ with the minister over that. The original stock of the Ayrshire herds and the Holsteins came from Scotland, Great Britain and the European countries, and most of the best ones come from this country.
Much of our cereal seed grain comes from this country.
He means the United States, there.
We would like to work closely with you in research also. Our problems will always be the same because it looks as though for quite some time we are going to be producing all agricultural commodities in surplus and so we will be competing in world markets.
The minister has anticipated that we are going to be producing agricultural commodities in surplus for some time. This represents an almost subconscious thinking and I hope the minister explains that statement when he replies.
Nevertheless, we would like to work very closely with you people in this regard.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of speaking to you this afternoon. I would be remiss in my duties if I did not invite you back to Canada. I hope that you will see fit to come to Canada. It has been a real pleasure to be here this afternoon. I only wish I could stay this evening. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I have put this somewhat unusual speech on the record because I think it will save a lot of members' time explaining what type of man the minister is, how he thinks, how he talks, and what government agricultural policy is. This will enlighten the people of Canada and I trust that when the minister replies later on he will explain some of his ambiguous statements. We expect ambiguous statements from the Secretary of State for External Affairs but not from the Minister of Agriculture. I have always claimed in talking to other hon. members of my group that there is one thing about farmers-you know where they stand. But I tell you at this stage, Mr. Chairman, we do not know where the Minister of Agriculture stands.


Mr. Ouellei:: Mr. Chairman, the agricultural problems in our area are being seriously considered by a growing number of people in eastern Canada.
It should be said, therefore, that the eastern farmer's lot is receiving the kind attention of many members of this house who have made up their minds to draw plans to improve substantially and without delay the difficult financial situation in which the farmers find themselves.
28902-5-368J
Supply-Agriculture
According to official reports, there would be one area in Canada, the west, where farmers have seen their financial situation gradually improve in recent years, whereas, in the case of eastern farmers, the situation is deteriorating to the point where many are and will be incapable of carrying their burden.
However, thank goodness, solutions are being proposed to prevent the disaster from spreading.
The catholic farmers' union and the federated co-operative of Quebec have always been engaged in promoting and protecting the general interest of agriculture. In the last few months, both associations, which are beneficial and essential to the welfare of farmers, have submitted requests to the proper quarter in order that a sound solution to the problems of their members be found, particularly the problem of the feed grain required by the stock-breeding industry in eastern Canada.
It is easy to see that western farmers, generally speaking, are satisfied at the present time. On the other hand, they do not seem to be too much interested in eastern Canada buyers and to be anxious to inquire about prices paid by customers who are farmers like themselves.
At the present time, we have to pay close to $20 a ton, for instance, for feed grain delivered in Montreal. And it is precisely on that point that we have to co-operate if we want the purposes of the stock-breeders in my region to be achieved. On that matter, the officers of our syndicates and co-operatives have their heart set on attaining our object, which is to participate in the crop abundance in the prairie provinces, in the reasonable and equitable prices obtained by western farmers and finally, allow our stock-breeders in eastern Canada to benefit from a steady and necessary increase.
Thus, since 1941, the federal government grants a freight subsidy for feed grain produced in the prairie provinces and consumed on farms in eastern Canada and in British Columbia.
In Montreal, that subsidy amounts to $5 a ton at the present time. As an average for the whole province, it amounts to some $8 a ton.
That is not a statutory policy. The subsidy is annual and is renewed each year by order in council.
Quebec imports about one million tons of grain and mill feed from western mills, that is 35 or 40 per cent of the requirements. For the fiscal year ended March 1961, Quebec farmers received some $7.7 million under that policy.
On an average, the province of Quebec gets 40 per cent of the total amount paid out by the federal government under that policy-

Supp ly-A griculture
The province of Quebec is a dairy province directed toward grass farming. Its natural environment is quite suited for such direction.
An excellent method of consolidating the Quebec farms is to direct their activities towards those livestock productions in which we are short. At the present time, the increase of these productions is handicapped by a cost-price squeeze.
Our local production of feed grain covers only 60 to 65 per cent of our local requirements, at the present level of our livestock production. We could, of course, increase our local production of feed grain, but never enough to meet all our needs, especially in barley and wheat.
The subsidy rate did not keep pace with the increase in freight rates. In 1941, the subsidy represented in Montreal $4.50 per ton; today, it is equivalent to $5 per ton. During the same period, the freight rate increased from $5 to $13.20 per ton.
Most farmers and agricultural advisers in our cattle industry are aware of that fact.
When we get a department of agriculture for eastern Canada, it will be the reward for our efforts in Ottawa in order to gain a fair appreciation of our farm requirements.
We all have here a responsibility to change a state of affairs that means frustration for our rural population.
You are aware of the fact that people have been complaining to the government for a long time, and now is the time to act.
Finally, I should like to point out that the ARDA offices at Mont Joli, in the riding of Rimouski, were officially opened last December 8.
Federal and provincial ministers and members of parliament took advantage of the occasion to take a quick look at the projects which are being considered for the Rimouski-lower St. Lawrence pilot district.
ARDA forces neither plans nor projects upon people. It merely strives to help them in the preparation and implementation of plans and projects.
Its usefulness and efficiency in carrying out the various necessary reforms for the redevelopment of the territory covered by the pilot district will depend on the collective and individual co-operation of the parties concerned.
Our farmers truly deserve our solicitude and all men of goodwill are invited to contribute to their welfare and survival.
ARDA offers us a chance of progress and success. Will we take it? I hope so.


Mr. Nesbitt:: I just want to take a moment or two of the committee's time to mention one or two matters which occur to me. I
IMr. Ouellet.]
listened to some of the minister's remarks this evening and this afternoon. While he touched on several aspects of the dairy industry I feel that the affairs of the industry in general were not given the consideration they deserved.
The dairy industry in Ontario and Quebec at the present time finds itself in a precarious state. There are many problems connected with it. The minister and his department are familiar with these problems, I am sure, and I hope that in the near future, as soon as possible, the hon. gentleman will get in touch with the ministers of agriculture of Ontario and Quebec and with the dairy farmers organizations and try to work out some solution to the dairy problem, because the difficulties of this industry seem to be growing more and more acute.
In conclusion, I should like to ask one question of the minister. It is my understanding that the concentrated milk producers of Ontario have been trying for weeks to obtain an appointment with him without success. This is an important matter. This is an important organization representing a large number of the dairy farmers of Ontario and, indirectly, their compatriots in other parts of the country. I do hope the minister will be able to find time to meet this delegation as soon as possible.


Harry William Hays: I should like to answer that question. I can assure the hon. member my door is always open. There is no delegation that I have not seen as soon as possible. Over my gate back home there is a sign- I think it is a famous sign in Calgary now- saying: "The latch string is always out". That is the way I have tried to operate since I have been in Ottawa.
While I am on my feet, perhaps I might say a word about the discussion so far. I hope everybody has had a great deal of fun here this evening. Certainly, I have. If I have provided some of it, I am thankful for that. All through my life I have had a great admiration for people who do things and I would like hon. members to know that it is a great challenge to me to be Minister of Agriculture. I say this humbly. I do not have as much book learning as a lot of people have, but I have a sense of responsibility and I can contribute to agriculture. There has been a great group of leaders in agriculture before me; one cannot help being aware of this when holding an office such as mine. I am thankful that this year-perhaps we did not have too much to do with it-we are looking back on 1963 as the greatest agricultural year Canada has ever known-$3,200 million, the best ever recorded.
We are trying sincerely to do something about the eastern feed grain situation. We

thought that if we were to pay the storage it would make an impact. I think that by the end of the season we shall have all the feed grain in store in eastern Canada for eastern users. It will be $3 a ton cheaper for both oats and barley, half the price for bran, and shorts are almost half the price which farmers had to pay a year ago. Price has been stabilized and we think this has made some contribution to bringing about a wholly better situation.
We think we have done something in connection with the dairy program. We have taken a sincere look at it. In this connection I should like to read to the committee from an article which appeared in the London Free Press and other newspapers. It is a report of something which was said by a very responsible man, Mr. J. M. Hartwick, president of the National Dairy Council of Canada. He said:
A shift to cheese production from butter has helped provide the dairy industry with the most optimistic situation experienced in many years. It is now almost certain that Cheddar cheese sales in Canada this year will record an all-time high of well over 105 million pounds.
Mr. Hartwick commends the federal government for the things it has done. I could also read the favourable comments which have been made by the tobacco growers who were paid a floor price of 47 cents. These people had a difficult problem. Well, they have sold 22 million pounds of their tobacco at higher prices than have ruled for a long time, and it appears it will be possible for them to get rid of all their tobacco this year and clean up a problem which has worried them for a long time.
I could go on in this vein. There have been successes in nearly every field of agriculture although, maybe, we have not been selling this story hard enough. We still have a big job to do. We shall never be through. I have a great team behind me. These people are trying to help me and I need help, and I am getting some help from the other side, too. I think we can do a job for agriculture in Canada and I hope, in some small way, I can make a contribution.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I much appreciate the minister's answer. I hope he will indicate that he will see the Ontario concentrated milk producers delegation perhaps before Christmas, and, certainly, before the year is out. I am glad to see the minister is nodding in assent. That is fine. I trust the hon. gentleman was not referring to me when he suggested that some members might have been trying to have some fun at his expense, because that would certainly not be the case;
I regard this subject as being a very serious matter indeed.
Supply-Agriculture
I am glad the minister has said the things he did this evening indicating that he intends to take a serious look at the milk side of the dairy industry in particular, because that is the part of this industry which is in the most difficult position of all.


Raymond Langlois: I do not intend to speak for very long on the estimates of this department.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Raymond Langlois: I wonder if the supporters of the government are fearful I may get back at the Minister of Agriculture on the subject of eastern feed grain and the appointment of a minister of agriculture, east. I do not think they are too far wrong. I probably will not make the kind of speech that was made in Chicago. I have not got that kind of competence. I heard the minister say a few moments ago that he felt a little ill at ease after taking on such a ministry. We know he was a very successful man in his own line of business, but I must say that we cannot permit him to rely on experience of that kind so far as agriculture in Canada is concerned. In that regard I am referring particularly to the situation in the eastern part of Canada.
Eastern agriculture has been neglected and is in a pitiful state economically at the moment. I do not blame the Minister of Agriculture in office now. I blame those that were there before him and the governments that preceded the present government. I blame the Liberal government that was in power prior to the Conservative administration of 1958, and the Conservative administration which took power at that time. That Conversative government had 208 seats in the house and yet could not find any possible way to solve some of the problems of eastern Canadian agriculture.
I heard the minister say today that there are two broad groups of farmers, the qualified and the more or less marginal group. He forgot one group, those who are in such deep financial trouble at the moment, those who are in a hopeless situation at the moment in the eastern provinces, especially in the province of Quebec, who represent by far the majority of the farmers in these provinces.
We have farmers in Quebec who are leaving their farms today, and the same applies to New Brunswick. They are doing so for the simple reason they cannot make both ends meet. They are working in the same way they worked 20 years ago. They are still slaving from sunup to sundown. The only difference is that at the end of the year ends do not meet any more, financially. Even if we take just the two groups, the qualified and the marginal, those farmers

Supply-Agriculture
have financial troubles. Every single farmer has them. Some of them have more than others.
So far as the western farmers are concerned, the government looked into their troubles in 1935 and helped them to solve their financial troubles to a certain extent by stabilizing the price of their grain. In 1935 the government formed the Canadian wheat board, and I think every western farmer is very proud of the Canadian wheat board.
How proud the eastern farmers would be if they had an eastern feed grain board. They are waiting for the same type of governmental action that was taken in 1935 to solve the problems of the western farmers to be taken now to solve the problems of the eastern farmers. The eastern farmers are in a critical financial state. If we compare western farms and eastern farms we find that western Canada is a better grain producing region and the farms do not need the care and labour that has to be put into eastern farms. Western farmers have a capable organization to sell their wheat. The government has an eye on the matter and sees that it is done. The western farmers have a guaranteed price. They have a floor price on their wheat and they at least have that guarantee.
What has the eastern farmer got as a guarantee? First of all, he does not produce enough for his own needs. This year in the province of Quebec there is 45 per cent underproduction. Where is the organization on the part of the government? The eastern farmer has to go through co-operatives, mills, brokers, distributors right to the lakehead, every kind of organization imaginable, to get the feed grain necessary for the winter. At the moment he has a fairly difficult time obtaining it at a decent price or at a price that will permit him to continue farming. There is no stable price in eastern Canada.
I heard one member say today that a farmer can start to prepare livestock, and before the winter is over the price of feed grain has varied so much that it is utterly hopeless for him to make ends meet. In Geneva in 1959 there was an international conference to stabilize the price of wheat on the world market and to provide floor and ceiling prices. If that was good for the world, why can we not have a stabilized price in the province of Quebec and the eastern provinces generally? If you can stabilize the price of wheat going out of the country, why can you not stabilize the price of grain coming into the eastern provinces so that it will not be too expensive on the one hand, and so that it will not go too low in price on the other hand? At least the farmers would know within what limits the price would range.
[Mr. Langlois.l
How are we going to stabilize the price? How do we solve the problem in eastern Canada at the moment? We have discussed it for the past few weeks in the standing committee on agriculture. I heard one opposition member say that the government had a two price system in its election platform. Why not provide a two price system in eastern Canada and pay a subsidy on western feed grain and seed grain also, so that the farmers of eastern Canada could obtain grain at a reasonable price and could make both ends meet at the end of the year? At the same time this would assure that the western farmer would receive his price also. With a subsidy on grain coming into eastern Canada the eastern farmer could purchase grain at a price which would allow him to make both ends meet at the end of the year. His financial problems would be solved and those of the western farmer would also be solved.
Eastern farmers have nothing against western farmers. They know they are not getting too much for their wheat or feed grains. But eastern farmers also know one other fact. They know they are paying too much for feed grain in the eastern provinces, and I suggest that anybody who thinks this is not so should go and take over a farm in any constituency in eastern Canada. I can take the Minister of Agriculture, or the supposed eastern minister of agriculture, to my constituency and put them on a farm. Up until six or seven years ago there were many farms in the province of Quebec that had been free of debt since our ancestors came to this country. Why is it that the same men who up until that time had been able to operate these farms and to have money in the bank today are in debt to the farm loan board, are in great difficulty and are wondering how to make both ends meet in order to pay their debts? These men are moving off the farms at the age of 40 or 45 and going into the city to try to find work. Yet we wonder why we have unemployment. Do hon. members think those farmers do not want to work their farms? They certainly do. It is no more pleasant to starve in the city than to starve on their own farms, but they are being kicked off their farms because they cannot even pay the taxes.
There is a possible solution, if the government wants to listen to one-and I would ask some of the government members to listen. I hear some talking by Liberal members. They can talk if they like. They did their talking for the 22 years preceding 1958. Now, perhaps the farmer will wonder why he is in such a mess. Instead of telling the farmer to look at his administrative problems, the government might tell him to take a pencil and

calculate why he is in this position. If three-quarters of the farmers did this, they would not have lasted until now. They are always living in hope. When you make the calculation on paper, you destroy the castle of hope in which the farmer has lived, and you destroy any hope he has of pulling himself out of the financial situation in which he is today.
We need an eastern feed grain board for eastern Canada. This board should buy its grain direct from the Canadian wheat board, which sells grain for western farmers. If the law does not permit these direct sales, then the law should be amended. If this were done, we might have some control over the movement of wheat. At the moment we cannot follow the movement of wheat from western Canada to Port Arthur or Fort William and then through a zigzag line. We do not know where it goes. All we know is that the farmer is paying for it. We have agencies, and we do not want another agency added to the ones we already have. If you add another agency to the 20 we have, we will merely have 21 agencies. The twenty first agency will take a profit. What we want is one agency to negotiate with the Canadian wheat board so that we can buy wheat at the price at which the wheat board sells it.
Then, this agency should use the shortest and cheapest route to get the grain into the farmer's yard. The cheapest way for the farmer is the shortest way, and not this zigzag line the grain follows at the moment. If the grain is moved through an agency the government will have a certain amount of control and supervision over that agency. The minister wanted to have supervision of the grain by this agency. I can supervise somebody all I want, but if I have no power to stop him from going into a bank or a shop and robbing the place, I might as well not be there at all. We do not want a board to supervise; we want a board to act in distributing the grain and controlling the movement of the grain. Then, the representatives on that board could appear before the agriculture committee and we could question them.
Then, Mr. Chairman, the government could employ the eastern feed grain board to administer the subsidy which it gives to the eastern farmer, the subsidy on transportation. We do not know the amount of this subsidy. The government also gives a subsidy for storage and another subsidy for protecting the grain. If all these subsidies were given to the eastern feed grain board, then the price of grain to the farmer might be reduced. If the price were still too high, then the farmers could make representations to the government to the effect they needed greater subsidies to enable them to operate with a profit. We have farmers now who are willing to work,
Supply-Agriculture
but you will not keep them on the farms, you will not keep their sons on farms, as long as this situation exists.
The establishment of this eastern feed grain board would eliminate these excess profits taken by the agencies who handle the grain in its movement from the lakehead to the farmer. This board could also have some measure of control over the feed mill. How much do we pay for feed at the moment from the mill, what we call chop? I believe we pay anywhere from $5.90 to $6.50 per hundred pounds. Can the minister tell me he knows what is in that chop? If there is a nickel's worth of some ingredient added, can the minister say at the moment that is sufficient reason for raising the price 75 cents? Does he know the situation? Let him look into it and establish a decent price for feed from western Canada for the eastern farmer.
Let us consider the position of the hog raiser in eastern Canada at the moment. If he raises 100 hogs and calculates the cost of feed and his time, he will find he is going to come out $150 in the hole. This amounts to a loss of $1.50 per hog. At that rate, is the minister or anybody else going to stay on the farm? The farmers are the ones who are classified. They are always the ones on the receiving end. If a farmer sells a hog, it is going to be classified as a class A hog, and he will be paid for it. If it is a class B, he will be paid for that. If he sells a class C hog, he will get the price for class C. When the Minister of Agriculture walks into a butcher shop, he buys a piece of pork. Did he ever buy a piece of class A, class B or class C? He might be buying a class C piece of pork but paying the price for class A. There are no distinguishing marks on that pork. However, everything the farmer sells is classified. The department classifies chickens, eggs and hogs. The farmer is a classified man, even in so far as the income tax department is concerned. He is also a desperate man, and he will be ruined if the minister does not take his responsibility seriously.
The minister can refer all he likes to the minister of agriculture for eastern Canada. If the government gave the eastern minister of agriculture responsibility for this feed grain board, and if it were operated properly, that would suffice for the eastern farmer. This would permit the eastern farmer to make both ends meet. Perhaps it would enable the eastern farmer to get a little more for his produce, and this would give him something above his cost of production. There are only two solutions to this problem, and I think the one I mentioned first would be the logical one. If a government agency for wheat sales was good for western Canada, it should be good for eastern Canada. If a stabilized price for wheat

Supply-Agriculture
is good for the international wheat market, it should be good for eastern Canada as well. We should do these things at home before we put them on a worldwide basis. I do not blame this government for helping the western farmer; he needed it. Our greatest market for wheat is the export market. I believe, for that reason, we have forgotten about our internal market. It is high time we started thinking about it.
The eastern farmer sees ships containing millions of bushels of wheat going up the St. Lawrence destined for China, Yugoslavia and Russia. It is all very nice that we are selling our wheat, but the eastern farmers are grinding their teeth. Eastern farmers are looking at these ships with anxiety and with sorrowful hearts, knowing that we are selling wheat to Poland cheaper than they can buy their feed wheat. Farmers are wondering why the government is worrying about Russia and Yugoslavia, because they think it is time the government started worrying about the Canadian people on Canadian farms. Then, when Canadian farmers are satisfied, you can start selling wheat outside of Canada. This is the primary problem to be solved at the moment.
I do not understand a situation which prevents the eastern farmer from buying wheat directly from the wheat board. But you can do it with United States corn. In 1962-63, 35 million bushels of United States corn came into eastern Canada. There is one group of persons that can buy from western farmers directly; these are the feed mills and the western flour mills. Nobody else has such a privilege. In fact, when you buy corn from the United States you do not even need a permit; you only need to pay the duty on it. You can take all the corn you want. But you cannot do it with Canadian wheat. Before putting boundaries in your own country you should solve this problem. You are creating problems when you put a boundary between eastern and western Canada with regard to grain.
It is no better to put a boundary between eastern and western Canada with regard to grain than if you put one between the United States and this country and started imposing taxes and duties on every single import or export that went through. We have special exports and imports that are duty free. This is a normal thing and it is a good thing. This system is adopted by both countries. We need grain in both countries. Either take the wall away or set up an organization that can go through the wall. This would be an eastern feed board. Nobody else can go through this wall because of the law. Not only would there be supervision with such a board, but somebody would be responsible for control.

In the long run this would bring good results. You will have to perhaps eliminate some things. It will be hard to push aside some of the people who have their hands in this business at the moment. There are some people at the moment who have no conscience in their dealings. You have some racketeers in this business. You have always had some. You had some in 1935 in western Canada. You still have some in eastern Canada. You will have trouble pushing them aside, but as long as you permit some of these rats that are eating at and chewing away the rules that apply to Canadian agriculture you will not solve this problem. Do not try to cover it by a Liberal or Conservative blanket. At the end of three or four years these rats will have eaten the blanket too and we will have to change the government. This government should try to arrive at a solution that on a long term basis would be stable and good for western and eastern farmers. Then you might have a higher prestige as the government of Canada; but at the moment your prestige is very low as far as the farmers in the eastern provinces are concerned.
If the problem is not solved before you next go to the Canadian people, you will have a great deal of explaining to do. And if it is not solved I will also be there to give the people the reason for your not wanting to solve the problem.


Frank John William Fane: Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to have the opportunity this evening to speak on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. I have waited since May 18 for just this opportunity. There have not been too many times when we have been able to speak about agriculture, and when we have said something we have not got very far with it. I am very sorry that the hour is so late. It is ten minutes after ten o'clock and I believe our sitting will finish at 10.30.


An hon. Member:: Ten fifteen.


Frank John William Fane: Therefore, Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be very brief, much more brief than I intended. Before beginning my remarks I want to say how impressed I am with the address of the hon. member for Megantic who preceded me. I think he has put forward as good a case for the farmers of Quebec as I have ever heard. For the life of me I cannot understand why, in the name of God, something has not been done for the farmers of eastern Canada to help them out over the years. We in the west were in exactly the same position up till 1957. Last year we heard a great deal about the fact that if a farmer in Quebec made $1,200 a year profit he felt almost like a millionaire. That is the way it was in the west with most of us up

till 1957. There were many things I wanted to say to the minister, Mr. Chairman, but I will not say them because of the lateness of the hour.
There are, however, a few things I do want to point out. I want the minister to know that I realize how difficult it must be for him to live up to the tenets of a district governor of the Rotary club and be at the same time a minister in a Liberal government. This must be really tough on him. As we know, the first of the tenets of the Rotary club is truth. He cannot always have Judy with him. I wanted to make some remarks about the speech of the hon. member for Medicine Hat, but I think the hon. member for Acadia gave him a pretty good going over. I will come back to that hon. member a little later.
I wish to say one thing about the farmers of eastern Canada who buy feed grain. Perhaps people in the east do not know that the farmers of western Canada pay the freight on the grain, whether it is feed grain or wheat, all the way to the lakehead or Vancouver. It costs every farmer who sells grain 26 cents per 100 pounds to ship the grain down there. We have only that small amount to pay because of the Crowsnest pass freight rate, the agreement which gives us that freight rate to the lakehead. This rate is in effect because of agreements made in the past and because the transcontinental railway companies were well paid when they ran their railways through our country. They obtained one eighteenth of the land of western Canada in payment for continuing these low freight rates in perpetuity.
I should like to make some comments about the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and crop insurance. The government of the province of Alberta has not yet seen fit to do anything about implementing crop insurance in our province. I know they are talking about it this year, and they may do it some time. I think this government should make amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act which will make its benefits available to all farmers. This would be fair to all. At the moment, in order to receive prairie farm assistance you must have a block of 12 sections in a rectangular block which has suffered a crop failure. I think this is too much. Who in the world ever heard of rain, hail, drought, or any other cause of failure, coming in rectangular blocks? I do not know why in all these years since 1939 a farmer is not eligible to receive assistance if he has a block of one section, because I can assure the committee that misfortune does not always hit 12 sections or, as it was before, 18 sections.
In 1962 in my constituency about 30 townships were flooded out. They had as much 28902-5-369
Supply-Agriculture
as 35 inches of rainfall in an area where 12 inches or 15 inches a year is a lot. The farmers lost their whole crop on the lowlands, but they did not get prairie farm assistance because some of them sowed a little on the hilltops and were able to harvest pretty good crops off the 10 or 15 acres that they sowed there. For the purposes of assistance the whole area was assessed on the amount taken off those little patches, and I believe that is a regulation which should be changed.
I would like to see this government honour its commitments to provide stabilized prices for hogs and chickens on a regional basis. I know this will be quite difficult to do, and I would also like to see the government fulfil its promise to provide a two price system for wheat. Most of all, I would like to see the Prairie Farm Assistance Act brought up to date and its provisions made more reasonable, so that all those farmers who have not been able to get assistance over the years will be able to get it in the future.
With regard to machinery prices, I do not know what kind of deal the minister hopes to work out on a rental basis for farm machinery. As a matter of fact, I would like to rent a nice big tractor myself at a reasonable price, as mine are getting a little worn out. It is the price of farm machinery which keeps the farmers in the west almost broke. For example, 20 years ago the biggest combine in the country could be bought for the value of between 2,500 and 3,000 bushels of wheat. It now costs something between the value of 9,000 and 10,000 bushels of wheat. It is a little better machine, a little more streamlined, but it will not stand up a darned bit better. It will do a little more work a little bit faster, but the increase in price is out of all reason because the price of farm produce has not gone up in ratio to the price of machinery.
I was a member of the agriculture committee when it was inquiring into the price of farm machinery. We did not get too far with it, but we did get a lot of information that might be of assistance to the minister who wants to have the government go into the farm machinery business. All I can say is that I wish him luck.
We in the west are very pleased that the government is continuing the practice that was instituted by its immediate predecessor in selling grain to countries who do not have the same political ideology we have. I have always said that if we do not sell grain to those people-despite what our friends to my left say-and that if we do not deal with them, then how in the name of God are we going to get to know each other? How are we

Supply-Agriculture
going to get people to realize that there are really decent people behind the iron curtain? That is what I believe and that is what I have always preached.
It they need the grain, sell it to them. We sure as heck don't need it piled up on farms, in skating rinks, or anywhere tor that matter. The big thing is that we are a producing nation, and in order to survive we have got to sell our products. That is what has to be accomplished, and that is what was instituted by the former government through its minister of agriculture, the Hon. Alvin Hamilton. It was that which put the farmers of western Canada on their feet.
The former Liberal government said "Come and get it. We raise the best wheat in the world, come and get it." We went to these people and we made the deals. We did not wait to deal with them until they came to Ottawa and said they wanted to make a deal. However, we are very pleased that this government is continuing that policy.
We are also pleased to note that a veterinary college is to be established in western Canada. For many years there has been a dearth of veterinarians, and it will be a very good thing to have this college.
I now wish to make some remarks about farm credit. I believe that my constituency, while it is one of the most prosperous and most forward looking constituencies in the west, makes more use of farm credit than any other area of similar size in the country.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder before you leave the chair if there would be a disposition to continue for a little while after the royal assent. I believe this would be a convenience, especially for some of the western members, because there might be some difficulty in bringing these estimates on again until quite late next week.


Mr. Churchill:: That is quite agreeable to us.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it agreed?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How long has the minister in mind, because this is a long day, and the banking and commerce committee starts at nine o'clock in the morning.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thought perhaps to about
11.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then only as long as it is to eleven.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it agreed?


An hon. Member:: No.


Lucien Lamoureux: I understand there is not unanimous consent.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, there is.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it unanimously agreed?


An hon. Member:: No.
Progress reported.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, it is the desire of the Honourable the Deputy of His Excellency, the Governor General, that this honourable house attend him immediately in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to amend the Quebec Savings Banks Act.
An act to amend the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act.
An act to amend the Railway Act.
An act to amend the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Act.
An act to amend the Kmergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.
An act to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act.
An act respecting the appointment of Auditors for National Railways.
An act to amend the Old Age Assistance Act, the Disabled Persons Act and the Blind Persons Act.

Gordon Minto Churchill: May we have from the leader of the house the business for tomorrow and Saturday?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes. I should like to suggest a slight modification in the order of arrangements for tomorrow, but, before I do that, hon. members will have noticed that the somewhat belated resolution respecting the worlds fair bill was advanced one stage today. We would not wish to have any debate on it, but if there were a disposition to dispose of it without debate so that the bill might become available for debate on Monday, it would be a convenience. Perhaps hon. gentlemen opposite could let me know before we sit tomorrow morning whether that would be possible.
As far as the departments are concerned, the Minister of Justice finds he has committed himself to do something in the afternoon, tomorrow, and it would suit the government much better if we could begin with the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. If we could take the Department of Fisheries and any

other department whose estimates are already well advanced, up until about four thirty in the afternoon, I believe the Minister of Justice would then be available, and we could then go on with his estimates until they were completed. We would always have some other minister available in the event that anything more could be done that day.
On Saturday, as I announced earlier, we would start with the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. When these are completed, if the estimates of the
Business of the House
Department of Justice have not been completed we would like to bring those back in the hope of completing them. After that we would take up the estimates of the Department of Public Works. That, perhaps, would be enough for Saturday. If the estimates of the Department of Public Works were completed on Saturday we would adjourn even if it was not quite six o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
It being twenty two minutes before eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
28902-5-369J
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 13, 1963