1963-10-14

Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in June of this year I outlined a nine point employment and manpower development program. Under this program provision was made for special measures of federal assistance to designated development areas. The 35 designated development areas under this program were selected on the basis of being areas characterized by continuing high levels of unemployment and slow rates of employment growth.
In addition to qualifying for tax concessions to manufacturing and processing enterprises locating in such areas, there are additional measures designed particularly to stimulate winter employment in these designated areas. These measures include the bringing forward of federal government construction projects for this winter and higher payroll incentive payments under the municipal winter works incentive program.
The aim of the special tax incentive measures and the work of the area development agency of the Department of Industry which apply to the 35 designated development areas is primarily to stimulate year round employment in areas of slow economic growth and chronic high levels of unemployment. The additional measures that were introduced to reduce the level of unemployment in these areas during the coming winter months include a supplementary federal winter construction program and the provision for an additional 10 per cent, or a total of 60 per cent, of payroll costs of municipal winter works.
The purpose of the supplementary government construction program and the higher percentage for municipal works is to help alleviate the problem of high winter unemployment. The designation of areas for purposes of the area development program was not primarily concerned with high winter unemployment, but rather with areas of long term unemployment and slow growth.
As one means of extending the impact of the supplementary federal winter construction program, areas with heavy winter unemployment have been selected to supplement the
already designated development areas. In addition, municipalities in these areas of high winter unemployment will receive 60 per cent of payroll costs under the municipal winter works incentive program, as in the case of the designated development areas. To qualify as an area of high winter unemployment, the average ratio of national employment service registrations to estimated paid workers must have been in excess of 25 per cent in the three winter months January, February and March during the years 1961, 1962 and 1963. In all there are 45 such national employment service areas which qualify as areas of high winter unemployment.
With the consent of the house, Mr. Speaker, I should like to have a table of those areas printed in Hansard as part of my statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table referred to above is as follows:]
Newfoundland: Grand Falls, St. John's, *Corner Brook.
Nova Scotia: ^Inverness, *Springhill, Yarmouth, * Amherst, Bridgewater, *New Glasgow.
Prince Edward Island: Summerside, Charlottetown.
New Brunswick: Bathurst, *Campbellton, Newcastle, *Woodstock, Edmundston, Moncton.
Quebec: Gaspe, New Richmond, Chandler, *Causapscal, *Matane, Maniwaki, Rimouski, *Mont Laurier, *La Malbaie, Forestville, Sept lies, Riviere du Loup, Baie Comeau, Thetford Mines, Megantic, St. Georges, Chicoutimi, *Dolbeau, *Jonquiere, *Port Alfred, Roberval, Alma.
Ontario: Sturgeon Falls, Bracebridge.
Manitoba: Dauphin.
British Columbia:	Kelowna, Penticton,
Vernon.
Fourteen of these 45 areas (those marked *) are also included among the designated development areas.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could say a few words in place of the ex-minister of labour. We are very gratified that at long last there is some precise definition in connection with the assistance programs that were established as

Labour Conditions
an aid not only for winter employment in this country but also for those areas that are underdeveloped.
In so far as the increase in the percentage of labour costs from 50 per cent to 60 per cent is concerned, this is a move in the right direction. Naturally I should like to point out that if we are going to keep the participation of the provinces and municipalities up to a level where they have a real interest in this proposition, a warning should be issued that this percentage must not go too high. The success of these programs depends on consultations with the municipalities and provinces to make sure that their legitimate interests under the constitution are protected.
As I say, municipal assistance programs in the winter months was a good idea. I am glad to see that this government is continuing this aid. In so far as the newly developed areas are concerned, this is a subject which I feel will have to be examined with great care to make certain that the criteria we should apply at all times, namely participation in the discussions and planning at all levels of government, are maintained.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, naturally the house is happy to hear the statement of the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) with regard to the regulations and the benefits granted to areas known as designated areas. There is one point, however, I should like to draw to the house's attention. It is that in the selection of designated areas, the criteria taken into account were not, in my opinion, the most appropriate in the circumstances.
It seems that the selection was restricted to those areas where unemployment has been prevailing in the last eight years. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that those are not necessarily the areas in greatest need, because it is quite possible that districts which have only known unemployment in the last three or four years find themselves in a more difficult situation than others where it has existed for eight years.
Mr. Speaker, there is another factor that is noteworthy. In fact, there does not seem to have been any consultation between the various governments concerned, that is the federal authorities, the provinces and the municipal councils.
Since the government seems determined to continue examination of the situation in other districts so as to give them the benefits provided in the legislation, as soon as they meet established criteria, I strongly suggest that the minister and the government should take

that step in co-operation with the provinces and municipalities concerned.
Personally, I know that several towns in the Saguenay region have been recognized while others have not been. Granted, the government cannot recognize every city and area in Canada, but I hope just the same that it will give an answer to those which have asked to be designated as distressed areas so that municipal authorities may find out directly from the minister exactly why their municipalities cannot be recognized.
Mr. Speaker, before closing my remarks, I should like to tell the minister how much we appreciate the assistance given to those regions which will benefit thereby. I am glad for their sake, but I do hope that the government will find, as soon as possible, other means than the one just described to deal with unemployment, because even if the step the government intends to take is designed to help municipalities undertake a greater amount of winter work projects, it will bring about debt increases and impose a heavier burden on municipalities which, for the most part, already have to carry a heavy load and cannot afford to go more deeply into debt.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the policy announced by the Minister of Labour will be of some value to those districts which have been selected as designated development areas. However, I point out that there are many areas in Canada which have not been so designated. I think experience will show that we will have to reduce the criteria which the department has set up. For one thing, the levels of unemployment required are much too high. Second, the data which have been collected have been based on summer employment, which is not necessarily related to what the winter unemployment situation will be. Therefore, while this will be of some help to the districts fortunately designated, it is not going to be of much assistance to many areas which will experience severe unemployment this winter.
I would have hoped that the government would consider-and I still hope they will consider-first the possibility of applying the 60 per cent generally to municipalities under the winter works incentive program; and second, that they would consider restoring the reduction in the period during which the winter works incentive program is applicable. When a few months ago the Minister of Labour, without consulting the provinces or the municipalities, reduced this period, I think he very considerably reduced the benefit of this program and its efficacy in dealing with unemployment. I think the

government would do well to examine both the question of raising the percentage for all municipalities and second, the question of the need for restoring the two months, one at the beginning and one at the end, which were taken off the operative period a few months ago.


Mr. Speaker:: With the same reservation I outlined the other day, the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) has the floor.


Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, we are happy to see that the government has decided to increase by 10 per cent its share of payroll costs that municipalities have to bear under the winter works program, in order to check unemployment in Canada, especially in underdeveloped areas.
However, let us not fool ourselves, that will certainly not solve all the problems because municipalities, even if they have to assume only 10 per cent of the cost, have a very hard time trying to meet their obligations everywhere in Canada. The employment problem is relatively easy to solve when municipalities have the money or credit needed to pay the workers.
But they must face another problem, the problem of mechanization, of automation and of the purchase of materials for the building of streets and sidewalks in those municipalities.
Now, the minister is aware that these municipalities have difficulties in obtaining the necessary funds. This measure will help them to some extent, but will not settle the problem, I have no doubt about that. Nevertheless, this measure means that the federal government is willing to pay 60 per cent of labour costs in all those municipalities. It is better than nothing, but not much more, and we believe that a better legislation could be brought forward that would stem unemployment once and for all in our country and in our economically weak areas.



On the orders of the day:


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour based on the statement he made during motions. Is the minister giving consideration to amending or revising the criteria under which designated areas are selected so that several whole provinces would not be excluded from any benefits which may flow from having these areas selected, especially when some of those provinces would have no
Labour Conditions
designated areas are the ones which traditionally have not shared in the economic growth of Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the additional areas that were designated for the purpose of special assistance under winter works, I think include the province of my hon. friend. With respect to the areas previously designated, all I can say is that an effort was made to use the best possible criteria. But as is stated in the statement issued at that time, these designations are subject to annual review, and it will be our purpose in the period ahead to attempt to refine these criteria so that every area which really needs to be designated would be included.


John Angus MacLean: May I thank my hon. friend for his reply, and ask him whether there are any provinces still remaining which have no designated areas within their borders.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Actually I did not look at these criteria with a view to including provinces; the areas were looked at with respect to their employment and unemployment record, but I will attempt to examine all the areas included under both programs so as to determine whether any province is left out. It seems to me that if a province is excluded it is an indication that there is some feeling that economic progress has been taking place, relatively, in that province.



RETIREMENT OF VETERAN MEMBER OF SECURITY STAFF

Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: I rise, Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. I admit at once that in doing so I may not be strictly within the rules of order, but I imagine there are many hon. members who will accept what I have to say as a question of privilege.
I believe our security police in the House of Commons are famous throughout the world because they carry out their job of protection without violence, batons or guns. Today James Kealey is retiring from the security staff after having served for 28 years. When he first came to the House of Commons the security staff numbered only 16; now they are more than 70. I believe that we in this House of Commons should honour our security staff and in particular, today, one by the name of Kealey. That is why I am asking, on a question of privilege, that you, Mr. Speaker, will convey to the security staff, our thanks for their services and their courtesy, and that especially you will convey to Mr. Kealey, as one of the original staff, our thanks for the courtesy and understanding with which he

Questions
has handled the many thousands of people who have visited this building and say to him that in so doing he has conveyed an admirable public relations picture of this House of Commons.
I should like to pay tribute to Mr. Kealey on this day when he is leaving the security staff and, in so doing, convey my thanks to the entire security staff of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



QUESTIONS

["Agreed.\n[Editor's note: The list referred to above is as follows:]\nMr. B. T. Richardson, special assistant, $13,100; Mr. T. W. Van Dusen, executive assistant, $10,000, yes; Mr. G. Guthrie, economic advisor (4), $10,300; Mr. R. C. Laing, administrative officer (4), $7,020; Mrs. M. Wagner, administrative officer (2), $6,960; Mr. G. Champagne, supervising clerk, $5,340, yes; Miss M. R. Pound, principal clerk, $5,000; \nMrs. L. Hayes, principal clerk, $4,860; Mrs. Y. LaFleur, secretary to executive, $4,950, yes; Mr. G. Hetherington, clerk (4), $4,710; Miss A. Trotter, stenographer (3), $4,200."]
Mr. Pickersgill:: The following questions are being answered today: 815, 1,001, 1,004 to 1,010, 1,012 to 1,021, 1,066 1,126, 1,167, 1,175, 1,203, 1,218, 1,223, 1,224, 1,238, 1,245, 1,247, 1,253, 1,255, 1,259, 1,263, 1,265, 1,266, 1,267, 1,270, 1,273, 1,279, 1,281, 1,282, 1,285.
If question No. 1,156 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled forthwith. If Your Honour would be good enough to call starred questions 1,181, 1,184, 1,227, 1,250 and 1,275, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)



Mr. Mather: Is the government giving consideration to the inauguration of a food stamp program whereby low income or underprivileged persons may be provided with higher nutritional standards and the distribution of foodstuffs improved?
Answer: The government has had under consideration for some time the possibility of establishing a food stamp program. No satisfactory plan has yet been developed which would permit the implementation of such a scheme.


GLASSCO REPORT ON PURCHASING AND PURCHASING AGENTS
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the attention of the Secretary of State been drawn to paragraph 2, page 305, volume 2 of the Glassco commission report and, if so (a) what action is he contemplating to correct the tendering procedure and (b) are the purchasing agents with inadequate purchasing experience, as reported in paragraph 3, page 305, the cause of the ill effects of the tendering procedure as reported in paragraph 2?
2.	In December, 1961 (a) how many buyers were in the purchasing division with grades of purchasing agent 3 or higher (b) how many of those in each grade had over three years of purchasing experience and (c) were there any of those with purchasing agent 3 or higher with under three years experience and, if so, with what grades and with how many years of purchasing experience each?
3.	Of the purchasing division staff, as the result of a civil service competition, how many were promoted during the years 1960 and 1961 from a division of the department concerned with other

responsibilities to a purchasing agent's post in the purchasing division with rank (a) purchasing agent 5 and higher (b) purchasing agent 4 and lower and (c) to what positions, at what salaries, and on what dates (d) from what positions and (e) what were the competition numbers?


Mr. Drury:: 1. Yes. On August 21, order in council P.C. 1963-1254 transferred to the Department of Defence Production, under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act, branches of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery. A comprehensive review of the tendering procedure is being mads by D.D.P. to ensure that it complies with the present tendering system of that department.
2.	(a) six; (b) five; (c) yes, a grade 6 purchasing agent with one year.
(3) (a) one; (b) none; (c) to the position chief purchasing agent (purchasing agent grade 6) at $8,960, effective April 1, 1961;
(d)	secretary, public printing and stationery;
(e)	competition No. 60-P-ID-133.


CIVIL SERVICE COMPETITION 61-P-1D-38
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Was responsibility for the mail room and messenger service a listed duty on competition 61-P-1D-38?
2.	Was this a responsibility of the former departmental secretary and, if so (a) what other staff of over three was directed by the appointee (b) what does this staff do (c) specifically what duties involved years of purchasing or procurement or related work at the planning and co-ordinating level and (d) specifically what duties produced the ability to direct and train a purchasing staff?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes. (a) None; (b) N/A; (c) N/A; (d) N/A.


PURCHASING PROCEDURE, PUBLIC PRINTING AND STATIONERY
Mr. Fisher: 1.	In rough estimate, how many tenders were issued from the office of the secretary of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery during the years (a) 1957-1960 (b) 1960-1963?
2.	As a result of these tenders (a) how many purchase orders were issued (b) of what total value and (c) for what goods or services?
3.	Has the appointee ever been employed as a purchasing agent in a government purchasing office and, if not, in what other employment in the government service did he obtain, specifically and in detail (a) a number of years experience in purchasing or procurement or related work, several years of which have been at the planning and coordinating level and (b) a high degree of administrative ability and ability to direct and train a (purchasing) staff?
4.	Was the successful candidate found not fully to meet the qualifications and, if so (a) which of the qualifications listed did he meet (b) was he appointed at a lower level according to the competition and, if so (i) at what grade and (ii) at what salary?
5. Was the successful candidate found to meet fully all the qualifications and, if so (a) to what grade and (b) at what salary was he appointed?

6.	Has the civil service commission replied, verbally or in print, to any inquirer asking whether this successful applicant has had any purchasing experience before this appointment and, if so, when and in what printed record?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. (a) and (b); 2. (a), (b) and
(c). No tenders are issued from the office of the secretary of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery.
3.	The appointee as a result of competition 60-P-1D-133 did not indicate in his application form that he had been previously employed as a purchasing agent, as such, in a government purchasing office.
(a)	Three years as departmental secretary, Department of Public Printing and Stationery, 5 years employed in the sales and distribution branch of public printing and stationery, and 7 years as reference and research librarian, Department of Labour.
(b)	Through his work experience listed in
(a)	above.
4.	No. (a) all; (b) no. (i) and (ii) not applicable.
5.	Yes. (a) Purchasing agent 6; (b) $8,120-$9,800.
6.	A letter was received from one of the applicants in competition 60-P-1D-133 and the secretary of the commission replied on February 3, 1961 to the effect that if he wished to appeal the results of the competition, his statement must be received by February 10, 1961.


PUBLIC PRINTING AND STATIONERY
Mr. Fisher: 1.	In rough estimate (a) how many millions of dollars of buying has been supervised by the chief purchasing agent since his appointment in June 1963 and (b) how many years experience as a purchasing agent has he had (i) supervising this buying and (ii) before supervising this buying?
2.	Did the civil service commission approve the appointment to the post of chief purchasing agent of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery responsible for the general purchasing division and directing the purchase of $18,000,000 yearly of government supplies, on the qualification of (a) a number of years experience in opening and recording tenders and the other qualifications specified (b) high school graduation or better (c) personal suitability and satisfactory physical condition (d) knowledge of the French language sufficient for the duties involved; and, if not, specifically and in detail (e) how and (f) when, did appointee obtain the number of years experience and abilities required in sentences 2 and 3 of the competition qualifications?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. (a) The present chief purchasing agent was appointed in April 1961, (not June 1963 as indicated in the question) and since that time the figure is approximately $40,000,000. (b) (i) Two years; (ii) None.
2.	Yes. (a) Yes; (b) Yes; (c) Yes; (d) Yes; (e) Not applicable; (f) Not applicable.
Questions


CIVIL SERVICE COMPETITION 60-P-1D-133
Mr. Fisher: At the time of competition 60-P-1D-133, December 15, 1960, did (a) the chief purchasing agent have no buying experience and (b) did the purchasing agent commercial printing have 14 years' experience?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: (a) Yes; (b) Yes.


P.P. AND S.  COMPETITION FOR PURCHASING AGENT
Mr. Fisher: 1.	For competition 60-P-1D-133, (a) how many French Canadian candidates applied (b) how many non-French Canadian candidates applied and (c) of the total number of candidates, how many purchasing agents grade 4 or higher were judged (i) bilingual (ii) non-bilingual?
2.	Were any applications received from any
non-French Canadian purchasing agents from the purchasing division of the Public Printing and Stationery Department and, if so, how many with grades (a) purchasing agent 3	(b) purchasing
agent 4 (c) purchasing agent 5 and (d) how many of each purchasing agent grade were interviewed by the selection board in (i) English (ii) French
(iii)	both languages?
3.	Were any of the English Canadian applicants from the purchasing division with purchasing agent 3 or higher, disqualified and, if so (a) how many in each grade (b) for what reason in each grade (c) by whose authority in each grade?
4. Were any applications received from any candidate from the Department of Public Printing and Stationery from a division of the department concerned with responsibilities other than purchasing and, if so (a) how many (b) were any of these applicants ever employed in purchasing or procuring or work relating to purchasing or procuring (i) Stationery (ii) paper (iii) envelopes
(iv)	office equipment (v) printing (vi) plant equipment and supplies and, if so (c) in what division of the department was this work performed and (d) what specifically did the applicant do in relation to part (b) above?
5.	Were any English speaking applicants purchasing agent 3 or higher, interviewed by the selection board mainly in the English language and, if so, how many (a) from the Department of Public Printing and Stationery and their purchasing agent grades (b) from outside public printing and stationery and their purchasing agent grades?
6.	Were any applicants interviewed by the selection board mainly in the French language and, if so, how many (a) from the Department of Public Printing and Stationery and their purchasing agent grades or positions and (b) from outside public printing and stationery and their purchasing agent grades or positions?
7.	How many English Canadian applicants purchasing agent 3 or higher had (a) oral (b) written, French tests to establish the requirement "A knowledge of both the English and French languages sufficient for the duties involved is required", and of these (c) how many applicants from the Department of Public Printing and Stationery and their purchasing agent grades (d) how many from outside public printing and stationery and their purchasing agent grades (e) who applied the (i) written test (ii) oral test (f) what official or officials judged the candidates' non-eligibility for the French competition requirement?
8.	How many French Canadian applicants had
(a)	oral (b) written, English tests to establish the

Questions
requirement "A knowledge of both English and French languages sufficient for the duties involved is required", and of these (c) how many applicants from the Department of Public Printing and Stationery and their purchasing agent grades (d) how many from outside public printing and stationery and their purchasing agent grades (e) who applied the (i) written test (ii) oral test and (f) what official or officials judged the candidates' eligibility for the English competition requirement?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1.	(a) and (b) No records are kept on the ethnic origin of applicants in any competition administered by the civil service commission.
(c)	Of the 19 applications received, one candidate did not claim any knowledge of French and his application was not considered. Two candidates were judged to be nonbilingual.
2.	See answer to 1 (a) and (b) above.
3.	See answer to 1 (a) and (b) above.
4.	Yes.
(a)	5.
(b)	(i) to (vi) Yes.
(c)	One in publications; one in projects; one in accounts payable; two in outside printing.
(d)	Work related to purchasing and procuring of items listed in (b) of question, that is, (i) stationery (ii) paper (iii) envelopes (iv) office equipment (v) printing (vi) plant equipment and supplies.
5.	See answer to 1 (a) above. However, all applicants who were interviewed were assessed to determine whether they had sufficient knowledge of both English and French languages for the duties involved.
6.	See answer to 5 above. Of the 6 candidates given further consideration, three were from the Department of Public Printing and Stationery, one of whom was a purchasing agent 4.
7.	See answer to 1 (a) above, also to 5 and 6
above. The examination for applicants given further consideration took the form of an oral test only. One of the three applicants who at that time was employed in the Department of Public Printing and Stationery was assessed by the board members to have insufficient knowledge of French. The board members were:	Roger Duhamel, queen's
printer, C. A. Drouin, supervisor, district purchasing offices division, Department of Defence Production, P. R. Powers, civil service commission officer.
8.	See answer to 7 above.


COMPETITION 60-P-1D-133    CONCURRENCE OF CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Mr. Fisher: What are (a) the names and positions of all civil service commission personnel having anything to do with the processing of competition 60-P-1D-133 who concurred in the acceptance of appointee's qualifications as having met sentences 2 and 3 of

the competition and (b) on what information, and supplied by whom, did they base their concurrence?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have been given the following answers by the civil service commission:
(a)	A number of civil service commission officers was concerned with this competition so far as the general procedure was concerned: J. A. Gauthier, C. J. Langlois, J. H. Barron, P. R. Powers, L. F. Creighton.
Mr. Powers was the particular officer named to represent the civil service commission on the advisory examining board and the oral examining board. The reports of the boards were examined and authorized by Mr. Creighton, on behalf of the commission.
(b)	On information supplied by the oral examining board.


COMPETITION 60-P-1D-133  DEPARTMENTAL CONCURRENCE IN QUALIFICATIONS
Mr. Fisher: 1.	What are the (a) names and positions of all department of public printing personnel, having anything to do with the processing of competition No. 60-P-1D-133, who concurred in the acceptance of appointee's qualifications as having met sentences 2 and 3 of the competition and (b) from what information, supplied by whom, did they base their concurrence?
2.	How many comprised the selection board and (a) what are their names (b) positions and (c) which, if any, were not fluently French speaking?
3.	Were all members of the selection board together at each interview and, if not (a) for how many interviews (b) held in what languages?
4.	How many interviews were held with the appointee and fa) who were present at each interview and (b) in what language were the interviews mainly conducted?
5.	Were any members of the selection board from the Department of Public Printing and Stationery and, if so (a) what were their official positions and (b) length of service in those positions at the time of the competition?
6.	Did any officer of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery, other than members of the selection board, exercise any authority in the selection of appointee and, if so (a) what is his position and (b) length of service in the department at the time of the competition?
7.	Was one of the members of the selection board of lesser rank than another member from the same department and, if so (a) did he agree that the appointee met all the qualifications (b) did he assent to the appointment?
8.	Are any signatures required on any documents of the competition certifying that the appointee met all the qualifications and, if so, (a) whose signatures (b) what official position?
9.	Are any signatures required on any documents of the competition ratifying the appointment for the Department of Public Printing and Stationery and, if so (a) whose signature (b) what official position?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have been given the following answers by the civil service commission:
1.	(a) The records of the civil service commission indicate that the following person

from the Department of Public Printing and Stationery was involved in competition 60-P-1D-133, Roger Duhamel, queen's printer.
(b)	From information supplied by the applicants on their application forms, and at the time of the oral examination.
(a)	and (b) P. R. Powers, civil service commission officer; Roger Duhamel, queen's printer; C. A. Drouin, supervisor, purchasing offices division, defence production.
(c)	All were fluently French speaking.
3.	Yes.
4.	One. (a) All board members listed above;
(b)	French.
5.	Yes. (a) Queen's printer; (b) six months.
6.	One departmental officer acted as an adviser to the departmental member, (a) Superintendent, purchasing and stores branch.
(b)	Approximately 6J years.
7.	The adviser was not a member of the selection board-he was an adviser to the departmental member.
8.	(a) and (b). The board members, as shown in 2 (a) and (b).
9.	(a) and (b). The certificate of appointment was signed by the acting secretary of the civil service commission.


P.P. AND S.-EMPLOYEES IN PURCHASING DIVISION
Mr. Fisher: 1.	How many persons are employed In the purchasing division of the department of public printing and. of these, how many are (a) English Canadians (b) French Canadians?
2.	How many stenographers, secretaries and typists are employed in the purchasing division and of these how many are (a) English Canadians (b) French Canadians?
3.	How many English Canadian purchasing agents grade 3 or higher were employed in the purchasing division as of December, 1960, and of these how many were in the purchasing division for (a) 1-3 years and grades (b) 3-6 years and grades
(c)	6-10 years and grades (d) 10 years and over and grades?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. Thirty eight, (a) and (b)-The
Department of Public Printing and Stationery does not keep a record of the ethnic origin of its personnel. Applicants for employment, when completing the application form for the civil service commission, are requested to indicate only whether or not they speak, read and write French, English, or both. Of the 38 employees there are 26 bilingual and 12 unilingual.
2. See answer (a) and (b) of part 1 above.
3. See answer (a) and (b) of part 1 above.


COMPETITION 60-P-1D-133  LANGUAGE REQUIREMENT
Mr. Fisher: Is the qualification "A knowledge of both the English and French languages sufficient for the duties involved is required" a part of competition 28902-5-224
Questions
60-P-1D-133 and, if so (a) how much English is sufficient for the duties involved (b) how much French is sufficient for the duties (c) how was this sufficiency arrived at (d) on what basis (e) who decided the sufficiency of French, and (f) on what grounds?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have bean given the following answers by the civil service commission:
(a)	Ability to read, speak and write.
(b)	Ability to read, speak and write.
(c)	Duties require incumbent of position to deal through correspondence and personally with both English speaking and French speaking persons.
(d)	Persons with whom incumbent of position officially deals.
(e)	All members of the examining board.
(f)	Knowledge of English and French languages demonstrated before the board and statements of candidates before the board.


COMPETITION 60-P-1D-13 3  BILINGUAL REQUIREMENT
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Who specified that competition 60-P-1D-133 be bilingual?
2.	What was his position?
3.	As of December 15, 1960, how many years' experience did he have in that position?
4.	For what reason was the post made bilingual?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have been given the following answer by the civil service commission:
1,	2 and 3. The civil service commission specified that this competition be bilingual on the recommendation of the department.
4.	In accordance with section 32A of the civil service regulations made pursuant to the Civil Service Act (chapter 48 of the Revised Statutes of Canada 1952), the bureau made a knowledge of both English and French a requirement for the position.


EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT, QUEEN'S PRINTER
Mr. Fisher: Was one of the duties of the departmental secretary to act as executive assistant to the queen's printer as listed on competition 56-P-1D-87 and, if so, at the time of this competition, December 15, 1960, was the queen's printer aware (a) of the duties of his executive assistant (b) of the duties of his chief purchasing agent and, if so (c) on what basis did he agree that appointee met all the qualifications and (d) confirmed the appointment?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.
(a)	Yes.
(b)	Yes.
(c)	On the basis that appointee met the qualifications as listed on poster for competition number 60-P-1D-133.
(d)	The appointment was confirmed by the civil service commission issuing a certificate on behalf of the successful candidate with an

Questions
effective date of February 15, 1961. This certificate was signed by the acting secretary of the civil service commission.


GLASSCO REPORT ON P.P. AND S. TENDERING PROCEDURE
Mr. Fisher: Does the Glassco commission report, volume 2, page 305, paragraph 2, state that "the tendering procedure (in the Department of Public Printing and Stationery) often leads to a product of unsatisfactory quality" etc. and, if so, what official controls or directs the tendering procedure in the purchasing division?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes; the superintendent of procurement, purchasing and stores.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR PURCHASING DIVISION, P.P. AND S.
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Is it the duty, as stated in competition 60-P-1D-133, of the chief purchasing agent to be "responsible for the operation of the general purchasing division; to direct the purchase of approximately $18,000,000 yearly of stationery and, if so, are the purchasing agents or chief purchasing agent (a) responsible for the operation of the purchasing division (b) directing the purchases and (c) controlling the tendering procedure?
2.	Is the print buyer's selection of tenderers final and, if not (a) how many officials in the purchasing division have authority to change the print buyer's selection of tenderers (b) what are their positions (c) length of service in the purchasing division as of June 1961?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. If you include "under general direction to be responsible.. .etc.,"
(a), (b) and (c). The chief purchasing agent.
2.	No.
(a)	Two.
(b)	Chief purchasing agent, and superintendent of procurement, purchasing and stores.
(c)	Chief purchasing agent-three months; superintendent of procurement, purchasing and stores-seven years.


PRINT JOB TENDERS, P.P. AND S.
Mr. Fisher: How many officials in the Department of Public Printing and Stationery, other than the purchasing and stores branch, have authority to change the print buyer's selection of tenderers and (a) what are their official positions (b) what are their lengths of service in the department as of June 1961 and (c) what proportion of the total print tenders issued by the print buyer is presented to each for action of the print job tenders presented to each? In what percentage are changes made in the print buyer's selection of tenderers?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: One.
(a)	The queen's printer.
(b)	One year.
(c)	100 per cent.
Changes could be made by queen's printer and/or officers mentioned in 1,017 (2). Print buyer's listings were changed approximately

20 out of 100 times. No record kept of percentage of changes by either one of the officers mentioned, or collectively.


PRINT ORDERS WITHOUT TENDER, P.P. AND S.
Mr. Fisher: Does the Glassco commission report, volume 2, page 304, paragraph 2, regarding the Department of Public Printing and Stationery report that "the quality of the small job suffers when contracts are not put out for tender and are placed with small and less efficient printers" and, if so (a) what was the number of orders, and total value of all print purchased without tender during the year ending March 1962, and of the year ending March 1963; and of these figures for each year (b) what was the number of orders and total value directed to suppliers in the province of Quebec (c) what was the number of orders and total value directed to suppliers in other than Quebec (d) what percentage of the number of orders in (b) was the original choice of the print buyer (e) what percentage of the number of orders in (c) was the original choice of the print buyer?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes.
(a)	fiscal year 1961-62, 620 orders valued at $161,688.42; fiscal year 1962-63, 811 orders valued at $202,586.78.
(b)	fiscal year 1961-62, 319 orders valued at $62,672.85; fiscal year 1962-63, 358 orders valued at $104,922.62.
(c)	fiscal year 1961-62, 301 orders valued at $99,015.57; fiscal year 1962-63, 453 orders valued at $97,664.16.
(d)	fiscal year 1961-62, 77.7 per cent; fiscal year 1962-63, 89 per cent, calculated on two months' work.
(e)	fiscal year 1961-62, 93 per cent; fiscal year 1962-63, 100 per cent, calculated on two months' work.


QUEBEC SUPPLIERS ON PRINT TENDERS
Mr. Fisher: Does the Glassco commission report, volume 2, page 305, paragraph 2, regarding the Department of Public Printing and Stationery report that "contracts go to a wide variety of printers not necessarily to the efficient firms" and, if so, how many job tenders were issued by the print buyer in the year ending March 1962, and of these by the chief print buyer's estimate to his selection of tenderers (a) how many job tenders had a Quebec supplier added (b) other than Quebec suppliers deleted (c) other than Quebec suppliers added (d) Quebec supplier deleted (e) all Quebec suppliers eliminated (f) all suppliers other than Quebec eliminated (g) no changes?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes; 1,325. (a) 175; (b) 279; (c) 46; (d) 168; (e) 32; (f) 100; (g) 921 calculated on a survey of 876 purchases for eight government departments.


CHANGES IN PRINT TENDERS, P.P. AND S.
Mr. Fisher: Is the ultimate responsibility for purchasing placed on the queen's printer by virtue of the printing and stationery act and, if so, what percentage during the year ending March 1962 of all (a) print tenders

(b)	other than print tenders, prepared for issue by the purchasing division were processed by this officer and (c) were changes in the tenderers involved in the processing and, if so, (d) in what percentage of the total tenders processed?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes. (a) 100 per cent; (b) 25 per cent; (c) Yes; (d) 2 to 5 per cent by the three officers mentioned in 1,018 (c).


CANADIAN AID TO UNDERDEVELOPED COUNTRIES
Mr. Matheson: In the last available year of record, how does Canada's donation of aid to underdeveloped countries, expressed as a percentage of gross national product, compare with the following donors (a) each nation of NATO Europe (b) NATO Europe
(c)	U.S.A. and (d) NATO North America?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: On the basis of statistics prepared in the organization for economic co-operation and development (O.E.C.D.), the G.N.P. for each of the following countries in 1961, the last year for which comprehensive statistics are available, are:
Country	G.N.P. $ U.S. r
Belgium	10,723
Canada	31,743
Denmark	5,829
France	55,516
Germany	66,655
Italy	30,946
Japan	44,553
Netherlands	11,149
Norway	4,306
Portugal	2,384
U.K.	67,245
U.S.	475,393
Total D.A.C.	807,061
The following statistics, prepared in the development assistance committee (D.A.C.) of the O.E.C.D., show the total official flow of financial resources from D.A.C. members* in terms of disbursements over the same period:
$ U.S. million
Country	1961
Belgium	92
Canada	62
Denmark	7
France	943
Germany	589
Italy	66
Japan	214
Netherlands	69
Norway	30
Portugal	30
United Kingdom	441
United States	3,493
Total D.A.C. countries	6,015
* Greece, Turkey and Iceland while members of NATO and the O.E.C.D., are not major aid giving countries and do not participate in the D.A.C.
28902-5-224J
Questions
On the basis of the above statistics, the following calculations can be made to show aid disbursements as a percentage of G.N.P. in each country during 1961:
Country	%
Belgium	.86
Canada	.19
Denmark	.12
France	1.70
Germany	.83
Italy	.21
Japan	.48
Netherlands	.62
Norway	.21
Portugal	1.24
U.K.	.66
U.S.	.73
Total D.A.C.	.75


TENDER NO. 36-35477-P, QUEEN'S PRINTER
Mr. Francis: 1.	Was a tender No. 36-35477-P, due April 22, 1963, called for offset printing work for the outside establishments of the queen's printer?
2.	What tenders were submitted, by what firms, and at what prices?
3.	Were all tenders submitted within the required date?
4.	When were the tenders opened; were tenderers permitted to be present when tenders were opened, and were the tenderers notified when tenders were to be opened?
5.	Who was awarded the tender?
6.	Were the unsuccessful tenderers notified that they were unsuccessful and if so, on what occasion, and by what means?
7.	Who was awarded the previous year's tender for similar work?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. No. The tender covered film and platemaking requirements for Ottawa area printing units of the queen's printer for the fiscal year 1963-1964.
2.	The tender requested unit prices for the platemaking requirements for the Ottawa area printing units for the fiscal year 1963-64. The schedules in the tender requested quotations for masked negatives, line negatives and half tone negatives, and retouching. The considerations for awarding the contracts, for an over all total not exceeding $20,000, were the lowest bid of the unit prices for the items in the greatest area of requirement (based on purchases for 1962-1963), and the discounts offered for volume purchasing.
On the above basis Addressograph-Multi-graph was the lowest bidder in schedule "B"- line negatives 4x6 to 9x11 and 10x15 plate, and awarded the contract.
Bern Engraving was the lowest bidder in schedule "C"-half tone negatives 4x6 to 9x11 and 10x15 plate, and awarded the contract.
After considering the competitive position of these two firms, schedule "B"-line negatives only, 4x6 to 9x11 to accommodate 10x15

Questions
plates, and schedule "C"-half tone negatives only, 4x6 to 9x11 to accommodate 10x15 plates were awarded to Bern Engraving. Schedule "A"-masked negatives contract was awarded to Addressograph-Multigraph.
The discounted prices offered by Pilgrim Offset and Capital Photo Engravers were not competitive in the greatest area of requirement.
3.	Yes. An error in the specifications was noted on the date before the opening of the tenders. Revised specifications were immediately given to all firms by telephone, and at the same time they were advised that the time limit was extended to April 23, 1963.
4.	(a) Tenders were opened at 9:30 a.m., April 24; (b) It is not the practice of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery to invite tenderers to be present at opening of tenders; (c) No.
5.	Bern Engraving and Addressograph-Multigraph were each awarded a part of the order, as they were the low tenderers in their respective parts.
6.	(a) Yes; (b) Following award of contract; (c) Verbally.
7.	Pilgrim Offset.


TENDERS FOR PROPANE, FORT CHURCHILL
Mr. Simpson: 1.	Were tenders advertised or called in relation to supply of propane for heating purposes at Fort Churchill and, if so, when, and where were these tenders advertised or called?
2.	How many bids were submitted?
3.	What were the amounts of these bids?
4.	Who was the successful tenderer?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. No. It is the policy of the department to call tenders wherever possible; however, in this case, Steelgas Limited of Calgary, Alberta, on its own initiative and at no cost to the crown, conducted a detailed engineering study of the Fort Churchill heating plants and submitted a proposal for the conversion of the boilers in the three principal heating plants to dual oil/gas fired, construction of LP gas storage and distribution facilities, supply of LP gas, including the maintenance and operation of the system for a 2 2 year period. The use of LP gas will result in savings in the cost of the product and in the operation and maintenance of the plants.
2.	N/A.
3.	N/A.
4.	N/A.


CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL INSTITUTION, SPRINGHILL, N.S.
Mr. Coales: 1.	On what date does the government now intend to initiate construction of the young offenders penal institution to be located at Springhill, N.S.?

2.	What firm has been appointed as architects to prepare plans and specifications and supervise construction of the institution?
3.	On what date was the said firm appointed, and what is the amount of the fee for services rendered?


Mr. Badanai:: 1. March, 1964, approximately.
2.	C. D. Davison and Company, Halifax, N.S.
3.	September 4, 1963 (treasury board minute No. 615273); approximately $126,000.


* MAINTENANCE OF T.C.A. SCHEDULE, MONTREAL-BAGOTVILLE
Mr. Cole (Chicoutimi): Have representations been made by various groups in the Saguenay area, requesting T.C.A. to maintain its normal flight schedule between Montreal and Bagotville and vice versa after October 26 next and, if so, will these services be maintained after that date?


Mr. Canlin:: Representation was received, apparently based on erroneous information. T.C.A.'s schedule effective October 27, 1963, retains twice a day service between Saguenay/ Bagotville and Montreal. Although some changes in time and routing have necessarily had to be made, it is considered this provides good service for businessmen between the Saguenay area and Montreal.


* APPLICATION OF SALES TAX ON MACHINERY
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,184
Mr. Jones:: 1.	On what date were the regulations regarding the collection of sales tax on building materials and machinery made available throughout Canada?
2.	What steps have been taken to clarify circular ET-92 to remove the application of the tax on remanufactured goods, particularly on automotive supplies?
3.	What action has been taken to assure that individual repairs undertaken by custom machine shops were not taxable?


Mr. Garland:: 1. The current general regulations regarding the collection of taxes on all taxable goods have been available since April 1961 and distributed to all licensees. Special bulletins have been issued as follows: Building materials-July 9, 1963; Machinery and apparatus-July 9, 1963 and August 19, 1963.
2.	The removal of the sales tax on remanufactured goods is not contemplated. Section 30 of the Excise Tax Act imposes the tax on the sale price of all goods produced or manufactured in Canada. There is nothing in the act which states that the tax applies only on goods manufactured or produced exclusively from new materials. Goods produced or manufactured from a combination of new and used materials, or from used materials only, are, therefore, none the less goods for the purpose of the act and the tax applies on the sale price thereof.

3.	In respect of the third part of the question, this is covered by sections 4, 5 and 6 of circular ET-92, August 28, 1963. Further revision of these sections, now under consideration, will depend on adequate control being established by custom machine shops to maintain satisfactory identification of ownership of the rebuilt article.


DALLAS TAYLOR
Mr. Fisher: 1.	What office does Dallas Taylor hold in the government?
2.	What is his age, place of birth, institutions of education attended and educational qualifications, governmental or business experience (position held, length of experience, name of firm or employer), and initial and present salary with the government?
3.	What length of time has this gentleman undertaken to serve the government and/or what engagement in length of time was given to him?
4.	In brief, what particular qualities of Mr. Taylor led to his engagement?


Mr. Hays:: 1. Special assistant to the
Minister of Agriculture.
2.	Age: 35; place of birth: Winnipeg, Manitoba. Educational institutions: public school; high school (sr. matric.); normal school (1st class certificate), Winnipeg, Manitoba. Business experience; secretary, Manitoba Liberal association, Winnipeg, Manitoba, 12 years; Manager, Credit Union, Winnipeg, Manitoba, 2 years. Initial and present salary: $7,500.
3.	While services required.
4.	Ability and experience.


CEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-: Cowichan-The Islands):
1.	Has there been an increase In permanent staff of the geological survey of Canada since 1950 and, if so, how large has the increase been?
2.	Has there been an increase in the budget of the geological survey since 1950 and, if so, by how much has it increased?
3.	How many field parties were set out in each year since 1950?
4.	What were the expenditures on field parties in each year since 1950?
5.	What is the number of publications per year since 1950?
6.	What is the average length of time elapsing between the final season of field work in any area and the publication of the results?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1. Yes. From 232 to 413.
2.	Yes. From 1,437,456 to 6,456,800.
3.	1950, 89; 1951, 88; 1952, 78; 1953, 79; 1954, 87; 1955, 70; 1956, 71; 1957, 69; 1958, 76;
Questions
1959, 76; 1960, 87; 1961, 102; 1962, 94; 1963, 106.
4.	1950, 509,700; 1951, 392,000; 1952, 571,000;
1953,	507,000; 1954, 665,000; 1955, 933,000; 1956, 680,000; 1957, 712,500; 1958, 830,000; 1959, 955,700; 1960, 1,130,000; 1961, 1,320,400; 1962, 1,290,000; 1963, 1,369,500 estimated.
5.	1950, 77; 1951, 84; 1952, 96; 1953, 96;
1954,	112; 1955, 105; 1956, 195; 1957, 275; 1958, 155; 1959, 145; 1960, 387; 1961, 219; 1962, 398.
6.	The results of geological survey field work are presented in four ways.
1.	Summary of activities field. Published annually in January and consists of a 250 word summary of the results of each field project.
2.	Preliminary maps and papers. Reports on individual areas without detailed miner-alogical, palaeontological or other laboratory research. The average publication interval from close of field work ranges from 10 months for a single, annotated map of relatively simple geology to two years for a more extensive paper with geological map. Interim reports on projects involving several field seasons are issued in this series.
3.	Bulletins. Comprehensive monographs on any geological or related subject not involving systematic mapping. Average time in preparation about three years.
4.	Memoirs. Comprehensive reports on all phases of the geology of a specific map area, accompanied by one or more coloured geological maps. Average time in preparation about five years.
Memoirs and bulletins are final reports and involve a mature consideration of several years field and laboratory research supported by all the resources that modern geological science can offer.


CARGO SHIP CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Beaule: 1.	How many cargo ships have been built in the Canadian shipyards for each of the last five years, and what is the tonnage of these ships?
2.	How many of these ships have been built in the Lauzon, Sorel, and Vickers Ltd., of Montreal shipyards?
3.	How many ships built during these last five years are registered in Canada, what is the total tonnage of these ships, and what proportion of the total of goods shipped by water have these ships carried?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1.
No. of vessels Gross tonnage
1958	1959	19608	5	869,858	75,350	108,024
Listed above are self-propelled, commercial, dry cargo vessels and tankers over 100 gross ton by calendar year.
8
70,270
14
105,909

2.
3.
Questions	1958
Lauzon	2
Sorel	1
No. of vessels	5
Gross tonnage	29,502
1959 2	1960 2	1961	1962 3-	-	1	--	1	1	21959	1960	1961	19624	7	8	1448,438	81,056	70,270	105,909
The commission does not maintain records on the total of goods shipped by water for these ships.


COAL CONTRACT, CAMP SUSSEX, N.B.
Mr. Fairweaiher: What was the tender price of the contract awarded to Weaver Coal Company, 1155 Dorchester street west, Montreal, for supplying 700 tons of
coal to Camp Sussex, New Brunswick, per tender GQ20-307600-4, which closed April 22nd, 1963?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Total price-$9,446.50.
Note: Hereunder are prices of the tenders received:
Firm
Price Per Ton
Total	Price Per
Price	Million BTU's
Newcastle Coal Company, Minto, N.B. Weaver Coal Company, Montreal, P.Q. Dunsinane Coal Company, Sussex, N.B.
$	12.75
13.495 14.00
$	8,925.00
9,446.50 9,800.00
54.4 0
52.71
53.82
Awarded to Weaver Coal Company on recommendation of the interdepartmental fuel committee based upon lowest price per BTU, according to the board's calculations.
^PERSONNEL OF OFFICE OF LEADER OF OPPOSITION


Mr. Drouin: What are the names of the persons being paid from public funds on the office staff of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, showing in each case (a) their classification, (b) annual salary and (c) bilingual qualifications?


Mr. Davis:: Mr. Speaker, I could answer this question orally, but it would take a few minutes to read the reply. Therefore, I ask the permission of the house to have the reply printed in Hansard without being read.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house grant permission?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The list referred to above is as follows:]
Mr. B. T. Richardson, special assistant, $13,100; Mr. T. W. Van Dusen, executive assistant, $10,000, yes; Mr. G. Guthrie, economic advisor (4), $10,300; Mr. R. C. Laing, administrative officer (4), $7,020; Mrs. M. Wagner, administrative officer (2), $6,960; Mr. G. Champagne, supervising clerk, $5,340, yes; Miss M. R. Pound, principal clerk, $5,000; 
Mrs. L. Hayes, principal clerk, $4,860; Mrs. Y. LaFleur, secretary to executive, $4,950, yes; Mr. G. Hetherington, clerk (4), $4,710; Miss A. Trotter, stenographer (3), $4,200.



YUKON TERRITORY


Mr. Nielsen: With respect to the operations of the Depart-mant of Mines and Technical Surveys in the Yukon Territory since April 8, 1963 (i) how many contracts for air charter services or other air charter work were awarded in the Yukon Territory (ii) to which persons, firms, or corporations were such contracts awarded (iii) in the case of each contract, what was the contract price or cost (iv) in the case of each contract, was there a public tender called (v) in the case of any of such contracts where there were no public tenders called, why were such tenders not called (vi) in the case of any such contracts for which no public tenders were called, to which person, firm or corporation were the contracts awarded (vii) in the case of any such contracts where there were no public tenders called, by what authority were the same awarded (viii) in the case of any such contracts, did any of them remain incomplete and, if so, what was the reason (ix) in the case of any such contracts, remaining incomplete, is it the intention of the government to have the same completed and, if so, by whom (x) in the case of any such contracts remaining incomplete and, which the government intends to have completed, what will be the additional cost of completion, if any, in each case?


William Moore Benidickson: (i) Four.
(ii)	Hunting Survey Corp. Ltd.; Associated Helicopters Ltd.; Northwest Territorial Airways Ltd.; Klondike Helicopters Ltd.

(iii)	Hunting Survey Corp. Ltd., $157,527; Associated Helicopters Ltd., $70,000 (estimated); Northwest Territorial Airways Ltd., $23,144 (estimated); Klondike Helicopters Ltd., $33,338 (estimated).
(iv)	No.
(v)	The contracts with Associated Helicopters Ltd., Northwest Territorial Airways Ltd., and Klondike Helicopters Ltd. were lor the provision of a class 4 air service. In such cases, public tenders are not called but all operators listed by the air transport board, for the required services, are contacted and a selection is made from those interested on the basis of the lowest estimated cost to the department.
The contract with Hunting Survey Corp. Ltd. was for the provision of a class 7 air service. In such cases, all companies considered capable of providing this type of service were invited to tender, and the company submitting the lowest tender was awarded the contract.
(vi)	Same as (ii).
(vii)	Treasury board.
(viii)	The contract with Hunting Survey Corp. Ltd. is presently incomplete. This contract provides for completion of the service within a two-year period.
(ix)	Yes, by Hunting Survey Corp. Ltd. in accordance with the terms of the existing contract.
(x)	Nil.



CANADIAN DEEP SEA MERCHANT MARINE

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,245-Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi):.
Does the government intend to take any steps to restore the Canadian deep sea merchant marine in the near future and, if so, what are they?
Mr. Mcllraith:: This is a matter involving government policy, on which any announcement would be made in the usual way.



REPRESENTATIONS BY MARITIME LUMBER BUREAU

Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
What consideration and reply has been given to the representations made by Mr. C. H. Sproule, secretary, on behalf of the maritime lumber bureau in a communication to the Minister of Finance dated September 17, 1963?


Mr. Benson:: The Minister of Finance considered the representations and replied to Mr. Sproule in a letter dated September 26, 1963.



* EXTRADITION TREATY WITH ISRAEL

Mr. Herridge: Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs or any of his officials held discussions recently
Questions
with representatives of the state of Israel with respect to the signing of an extradition treaty with that country and, if so, what is the result of these talks?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, the Department of External Affairs in July of this year proposed to the Israeli embassy in Ottawa that an extradition treaty be negotiated between our two countries and the embassy was supplied with a draft text of a possible treaty upon which further discussion could be based. This proposal, I believe, has been passed on to the ministry in Israel for comment. The situation at the moment is that we are awaiting a reply from the government of Israel; their legal departments are now considering the draft document supplied.



CAPITAL GAINS TAX

Mr. Mather: Is the government considering the imposition of a capital gains tax on stock market speculations?
Answer: The imposition of any tax is a matter of government policy. If the government were to consider imposing such a tax it would be made known to the house at the appropriate time.



LOSSES FROM FIRES CAUSED BY CIGARETTES

Mr. Mather: 1.	What was the estimated Canadian property loss in 1962, in fires attributed to cigarette smoking?
2.	What was the estimated loss of life in 1962, in fires attributed to cigarette smoking?


Hubert Badanai: 1. $6,500,000.
2. 88.



CONTINUATION OF CROWN CORPORATIONS

Mr. Balcer: 1.	Is it the government's intention to abolish (a) Canadian Arsenals Limited (b) Canadian Commercial Corporation (c) Crown Assets Disposal Corporation (d) Defence Construction (1951) Limited?
2.	Is it the government's intention to withdraw the powers granted to (a) Canadian Arsenals Limited (b) Canadian Commercial Corporation (c) Crown Assets Disposal Corporation (d) Defence Construction (1951) Limited?
3.	How many French speaking Canadians hold the office of president of the corporations under the jurisdiction of the Department of Industry?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. No.
2.	The government is currently giving consideration to a number of recommendations contained in the report of the royal commission on government organization, insofar as it concerns these corporations.
3.	The Department of Industry does not have jurisdiction over any corporations. The answer in so far as the Department of Defence Production is concerned is "three".

Questions



POST OFFICE BUILDING, GAINSBOROUGH, SASK.

Mr. Soulham: Is the government giving consideration to the construction of a crown building to be used for post office premises in the village of Gainsborough, Saskatchewan, this fall under the winter works program and, if so, (a) has the tender for construction been let (b) who was the successful bidder, and (c) what was the amount of the contract?


Hubert Badanai: Yes, but no final decision has yet been reached.
(a)	No.
(b)	and (c) Not applicable.



SALE TO ISRAEL BY AUTOMATIC ELECTRIC CO.

Mr. Bell: 1.	Has a $2,500,000 order been arranged between Israel and Automatic Electric (Canada) Limited, Brockville, Ontario and, if so, (a) was this financed under the provisions of the Export Credits Insurance Act (b) what was the length of term credit (c) what rate of interest Is being charged in the contract?
2.	Is any other government financing involved and, if so, what are the details?
Answer: 1. (a) Yes, under section 21A of the Export Credits Insurance Act.
(b)	Twenty one semi-annual instalments commencing September 15, 1965.
(c)	6 per cent per annum.
2. No.



ASSISTANCE TO EXPORT MANUFACTURERS

Mr. Bell: Has any consideration been given to assisting Canadian export manufacturers in a manner similar to the A.I.D. program of the United States and, if so, what are the details?
Answer: Under section 21A of the Export Credits Insurance Act long term Canadian government financing up to 25 years is available in connection with the sale abroad of Canadian capital equipment. The normal interest rate for such financing is 6 per cent. In addition, in the pure aid context, capital equipment and capital projects as well as certain commodities of Canadian origin are supplied to the underdeveloped areas under Canadian grant aid programs, in particular the Colombo plan. In these instances, of course, no repayment or interest is involved.
In contrast aid supplied to the underdeveloped areas by the United States agency for international development (AID) takes the form, in large measure, of long term low interest loans covering the supply of both capital equipment and a variety of commodities. These loans involve maturities of up to 40 years with extensive grace periods during which no repayment of principal is required. Interest rates are nominal or very low.
The essential difference in the facilities available to Canadian and U.S. exporters is that the former are in a position to take advantage of loans running to 25 years and grants to less developed countries while the latter enjoy the advantages provided by longer terms loans at low rates of interest.



RURAL MAIL CONTRACT, PUTNAM, ONT.

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,267
Mr. Millar:: 1.	Has the contract for the hauling of mail on R.R. No. 1, Putnam, Ontario, been awarded?
2.	What were the names and the amounts of each bidder?


Mr. Denis:: 1. Yes.
2. George Randolph Hunt, Putnam, $1,535; Joseph John Rath, Putnam, $1,560; William Ross Clement, R.R. No. 2, Mossley, $2,100.



RAPESEED MEAL EXPORTS

Mr. Rapp: 1.	What was the total amount of Canadian rape-seed meal exported during the calendar years 1961 and 1962, and to date in 1963?
2.	What are the names of the countries which bought Canadian rapeseed meal during this period?
3.	What were the respective amounts of rapeseed meal purchased by each country for each of these years?
4.	What was the total amount in dollars and cents of rapeseed purchased by each country in these years?
Answer: 1, 2, 3, and 4. Rapeseed meal is not separately classified in Canadian export statistics but is included in export class 15399 "Oilseed cake and meal n.e.s." The total exports, by countries, in this class during the calendar years 1961 and 1962, and the period January 1 to August 31, 1963 (latest statistics available) are as follows:-

Questions
Country	Year Cwt.	1961 ValueUnited Kingdom	6,787	$14,361Belgium & Luxembourg	1,002	3,707Germany West	2,002	8,208Japan	British Guiana	Trinidad and Tobago	Netherlands	1,249	5,173Leeward & Windward	25	81United States	101	653Totals	11,166	$32,183



SALES OF BUTTER OIL

Mr. Doucell: 1.	How much butter oil was sold or disposed of from August 1, 1963, to October 1, 1963?
2.	In what manner was the butter oil disposed of, and to whom?
3.	What amounts were sold, and what prices were received?
4.	What was the amount of butter oil the government had in storage on the first day of August, September and October 1963?


Harry William Hays: 1. 145,800 lbs.
2.	Sold to Shefford Dairies Ltd., Lawrence-ville and Kraft Foods Ltd., Montreal. In addition samples were sold to prospective buyers.
3.	Shefford Dairies Ltd., 19,656 lbs. at 65 cents per lb.; Kraft Foods Ltd., 125,442 lbs. at 65 cents per lb.; samples to prospective buyers, 702 lbs. at 65 cents per lb.
4.	Stocks August 1, 81,309,699 lbs.; stocks September 1, 81,290,043 lbs.; stocks October 1, 81,163,899 lbs. *



* MOSSY RIVER DAM, MANITOBA

Mr. Forbes: 1. Have tenders been called for the construction of a dam on the Mossy river at Dauphin, Manitoba and, if so, how many tenders were received, and what is the amount of each?
Jan. 1 to Aug. 31 Year 1962	1963
Cwt. Value	Cwt. Value
10,599	20,641
25	111
660	3,300
11,284	$24,052		 $
2. When will construction start and when is it expected that the dam will be completed?


Mr. Beer:: 1. Tenders for the construction of the Mossy river dam were advertised during the week of July 29, 1963. Seven tenders were received in the following amounts:
J. S. Quinn Construction Co. Ltd., Winnipeg, $64,579.90; Husky Construction Co. Ltd., Winnipeg, $68,769.50; Macaw and MacDonald Ltd., St. Boniface, Man., $77,677.00; Foley Construction Co. Ltd., Winnipeg, $78,602.10; Harper Construction Co. Ltd., Winnipeg, $80,191.25; Pile Foundations Ltd., Winnipeg, $88,664.50; Warner Construction Ltd., Dauphin, Man., $89,989.00. The lowest tender was accepted.
2. The contractor is expected to commence construction within ten days and complete the project July 31, 1964.



MANUFACTURING AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PRODUCTION

Mr. Malheson: What percentage does total manufacturing industries production bear to total national production in each of the years since 1945?
Answer:	Gross domestic product at factor cost of manufac-	Total gross domestic	Percentage gross domestic product of manufacturing industries to the total gross domestic product atturing industries	product at factor cost	factor cost$ Millions	$ Millions	%1945	2,960	10,804	27.41946	2,816	10,791	26.11947	3,310	11,857	27.91948	3,909	13,699	28.51949	4,303	14,885	28.91950	4,714	16,458	28.61951	5,474	19,126	28.61952	6,150	21,344	28.81953	6,453	22,206	29.1
28902-5-225
Questions

1955
1957
1959
1961
Gross domestic product at factor cost of manufacturing industries
$ Millions 6,291 6,779 7,605 7,904 7,753 8,286 8,430 8,592 9,370
Total gross domestic product at factor cost
$ Millions 22,213 24,326 27,189 28,455 29,354 31,175 32,363 33,416 35,931
Percentage gross domestic product of manufacturing industries to the total gross domestic product at factor cost
%
28.3 27.9
28.0 27.8
26.4 26.6
26.0 25.7
26.1
Source: d.b.s. publications "National Accounts, Income and Expenditure" for 1926-56, 1959 and 1962.



PARKING PROVISIONS, C.M.H.C. HOUSES

Mr. Jones: 1.	Does C.M.H.C. have a regulation requiring that in regard to all new C.M.H.C. financed houses built after September 10, 1963, there be provided a place to park a car somewhere on the property?
2.	If so, is this a regulation of general applicability, or does it apply to certain regions only?
3.	Is this regulation intra vires the powers of the government of Canada?
Answer: 1. This requirement has been in effect since January 1, 1962, under the housing standards.
2.	This requirement has general application.
3.	Yes.



WHEAT SHIPMENTS THROUGH CHURCHILL

[Stage Direction]
Year	Shipments1 bushels
1946	2,929,000
1947	4,976,000
1948	5,314,000
1949	5,528,000
1950	6,768,000
1951	7,545,000
1952	8,585,000
1953	10,784,000
1954	12,485,000
1955	13,078,000
1956	16,250,000
1957	16,577,000
1958	19,599,000
1959	21,787,000
1960	19,585,000
1961	19,351,000
1962	21,525,000
lRounded to	nearest thousand bushels.
Mr. Jones: How many bushels of wheat have been shipped out of the port of Churchill each year since the inception of wheat shipments through that port?
Answer: Ocean shipments of wheat from Churchill, season of navigation, 1931-62
Year
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
Shipments1
bushels
545.000
2.736.000 '2,708,000
4.050.000
2.407.000
4.294.000
604.000
917.000
1.772.000
740,000



CASEIN SUBSIDY

Mr. Vinceni: 1.	What is the name and address of each of the 14 industrial manufacturers of dried casein who are entitled to the subsidy of 10 cents a pound paid by the federal government?
2.	What is the number of manufacturers who have taken advantage of the subsidy since the new policy was announced?
3.	What was the wholesale price of casein in Montreal in May, June, July and August 1962, and what was the price of the same product during the same months in 1963?


Harry William Hays: 1. A subsidy of 10 cents per pound of dried casein is paid to manufacturers of casein to enable them to return to their milk producers approximately the same returns as were paid in 1962 when the agricultural stabilization board paid a flat 25 cents per pound on milk for manufacturing purposes. The following firms are those through which the subsidy has been paid since May 1, 1963:
Quinte Milk Products, Wellington, Ontario; Ottawa Valley Farms Ltd., Cornwall, Ontario;

Montreal Casein Co. Ltd., 5500 Chapleau St., Montreal, Que., Cooperative Agricole de Granby, Granby, Que., Champlain Industries Ltd., Stanbridge station, Que., Cremerie Drum-mondville Ltee., Drummondville, Que.; Cremerie de Lachute, Lachute, Que.; Cremerie Notre Dame Enrg., Notre Dame de Stanbridge; Lactantia Ltee., Victoriaville, Que.; Societe Cooperative Agricole de Sherington, Sherington, Cte. Napierville, Que.; Vitalac Ltd., St. Placide, Cte. Deux Montagne, Que.; Sutton Milk Products, Sutton, Que.; Shefford Dairy Ltd., Lawrenceville, Que.
2.	Thirteen.
3.	1962
May	19-200 per	lb.
June	19-200 per lb
July	19-200 per lb.
August	19-200 per lb.
17-220 per lb.
19-	220 per lb.
20-	210 per lb. 19-210 per lb.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER RETURN


Mr. Matheson: 1.	How many civilian persons, by provinces, have been trained, in each year, for civil defence by St. John Ambulance since the inception of the civil defence program?
2.	How many military persons have been trained, in each year, by St. John Ambulance for the same period?
Return tabled.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the reported difficulties and delays he experienced over the week end in reaching President Kennedy, would the Prime Minister state whether any means are being taken to improve direct communications with the President, and at the same time he might tell the house the results of his talk with the President.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to the hon. gentleman for giving me the opportunity to state there were no difficulties nor delays, and that any reports to that effect were based on a complete misrepresentation of the facts of the situation.
Because of that misrepresentation and the publicity given to it perhaps I had better put on the record exactly what happened. Immediately after the debate on this matter on Friday morning, and on Friday afternoon, I instructed that the record of that debate be 28902-5-225J
Inquiries of the Ministry sent at once to our embassy in Washington for the benefit of the state department and the White House, so that when I talked with the President he would have the record before him. That was done immediately, and at the end of the afternoon I phoned our embassy in Washington and asked them to get in touch with the White House to see if the President had a chance to study that record and if the President would be available to talk to me that evening.
I got a reply immediately that the President would be very glad to talk to me at once, or at any time convenient to me. At that time he was in conference over a dangerous situation developing in access to Berlin, and his office said if I preferred to wait until that meeting was over he would speak to me afterward and he would have the benefit of reading our record. I said I wanted to give him enough time to read the record, and I called him after breakfast on Saturday morning.
Any reports that there were difficulties or delays on this matter are designed merely to stir up this kind of anti-American sniping which is most unfortunate when we already have so many difficulties with the United States.


Paul Raymond Martineau: As a supplementary question, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would answer the second part of my question and state the results of his talk.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I had a talk of 15 to 20 minutes with the President on the telephone and acquainted him, as a supplement to what he had already read, with the feelings of the House of Commons, the government and, I thought, the feelings of the people of Canada with regard to the very serious situation that had developed because of what I considered to be, and what I stated in the house was, an unhelpful intervention by the United States secretary of labour, who himself was with the President when he spoke to me, and with regard to the more than shocking intervention of the president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O.
I called the President's attention to the seriousness of the situation and expressed the hope, and more than a hope, that when the Canadian parliament took action in this matter and government trusteeship was a fact, that decision would be accepted by all concerned in the United States.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question may I ask the Prime Minister whether he received any assurance from the President that the government of the United States would co-operate with the trusteeship which this parliament has authorized the government to appoint,
3526	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry and whether we would have the United States government's co-operation in seeing that Canadian shipping in American ports would be free from harassment and sabotage?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that the government of the United States will co-operate in this matter, as indeed the President's statement, issued on Saturday, indicated. I cannot give the same assurance with respect to United States labour unions and the leadership of some of those unions.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a related question of the Prime Minister. In this telephone conversation with the President did he discuss at any time this similar situation which is happening in relation to the divulging of information by the United States department of agriculture about our secret exchange of information on wheat sales?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think I did quite enough at that time to make the feelings of the government and parliament known with regard to the matter I talked to him about, the situation on the great lakes. I did not talk to him about the situation with regard to wheat sales on this occasion, although I did previously.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, of which I have sent him notice. In view of the persistent and very disturbing rumours which are currently circulating in Churchill, Manitoba, to the effect that all or practically all military personnel will be withdrawn from Fort Churchill during the first half of 1964, can the minister advise the house whether plans of this nature are under consideration?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that consideration is being given to withdrawing some of the service personnel from Fort Churchill, but no decision has been taken at the present time. If it should turn out that some of our responsibilities were turned over to other departments of government at some time in the future, I do not think it would effect the number of personnel required to any great extent.


Robert Simpson: As a supplementary question, could the minister assure the house that if such changes are contemplated ample information will be forthcoming so that those who are affected will know as soon as possible, and so that the people in this northern community will have some way to judge what the


economy is going to be for the coming winter and next spring?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, I would be pleased to give that assurance. We will give the maximum amount of warning in most cases.



REPORTED ASSISTANCE FROM PENTAGON TO REORGANIZE DEPARTMENTAL AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Reports emanating from Washington over the week end quoted the minister as saying that it was his intention to borrow some staff from the Pentagon to assist in reorganizing the military affairs of his department. I wonder whether the minister could tell us whether he was accurately quoted.
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, I certainly did not see any such report, but I would be very interested to see such a report because I made no such statement.
VAL d'OR, QUE.-POSSIBLE ESTABLISHMENT OF NUCLEAR BASE
On the orders of the day:


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence?
About twelve days ago, in answer to a question of mine, we were told that under the Canada-United States agreement on nuclear weapons no new base would be established in Canada. I would like to know now whether it is true that the Minister of National Defence is considering the setting up of a nuclear base at Val d'Or, in the riding of Villeneuve.

Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence): That is one of the ones we have been looking at, Mr. Speaker.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS COMMITTEE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilies Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a question of the Secretary of State? Could the minister inform us when the report of the privileges and elections committee will be submitted to the house for approval, disapproval or revision?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think if the hon. member for Lapointe had had time to read what I said

on Friday night when the house rose he would have observed that I said that if the proceedings in both official languages could be printed in time for the opening of the sitting today, they would be tabled today. Unfortunately, although the translators were working all night, and although the printers are working very hard, it has not been possible to have this document ready. I am assured that, barring some accident, they will be ready in plenty of time for the opening of the house tomorrow; and if the proceedings are available-as the hon. member knows, the report of the committee is already before the house-I have been advised by my hon. friend from Hull of his intention of moving concurrence in the report.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Secretary of State tell the house whether the report is now ready and printed in one of the two official languages of the country? If so, in which one?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, as the hon. member knows, the report has been on the table, I think for nearly a week, and has been printed in Votes and Proceedings in both languages. It is not a question of the report but of the proceedings, and I am told that because of the very large demand that is occasioned by proceedings of this kind upon the services of the translators into both languages-because the proceedings were carried on in both languages the translation had to go on both ways-and because of the problems of printing, particularly over a holiday week end when, apart from the House of Commons, people do not normally work, it will not be possible to have them ready until tomorrow.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. A while ago I asked the Secretary of State which of the two reports was not ready, the English or the French one. Now I have here with me the English report of the committee on privileges and elections, while the one in French is not yet ready.
I am under the impression that, for some time now, for the past several months, the French translation or the French edition have always been coming in late.
Last week we had to adjourn our meeting and interrupt the business of the committee on privileges and elections because there were no interpreters or French reporters available.
Inquiries of the Ministry
My question of privilege is this. I find such a situation absolutely abnormal, especially in the Canadian parliament. Now, if we are to have real bilingualism, we must go to the expense of enlarging the personnel as far as translation, reporting and interpretation are concerned. In my view, that question of privilege is a most important one which the Secretary of State should take into consideration immediately to make sure , that, in future, those services are adequately staffed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the point raised by the hon. gentleman is an important one. When I said that I understood the reports were available in both languages, I think it will be found from an examination of the record that I said my understanding was that they had been printed in Votes and Proceedings when the reports were made to the house. I have not examined the French copy of Votes and Proceedings to see whether in fact these reports were so printed, but if there is any doubt about it I would hope that those two reports could be inserted into today's Votes and Proceedings. I am told that they are printed-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I may be allowed to complete what I have to say before the hon. gentleman interrupts.


Gilles Grégoire: That is not what I am talking about.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am talking about the two reports made by the committee on privileges and elections of this house which were tabled by my hon. friend from Hull and which, I am now assured by one of my colleagues, was printed in Votes and Proceedings, which is the only official record of the transactions of this house. The fact that the proceedings of the committee are not yet available in both languages is something about which I express regret. I am very sorry about it and every effort is being made to make them available on time. But as far as the reports are concerned, I find that my original statement was correct. The two reports made to this house were printed in both languages in Votes and Proceedings.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I was not talking about the report published in the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons, but rather about the verbatim report of the

Inquiries of the Ministry committee's discussions. I think that the Secretary of State should not try to elude the question as he has been doing since the beginning.
I was talking about the report of the committee itself, that is the minutes taken during the discussions, and even if it is not an official publication, it is still a government publication. And I notice that it is always the French publications which are late.
Besides, the question of privilege was to the effect that a large enough personnel should be set up so that there will not always be delays in the French translations or publications of the committees or the House of Commons discussions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest that the hon. gentleman is wholly out of order. He is talking about the proceedings of a committee of this house. The matter should be taken up in that committee and the time of this house should not be occupied with it.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the very sympathetic and understanding minister of health and welfare. In view of reports of serious epidemics in the Caribbean countries as a result of the recent disastrous hurricane, would the minister inform the house whether the government has received any request from any of the Caribbean countries to supply antibiotics?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, no such request was received up until 2.30 today, but I shall advise my hon. friend and the house if any such request is received.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs based on the newspaper reports that appeared yesterday and today of the serious devastation that has taken place on the island of Cuba. I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs can tell us if the government is considering including Cuba among the other Caribbean countries to which Canada is extending aid.
[Mr. Gregolre.I


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, a full assessment of the situation is being made, and perhaps later I can reply to that question more specifically.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Henry Frank Jones: Mr. Speaker,
I wonder whether the Prime Minister could let the house know when he expects to be in a position to announce the steps he intends to take to initiate his plan for the creation of an Atlantic community, as advertised during the recent campaign.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think the policies of this government with respect to the creation and development of an Atlantic community are not such that an answer to a question like that can be given on orders of the day. When we have a debate on external affairs, which in fact may take place in a few minutes, we can go into this question.


Henry Frank Jones: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister misunderstood my question. I asked him when he would expect to be in a position to announce the course he intends to follow in this regard. My question was not a contentious one; it was an inquiry as to when he expects to be in a position to announce the course he intends to follow.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we have been pursuing this matter for a good many years on both sides of the house, and since this government has been in office it has been following that course. But it will be some time before any announcement can be made on the matter.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfort-
Tisdale): Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Transport, notice of which I sent to his office. Has the Minister of Transport given any consideration to the strong representations of the railroad telegraphers not to implement the C.N.R.'s master agency plan, which would leave many small communities without the essential service of a station agent, and eventually to railroad abandonment?
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I have given consideration to the submission made by the organization referred to, however, I do not necessarily agree

with the general remarks of the hon. member in the latter part of his question. I have also sent the brief on for consideration by the management of the railway, and it is receiving quite close attention.



REQUEST FOR TRANSLATION OF FRENCH SIGN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport occasioned by the rising interest in bilingualism. I wonder whether the minister would take the step of contacting the management of the Canadian National Railways to see whether the railway company would write an equivalent sign, which now appears in French, in English at its office at Metcalfe and Sparks streets so that everyone can understand.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Joliefte-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does the government intend to comply with the request of the St. Jean Baptiste societies of Quebec and other citizens, and grant a 10 per cent deduction for charities, instead of requiring receipts when filing income tax returns?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have no particular knowledge of that matter at this particular moment or that any such intention is in our minds, but I will be glad to look into the question.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Now that the house has dealt with the legislation setting up a trusteeship over the maritime unions, I would like to know what plans the government has for ensuring that the shipping companies on the great lakes will in future operate as law abiding, respectable Canadian business firms.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is surely not a question that I could be expected to answer on the orders of the day.
Inquiries of the Ministry



WHITE PASS AND YUKON RAILROAD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Has he received any further report from his officials concerning the labour difficulties confronting the White Pass and Yukon route, tying up that part of the railway and the ancillary shipping operation connected with it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker.



SUGGESTED PROTECTION OF UNIONS AGAINST MANAGEMENT CHANGES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question about which I gave him informal notice. It has to do with the brief which was received some months ago from the national legislative committee of the railway brotherhoods regarding a request that the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act should be amended in order to provide that unions during their contract period might have some protection against changes introduced by management. I should like to ask the minister whether he has replied to these representations and, if not, if he would give us an explanation of the delay.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I thank the hon. member for having given me informal notice of this question. There is an important matter of policy involved in this reply. I will check into it further and give the hon. member a full answer later.



PEACE RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he can answer the question I asked him the other day in a situation the urgency of which I think is sharpened by the fact that I understand the waters of the Peace river are now being diverted. The people of the country are anxious to know whether the river, which was plied by large ships 50 years ago, is still to be regarded as a navigable water.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to remind me of this question some time last week. I have the reply to his question here and it is as follows. The advice I
3530	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry have received is to the effect that the works in question are included in the class of works to which the Navigable Waters Protection Act applies. The position has always been taken by the Department of Public Works that the Navigable Waters Protection Act applies to a provincial government or an agency thereof.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works or the Minister of Justice. Is any action being contemplated by the government, in view of what appears to be the failure of the British Columbia government or its agency to observe the terms of this act?


Hon. J. P. Deschaielets (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take this question as notice, and I will answer it within the next few days.



REACTION TO ANNOUNCEMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Can he tell us if the Quebec premier, Mr. Jean Lesage, or his government, has made representations to him or his government against the establishment of a national power grid, as referred to last week by the Minister of Trade and Commerce?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not know anything about the announcement, Mr. Speaker, nor do I know anything about any representations received. However, I shall be glad to look into it.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a direct question to the Minister of Transport. On Friday the minister interrupted the proceedings of the house to announce that arrangements had been made with the longshoremen's union for the docking of the Empress of Canada at Quebec and for the disembarkation of her passengers. I wonder whether the minister would care to tell us why this was not carried out, and why it was necessary for the Empress of Canada to go to Halifax.
[Mr. Chevrier.l


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, it was not necessary for the Empress of Canada to go to Halifax. Why it was directed there I do not know.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport a question concerning the Empress of Canada. Did the Minister of Transport receive a communication from Mr. Crump asking for a guarantee that the passengers from that boat would be landed safely at the port of disembarkation that was chosen, and did he reply that no such guarantee would be given?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, a request was received from the president of Canadian Pacific Railways for a guarantee, not precisely in the terms indicated by the hon. member. I would want to check the precise terms of that request. It was in a form to which no police force in the world could ever accede. In any event, the usual arrangements were made for the ship to disembark passengers at Wolfe's cove on Friday afternoon. Those arrangements were of a type that are usual in this kind of situation, where the passengers disembark in the ordinary way and bring off what hand luggage they can carry. The other heavy luggage that requires handling by longshoremen is not brought off and passengers are not permitted to embark; that is, new passengers. That was the kind of arrangement made. There were to be five inspectors representing the labour unions involved who were to be permitted on national harbours board property to see that the arrangement was not violated in any way.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister which arises out of the failure of the Minister of Transport to give an appropriate answer, and it has to do with information received by the Prime Minister concerning the difficulties of disembarking passengers from the Empress of Canada on Wednesday, October 9. The Prime Minister was informed that passengers were prevented from disembarking by a group which swarmed over federal property. He was asked why the right of Canadian citizens to land in Canada was denied by the failure of the federal government to prevent the intimidation of peaceful citizens. I should like to know why the protection required for these Canadian citizens was not provided by the federal government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps the best thing to do would be to table the correspondence between myself, the Minister of Transport and the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway on this matter, which I think will give my hon. friend the information he desires.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister is very short. He said a few minutes ago that perhaps the correspondence between himself and the president of the C.P.R. should be tabled. Will he assure us that it will be tabled at the earliest possible moment?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will certainly look into the correspondence. If it is marked personal and confidential by the president I shall have to get his permission to table it, and I will be glad to ask for that permission if it is required.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, it is required.



NORTH SYDNEY-NEWFOUNDLAND    INQUIRY AS TO SECOND FERRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Could the minister give an explanation as to why he has not made an announcement regarding the east coast ferry for Newfoundland, in the light of undertakings he had given that such an announcement would be made in September?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be able to make an announcement on that subject very shortly. It is a matter of regret to me that it was not made in September, but I hope to be able to do it very shortly.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct an urgent question to the Minister of Labour. That question concerns hundreds of people faced with a similar problem. Could the minister tell the house whether he received a letter from Mr. Richard Hachey, 2102 Vauquelin st., Montreal, protesting against the stand of the unemployment insurance commission in Montreal which has denied him the benefits to which he is entitled.
Inquiries of the Ministry


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



EXTENSION OF BENEFITS TO WORKERS IN U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
As agreements already exist between the Canadian and American governments for the application of the Unemployment Insurance Act in 47 states, could the minister tell the house what the reasons are for the delay in finding a solution to the problem concerning the sharing of benefits under this same act for Canadians working in the four remaining American states which have not as yet entered into an agreement?


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



QUEBEC-REPORTED PROTEST RESPECTING UNEQUAL TREATMENT OF PROVINCIAL EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Following certain statements made by the premier of a province on a network of television stations, could the Prime Minister inform the house whether the Quebec premier made representations to the government to the effect that the province of Quebec had to refuse a deal that was discriminatory compared to the one made with the other provinces regarding unemployment insurance for provincial civil servants?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have had no such protest.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Richard Cashin (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Can the minister inform the house what action, if any, has been taken as a result of the apprehension of two Spanish trawlers within Canadian territorial waters of Trepassey bay in the district of St. John's West?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. H. J. Rcbichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, in fact on Thursday last the fisheries patrol boat Cape Friel apprehended two Spanish trawlers found fishing for cod and other groundfish inside the territorial waters in Trepassey bay, Newfoundland. The two trawlers were ordered to proceed to St. John's, where they have been detained and where normal charges will be laid and court hearings will take place later on this week.



NORTH PACIFIC TREATY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries concerning the north Pacific treaty. Will the Canadian negotiators meet with their advisory committee before they resume negotiations with Japan and the United States?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, while I am not in a position to give a definite reply to this question, I can advise the hon. member that there will be a meeting in Vancouver in November and the advisory committee will be consulted on that occasion.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of agricultural conditions in eastern Canada, could the Prime Minister tell the house when he intends to submit his resolution concerning the appointment of a minister of agriculture for eastern Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have had this question addressed to me several times, and I know the interest of my hon. friend and other hon. members in this matter. We will proceed with it as soon as it is possible. There are two or three pieces of legislation which certainly have priority over this matter, for obvious reasons, including the income tax resolutions. When they are completed I hope we will be able to go ahead with this legislation.
[Mr. Cashin.l



LEGISLATION TO ESTABLISH INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration when he expects to introduce a resolution or bill concerning the Indian claims commission, which he indicated earlier this year would be introduced before the end of the year.


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I can only repeat what I said earlier and what my hon. friend has just referred to, Mr. Speaker, that the bill will definitely be presented before the end of this year. This the government has undertaken to do, and it will be done. I cannot say whether it will be at the end of November or early December. There are still quite a few representations to receive from hon. members and from interested parties, but the hon. member may be sure that the promise which was made will be kept.


Frank Howard: May I ask a supplementary question which is based on a statement I believe the minister made, namely that representations were still to be received from interested parties, including members. If my understanding is correct, and the government feels that it has to receive representations, did the government solicit any representations, or how does the minister determine that he has to receive them?


Guy Favreau: I believe that the statements made in this house concerning the ultimate date of the presentation of the bill and other announcements made to Indian representatives constitute a sufficient appeal for representations. No formal appeal has been made, I admit, but I believe those who are sincerely interested, like my hon. friend, will eventually formulate the representations they want to make.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
Is it the minister's intention to have sewn on the sleeves of the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, a French translation of the words "Royal Canadian Mounted Police"?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this as notice and I shall give an answer as soon as possible.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This question, in my opinion, is easy to answer and if both languages are official in this country the answer should be in the affirmative.



REQUEST FOR TREATIES IN BOTH LANGUAGES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice  Cole@Chicoutimi: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but, in his absence, I will put it to the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska.
Would the Minister of Trade and Commerce, or his parliamentary secretary, inform the house if, from now on, our trade agreement with foreign countries will be prepared first in the two official languages of Canada, and then in the language of the interested country, because otherwise it is insulting to French speaking Canadians, as is the case with the Canada-Bulgaria agreement which, apparently was written in English and Bulgarian only, according to the minister's statement on October 10 last?


Mr. Jean-Luc Pepin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, may I assure the hon. member for Chicoutimi that I will personally look into this matter.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the action of Canada last week in voting for the resolution at the United Nations condemning apartheid in South Africa, an action with which we all agree, can the minister say whether Canada is now associating herself with Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland in trying to find a basis for establishing a multiracial society with equal rights for all, in South Africa?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Canadian delegation at the United Nations is doing everything it can to bring about an improvement in the situation in South Africa in so far as apartheid is concerned. We have been in consultation with a number of delegations toward this end.
Inquiries of the Ministry NORTHERN AFFAIRS



OIL AND GAS LEASES-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON SALE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: I should like to ask the minister of northern affairs if he has a statement to make to the house concerning the substantial sale of oil and gas leases held last Friday afternoon. Will he table the details of those sales?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Not today, Mr. Speaker, but I hope to make a statement tomorrow, a very encouraging statement indeed.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES WINNIPEG    TRANSFER OF OVERHAUL AND MAINTENANCE BASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister tell the house what reply he made to Premier Roblin's telegram, reported in the press over the week end, asking for a public inquiry into matters relating to the proposed transfer of T.C.A. facilities from Winnipeg to Montreal?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not believe I received a telegram from Premier Roblin. I received a letter from him last Friday about this matter, and that letter is now under consideration. I hope to be in communication with Premier Roblin about it very shortly.



CONSTRUCTION IN CANADA OF NEW PLANES TO BE ACQUIRED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport. Since France is to equip its Potez aircraft with turbo-prop engines manufactured by Pratt and Whitney, of Longueuil, will Canada be sporting enough in return to enter an agreement in order that Caravelle aircraft be manufactured in Montreal by Can-adair for T.C.A.?


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



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of

Inquiries of the Ministry National Defence. I wonder whether the minister could advise the house as to talks he had with his counterpart in the United States regarding the possibility of restoring the order for Caribou planes, which has been cancelled.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I had a brief discussion with the secretary on that subject, and this will be followed up by the visit of my colleague the Minister of Defence Production later this week.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Some days ago I directed a question to the Minister of Transport with regard to the discontinuance of the Decca navigation chain on parts of the Atlantic coast. I wonder whether the hon. gentleman is now in a position to reply.


George James McIlraith: Yes, I am glad to be able to advise the hon. member that the original west Newfoundland chain was a temporary chain installed by a private company for a particular exercise and for demonstration of the system. A large Decca coverage system is now being provided by the government, and this chain has been relocated for marine purposes to provide optimum coverage in the Cabot strait and consists of stations at Port aux Basques, Grindstone island and Antigonish.
Construction is complete and the permanent facility is on test during the monitoring period, which will continue for approximately six to eight weeks and which is required to adjust and confirm that the patterns correspond to those calculated theoretically.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Muir: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance and ask him what consideration and reply have been given to the representations made by Mr. C. H. Sproule, secretary, on behalf of the maritime lumber bureau in a communication to the minister recently.


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: I shall be glad to look into that and advise the hon. member.


Robert Muir: I wish to address a supplementary question to
[Mr. MacEwan.l
the Minister of Finance. Possibly I should make it a question of privilege. May I say that I was advised only a few days ago by the hon. gentleman's parliamentary secretary that the Minister of Finance had considered the representations and replied to Mr. Sproule in a letter dated September 26. In view of that information the answer I received today from the hon. gentleman was not very enlightening. How are we to get replies to these questions?


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid we have to accept the answer given by the Minister of Finance.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: that the house go into committee of supply.



FEED GRAIN FOR EASTERN CANADA AND B.C.

Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, it is my purpose today during this second supply motion of the present parliament to put in a word or two on behalf of
100,000	Canadian families who exist at what can only be described as a slum level. My intention is to describe what the situation is and then, in a positive, constructive way, to indicate the general direction in which we should move to help these people in their plight.
I therefore move, seconded by my hon. friend from Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent):
That all the words after "that" he deleted and the following substituted therefor:
This house regrets the failure of the government to take effective action in regard to eastern agriculture and in particular with respect to feed grain for eastern Canada and for British Columbia so as to provide:
1.	Stability of Canadian supply and price.
2.	Opportunity for expansion of eastern production of feed grain.
I think the question period today indicated to the country just where this government sits in relation to the importance of agriculture in the national scheme of things. Since this administration took office on April 22 it has given away a bit of our sovereignty in connection with the defence of our country; it has allowed our sovereignty to be attacked in fiscal policy as well as, more recently, in labour policy; and, in the last two weeks, even in agriculture. Yet when I asked the Prime Minister if he had been in touch with the President on Saturday and raised this important matter of the attacks made on us in respect of the agreement between ourselves and the United States with regard to wheat sales, he said in effect that he was occupied with more important things than the subject of agriculture.
This is not an isolated case. The hon. member for Lake St. John asked the right hon.

gentleman when he intended to bring in the bill concerning the two ministers of agriculture, and his answer was that this would be done when the house had got through other, more important business, or words to that effect. This attitude overlooks the fact that 100,000 farm families in Canada, mostly in eastern Ontario and Quebec and the mari-times, are living at levels which, if they existed in our big cities such as Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto or Montreal, would be considered as slums. If these slums existed in our big cities the entire resources of our nation, federal, provincial and municipal as well as private, would be brought to bear so as to eliminate or improve them.
We must face the fact here in Canada that this house, as presently constituted, and the people who report the news from this house do not really care about these 100,000 families. All one has to do is take a look at the press gallery at the present moment. All one has to do is take a look at the government side-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Take a look at your own side.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If we do this we will realize that neither by legislation nor by administrative action is this government doing anything to tell the story of these people or improve their conditions.
My remarks today will be along the theme that any party which hopes to remain the government of this country or to become the government of this country must realize that there is more than just one group of people in the country. Five or six years ago our national strength was being weakened. Because the maritimes were falling behind the national level of living, because the prairies had fallen behind the national level of living, as a result the government changed in 1957.
Now we come to the situation in 1963, with the old government returned and having no apparent awareness that there are anomalies in the living conditions of the Canadian people. I intend to show, Mr. Speaker, that this knowledge is available to the government and they are not doing a thing about it.
First of all, this country cannot remain strong if some segments of the economy or some areas are weakened. As I said a moment ago, that was demonstrated in the 1957 and 1958 campaigns when whole sections of the country which were not traditionally Conservative changed and elected a Conservative government. The same situation is with us today. We made certain efforts to improve the situation, but those efforts are now being abandoned. This country cannot maintain and build up its present position if agriculture
Eastern Agricultural Policy hacking goes back to the conditions that existed before 1957.
On the subject of national unity there is a great deal of talk about our cultural and language relationships. This is all good and fine, but we cannot overlook economic relationships. I wish to say very bluntly that unless we realize the structural unity of Canada as a whole, both geographically and by occupation, there cannot be strength in our economy. For example, during the last four years we sold western grain in export markets, and this immediately took the pressure off the livestock and poultry industries. Prices rose to a point where eastern farmers could come in and take up the production that was abandoned by western farmers. As a result farm income in all sections of country has risen in the last three or four years, but not equally.
I intend to put on the record farm income figures to show just what the situation has been in Canada over the last 10 years. I begin with the year 1954 for three very good reasons. This was the end of the construction period in Europe and Asia after the war. This was the end of the Korean war. This was the beginning of competitive markets for agriculture all over the world. I am also going to use realized net income figures, and the reason is simple. Realized net income is what is left after the farmer has subtracted from his gross income his cost of production and depreciation on his buildings and machinery. The result is what is left the farmers' pocket, and that is called realized net income. I am not going to use net income figures because they are purely statistical figures of use only to bookkeepers and accountants and those who keep statistics. They are completely meaningless from the point of view of showing the situation of the farmer. At this time I should like to ask permission of the house to place on Hansard the realized net income figures per farm by regions from 1954 to 1962.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give permission?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Vincent Drouin (Argenleuil-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, I object to the tabling of that document, thus getting back at the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) for what he did to me last year.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there objection in the house to the tabling of these figures?
3536	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Eastern Agricultural Policy Lacking


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think, sir, that	notwith-	fEditor's note:	The table referred to above	standing any precedents	we would	want to	is as follows:]	accord	this courtesy to the hon. gentleman.	Realized	Net Income	Per Farm, Canada, By Regions 1954-62	"Maritime"	"Prairie"	Fear	Region	Que.	Ont.	Region	B.C.	Canada1954	929	1,671	2,102	2,111	2,033	1,8991955	884	1,786	2,301	1,831	1,925	1,8521956	1,040	1,516	2,141	2,779	2,092	2,1621957	1,027	1,594	2,288	2,604	2,293	2,1611958	1,138	1,770	2,641	3,335	2,539	2,6201959	1,134	1,762	2,442	3,066	2,440	2,4651960	1,411	1,802	2,698	3,150	2,678	2,6181961	1,107	1,946	2,629	3,536	2,831	2,7991962	980	1,880	2,570	3,900	3,400	2,945


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: These figures are taken from			up at the same rate as the		average for
the dominion bureau of statistics, and when they are examined in Hansard it will be found that realized net farm income in Canada as a whole from 1954 to 1962 was as follows: 1954, $1,899; 1955, $1,852; 1956, $2,162; 1957, $2,161. In that period the average was slightly over $2,000 per year per farm. In 1958 the figure moved up a little to $2,620; in 1959 it was $2,465; in 1960, $2,618; in 1961, $2,799 and in 1962, $2,945. This year it is going ahead at the rate of about 6 per cent. That gives an average across the country of about $2,700 in the last five years, or an increase in the national average from $2,000 in the period 1954 to 1957 to $2,700 in the period 1958 to 1962.
But when you examine the figures for regions you get an altogether different story. Listen to these figures for the maritime region: 1954, $929; 1955, $884; 1956, $1,040; 1957, $1,027; 1958, $1,138; 1959, $1,134; 1960, $1,411. In 1961 the figure dropped to $1,107 and in 1962 it continued downward to $980.
This is my point. If there are any maritime members in the house at the moment I am sure they will agree this indicates that a definite regional policy should be evolved and put forward in the house to help the people in the maritimes meet the problem of declining income.


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


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will come to that and deal with it very clearly. There are some members from Quebec in the house, and here are the figures for that province. From 1954 to 1957 the average was around $1,600 a year. In the period from 1958 to 1962 the figure moved up to around $1,800 and in one year went as high as $1,900, but the figure is not moving

Canada.
Ontario is slightly below the average. The figure rose from $2,100 in 1954 to $2,570 in 1962, a gain of approximately $400 per year per farm during that 10 year period.
Years ago the farmers of the prairie region used to have realized net incomes of approximately $3,400 or $3,500. By 1955 that figure had declined to $1,831 per farm. This means that in 1955 realized net income per farm on the prairies was roughly half what it had been a few years before. This is one reason why there was a big change in political allegiance there. With another government in power subsequent to that time farm income on the prairies increased steadily until 1962, when the average was $3,900 per farm or almost double in a period of six or seven years.
In British Columbia the figure in 1954 was $2,033 per farm and by last year it had climbed to $3,400. This is a very nice increase, but in summary my point is this. If you look at the realized net income figures per farm across Canada you will see that the national average is going up. There is a steady growth in British Columbia, and the farmers of the prairie provinces have almost doubled their income in that period. Ontario has had a steady growth, though a little slower than it should be. Quebec has barely increased above a static level. There has been a very small increase per year. In the maritimes, however, the figure has been declining.
I give these figures as a starting point to show how in working out policies you have to look at the income by regions. The prairies were away down in 1955 and 1956 but have now risen to their highest level. So we have an up and down type of income picture. But

you cannot take income figures as the sole criterion. What you have to do is examine the amount of investment, and on this score the eastern farmers are being treated unjustly from the point of view of income. Even on this score there is injustice being carried on so far as the income of eastern farmers is concerned.
Eastern Agricultural Policy Lacking
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask permission to insert a table in Hansard so that it may form part of my speech.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table above referred to is as follows:]
Value of Farm Capital Per Farm
Region	1954	1955	1956Maritime region 6,720	6,992	7,632Quebec	11,166	11,402	12,243Ontario	18,023	19,102	19,487Prairie region	20,341	21,177	21,459British Columbia 17,150	18,128	18,218Canada	16,335	17,051	17,591


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: shows that with investment per	This table, Mr. Speaker, regard to the question of farm, the prairies had a		
tremendous investment back in 1954. At that time it was over $20,000 per farm and increased steadily until 1961 when it had risen to $27,000 plus per farm. But, sir, take a look at the maritimes. In 1954 they had investment per farm of $6,720, and by 1961 it had more than doubled to $14,633. In plain terms this simply means that in spite of the tremendous efforts by maritime farmers to increase their investment in order to get increased production income, they have more than doubled their investment in eight years; yet their income, as an aggregate, has continued to decline. In Quebec the figure per farm in 1954 was $11,166, and it increased to $18,606 in 1961. The returns on that investment are not commensurate.
Now, this is my point. In Ontario investment per farm increased from 1954, when it was $18,023, to $28,579 in 1961, and I submit that the income figures I quoted earlier do not increase to the value of the investment that they have put into their farms. I have already given the figures for the prairies. Their investment was big at the start, but it is no longer the largest, because now investment per farm in Ontario is bigger.
in Canada, by Region, 1954 to 1961
1957	1958	1959	1960	19617,966	8,721	9,537	9,805	14,63312,810	14,124	15,224	16,283	18,60620,937	23,613	25,990	26,911	28,57922,244	24,300	25,644	27,535	27,43019,693	21,627	24,031	25,405	27,62618,490	20,416	21,959	23,263	25,120
In British Columbia investment per farm in 1954 was $17,150, and it has now jumped to $27,626. Here is the evidence that the farmers in the maritimes, Quebec, British Columbia and Ontario are all increasing their capital investment, but there has not been the same measure of increase in their income.
When I speak about Ontario I want to be very clear. I realize that the income advance in good farming counties in Ontario has been just as spectacular as with prairie farms, but in great areas of Ontario, along the Ottawa valley, the clay belt and the western peninsula, farm income is not moving up, and in these counties one can see today that half the farms are abandoned. One can drive right out from Ottawa and see that half the farms are abandoned in these historic counties; and this is even more true on the Quebec side.
Mr. Speaker, there is a third table I would like to give the house which deals with off-farm income, and one has to look at this to get the true picture. Once again I would ask the house to let me place this table in as part of my remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


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

Eastern Agricultural Policy Lacking Realized Net Income per Farm of Farm Operators from Farming 1958 and 1961, Farm Operators Income and Farm Family Income per Farm Operator, 1958 from Sources Other than Farming.
Realized net income Farm operator income Farm family income
Region	per farm of farm per farm operator from operators from sources other than farming* farming! 1958 1961	per farm operator from sources other than farming?Maritimes	1,115	1,094	933	1,461Que.	1,730	1,946	891	1,356Ont.	2,666	2,629	1,161	1,733Prairies	3,334	3,412	665	888B.C.	2,507	2,831	1,671	2,155Canada*	2,620	2,797	903	1,302* Derived from aggregate estimates division, d.b.s., Ottawa.	published	in Farm Net Income, 1961. Agriculture	t Derived from	aggregate estimates	published	in the 1958 farm	survey report No. 1.Agriculture	division, d.b.s., Ottawa, Nov. 1962.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, this table tries to estimate the amount of off-farm income on the basis of a report by the agricultural division of d.b.s., Ottawa, dated 1961, and on estimates published in the 1958 farm survey report of the d.b.s. agricultural division dated November, 1962. I am just going to read the figures rapidly, because the table will be more complete and give the breakdown.
In the maritimes in 1958 the farm family income per farm from sources other than farming-to which you should add the other figure I have quoted-was $1,461. If you recall the figures which I gave previously you will realize this means that the average for the maritimes is roughly $1,000 a year realized net income from farming, and you have to add to that this figure of $1,461. In other words more than half the income of the maritime farmers came from off-farm employment. One cannot live on $1,000 a year and therefore the whole family has to go out and do other work.
In Quebec the figure for off-farm income per family was $1,356 in 1958, and you have to add to that the figure which I quoted for Quebec for 1962 which was $1,880, to get the total income.
In Ontario the average farm family income from off-farm sources was $1,733, and if you add that to the Ontario figure which I gave earlier, you get the very substantial sum of $4,200 or $4,300.
The prairies, of course, do not have these opportunities and the average income per farm from off-farm sources was only $888. In British Columbia, however, this income was exceptional. Apparently they have very good opportunities and the average there was $2,155. The average for Canada as a whole was $1,302 per farm per year.

I put this table on the record, not to emphasize it but to show that if a government is going to draw policy out of these figures it has to know there is a great variation in income. If you put all these three tables together, region by region, it is very clear that the problem areas of Canada are eastern Ontario, Quebec, and the maritime provinces, and it is not right that these people should be doomed to continuing declining income because a government fails to realize that these people are Canadians and need equal treatment with farmers in other parts of Canada.


Mr. Roxburgh:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: I think we all realize these figures. In fact we have known of those figures since 1958 to 1963, and I am just wondering what the hon. gentleman and his government did during that time to raise those figures, and if he has any ideas how to do it?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, that very
question illustrates my point in such vivid terms that it makes the rest of my speech almost meaningless. Here we have a member of parliament who has been elected by a constituency, who holds forth in his constituency as a man worthy of sitting in this house, and he does not even know what the previous government did over six years. He does not even know that for the first time in Canadian history the government of the day stood up and announced on August 30, 1958, a national agricultural policy for Canada. He does not even know what the points in that agricultural policy are.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: We know the results.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, we know the results too. Across Canada, in the farm areas where they read the farm papers, the people showed the results in June, 1982 and April of 1963. They showed where they stood in every province.
I am going to list the points in the national farm policy announced by the then prime minister on August 30, 1958. First there was a policy of accelerated sales, and if any person has not heard about accelerated sales of farm products in the last few months he must be dead and buried. Then as No. 2 there was a flexible support policy to stabilize prices; No. 3, crop insurance to stabilize income; No. 4, a modern system of farm credit; No. 5, a multiple resources use policy; No. 6, an agricultural rehabilitation and development act, which is the ARDA program, and the 7th was a regional program for areas not benefiting completely from the national program.
It is my point here that when we introduced the acreage payments in 1958, that was a regional policy to help western Canada, because at that time farmers there had a very low level of income. In fact farm incomes were just about half what they were a few years before. The other provinces do not go up and down in income as drastically as we do in western Canada. That regional policy was put into effect where it was most needed, and it has shown results. I am suggesting that the income figures I have given show that there has to be a regional policy to help those areas of Canada which need help. I refer to eastern Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes, because the income figures of those areas show trouble.
This is the motion before the house, that we regret the government has not done anything about this problem. We say this house regrets the failure of the government to take effective action in regard to eastern agriculture. This is what the motion of condemnation covers.
What happened? In 1962, as the minister responsible for agriculture I made speeches in this house and all across the country in every province saying that western farm income was beginning to rise and that we had the green light ahead in our sales of grain for export. I said this would bring a rise in livestock prices all across Canada. Therefore I asked the support of western farmers in 1962; I asked them to support my concentrating my attention as minister on the problems of eastern agriculture.


An hon. Member:: And you got it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Most of those constituencies, 43 out of 48, gave us their support last April. I made the same speech throughout the
Eastern Agricultural Policy Lacking counties of Ontario; and particularly in western Ontario, if you look at the results in the farm areas, you will see that we gained two seats from the Liberals and a larger percentage of votes.


An hon. Member:: Politics.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Politics, yes, my friend; but the country must know what the farmers think. The only way we can know what they think is through the way they vote. What was my repayment? The Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) is not in his place now, but he stood up at a farm meeting in Prince Edward Island and said to those farmers of Prince Edward Island, "You do not want a western minister of agriculture, do you? This man they have now is from the west. He is no good for the east". At the time he was making that speech in Prince Edward Island Liberal candidates and supporters in the west were saying the minister was going up and down the country asking for a vote of confidence to put in a regional program to help those areas in the east which were falling down in agricultural income. This is national unity, Liberal style.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Winkler:: Divide and rule.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Hon. members have asked, what did the previous Conservative government do? Look at those income figures. Income figures up across Canada as a whole, after they slid down in 1954; income figures in the west up almost double; income figures in Ontario up; up in Quebec. But as I pointed out when quoting these figures, they were down in the maritimes and in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, they were not satisfactory. Hon. members opposite may say, what did the previous government do about this regional difficulty. Let us accept the fact that the farmers realized the government in power from 1957 to 1962 was the first government that had shown a real interest in their problems and had made a concentrated, fundamental attack on their problems. They knew this was just a start, and they showed it when they had an opportunity of showing it in 1962 and 1963.
I have mentioned the national agricultural program which was part of the 1962 campaign. I made our party's position clear, that we asked for support from all parts of Canada to concentrate on a regional program to help eastern agriculture. It was we, the government, bringing this situation to the minds of the people. Listen to this. If we go back and look at the speech from the throne in September, 1962, what do we find in it?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: An empty speech in 1963.

Eastern Agricultural Policy Lacking


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This was 1962.


An hon. Member:: That was your own.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In that speech from the throne we see these words:
My ministers recognize that livestock is occupying a position of increasing importance in Canadian agriculture. They propose that a program be instituted to ensure the availability of storage facilities and continuity of supplies of feed grain to match the expanding requirements for livestock production, particularly in the areas of British Columbia and eastern Canada where supplies of feed grain are normally deficient.
That was the clearcut declaration of our intention in the speech from the throne in September, 1962. In October, 1962, to show that we realized what was the basic cause of the trouble, we held here in Ottawa the national conference on agricultural education to back up the multi-million dollar program we had in vocational training. We brought in representatives of all the provinces, their agricultural ministers and educational people, to see whether we could not in a co-operative fashion work out an educational program in these rural areas which would get at the basic weaknesses of these low income areas. As I say, this was done in October, 1962, and the hon. member opposite has asked, what did we do. He was much too busy going up and down this country preaching fraud, saying that the country was going downhill economically, when it was not; saying that the pegging of the dollar at 92J cents would ruin the country and force prices up, when it would not; saying that we had lost the confidence of our friends the Americans. Boy, would he like to make that speech today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have to say it, Mr. Speaker; the election campaign of the Liberal party in 1962 and 1963 was based on fraud.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That language is not understood back in the places where I speak occasionally. I tell them that the Liberal party campaign in 1962 and 1963 was based on a lie. They understand that. There was no decline of the economic level of this country: it was going up. The devaluation of the dollar to 92-J cents was the best thing that ever happened to industry and farming alike in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: And the worst thing that ever happened was the election of the Pearson team. They have made a mess of things, if any government ever made a mess of things. If they had not been so arrogant by saying, as they said in this house when they sat on this side of the chamber, "We have


all the answers", the mess they have made of things would perhaps not be so obvious. But they said, "We have all the answers"- father, son and Liberal party.


An hon. Member:: There is just a father over there; no son.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: They do not like what I say, Mr. Speaker, because they know in their hearts that no government elected on fraud, no government elected on a lie, is going to stay long in office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: They know that their great strongholds of Quebec and Saskatchewan are now slipping. In fact I think they have slipped already in Saskatchewan. Let me tell you what else they did. After that speech from the throne when we outlined our program, we introduced on the order paper of this house an eastern feed grain and assistance bill. They joined with their cohorts from the Social Credit and C.C.F. parties in voting our government out of office, a government that was going to do something for the eastern farmers. They made sure there was no opportunity for our government to do anything constructive from September to February. When they talk about a responsible opposition I would ask them to go back and examine what happened between September and February of last year. What a disgrace on the escutcheon of a once great party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I can tell from the reaction, Mr. Speaker, that my speech is striking home. What does this government do? They knew the facts about the situation in eastern Canada as well as we did; they knew the facts of what I call the very depressed areas. In 1963 we went out and campaigned to be given a chance to put this policy into effect. In 1957 and 1958 we campaigned on a national program for agriculture. We did put it into effect and it helped agriculture. The farmers were grateful, as their votes showed. But we could not be complacent with this program when three quarters of the farmers were doing all right and the other quarter were going downhill. That is why in 1963 we thought the policy about which I have been speaking should be implemented. What did the Liberal party do in 1963? They went into western Canada and told the western farmer, "Do not bother with this man's policy to help eastern Canada; go for $2 per bushel of wheat and $1 for the first 300 bushels for domestic wheat products." They held this out like a great big bribe. What

have they done to date? They sit there silent because they know this is one of the tangible lies that was told.


Bruce Silas Beer: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am just getting in good form, Mr. Speaker, and I shall take questions at the end of my remarks.
This Liberal party went into eastern Canada in 1963 and said: We are giving you a policy in connection with western grain prices that will hurt you, but we are going to give you something that will be the answer to all your problems. We are going to give you two ministers of agriculture. We are even going to make it better, because we are going to take away some of his duties and give them to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Then, we will divide the duties of the Minister of Agriculture in half.
When I talk about very tough conditions down here, the minister sits in his seat and knows what I say is true. He knows that at my instigation, as minister of agriculture, in January of 1963 I asked each of the five eastern provinces, excluding Newfoundland, if they would pick areas in their provinces- they could pick any area they liked-and we
Eastern Agricultural Policy Lacking would put trained people in there to conduct a very deep survey, a survey in depth as the experts call it. Ontario named five areas. Quebec named ten areas; Prince Edward Island, one area; Nova Scotia, three areas and New Brunswick, three areas. I do not intend to ask the minister to produce that report because a scandal like that is bad enough at any time, even in the secret archives of the department.
I know what that report says because I kept in close contact with the interim report. I know enough, from what has been made public by the department, to give to this House of Commons some of the figures that report contained. First of all, in order to get the background material, I am going to give you a report from the census of Canada, 1961. I am going to ask permission, Mr. Speaker, not to table this document at this time because I am going to use it in my speech. However, at the end of my speech I should like permission to have it printed in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member permission?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The tables above referred to are as follows:]
Table 1.-Commercial Farms Classified by Value of Products Sold, by Province, 1961*
	Number				
of	Value of	Products Sold	Province	Farms	$1200-2499	$2500-4999	$5000-9999	$10,000 plus-per cent-	Nfld.	456	38*	25	17	20P.E.I.	4,530	36*	37	20	7N.S.	4,939	39*	29	19	13N.B.	5,116	40*	29	19	12Que.	62,497	38*	37	19	6Ont.	90,345	23	29	27	21Man.	33,522	27	36	27	10Sask.	82,285	23	36	30	11Alta.	58,698	23	33	27	17B.C.	10,902	25	27	23	25Canada?	353,290	27	33	26	14*Source: Census of Canada.	t Excl. Yukon	and Northwest	Territories.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The report is the census of 1961, and this table is entitled "commercial farms classified by value of products sold, by provinces." It does not include the Yukon or the Northwest Territories. In Newfoundland 38 per cent of the farms have a gross income from the value of products sold of less than $2,500; in Prince Edward Island, 36 per cent; in Nova Scotia, 39 per cent; in New Brunswick, 20 per cent and in Quebec,
38 per cent. In so far as the rest of Canada is concerned, this income runs from 23 per cent to 27 per cent.
What does this mean? First of all, they do not consider a farm commercial until it earns $1,200. The report indicates that 25 per cent of the farmers across Canada earned less than $1,200 from their farms. This table only deals with those farms that earned above $1,200. Out of those above $1,200 in Quebec

Eastern Agricultural Policy Lacking and the maritimes, 40 per cent of those so-called commercial farms earned incomes of less than $2,500, out of which the farmer had to pay depreciation, salaries and wages of those people working on the farms, taxes and all the other operating costs. As I say, 40 per cent of the so-called commercial farms in Quebec and the maritimes did not even earn $2,500.
If you consider the figures for those farms earning $10,000 or more, you find that Newfoundland-I do not think I should quote that figure because it is out of proportion to the others-had 20 per cent; 7 per cent in Prince Edward Island; 13 per cent in Nova Scotia; 12 per cent in New Brunswick; 6 per cent in Quebec. This tells you where the weakness is. In Ontario there was 21 per cent over $10,000; Manitoba, 10 per cent; Saskatchewan, 11 per cent; Alberta, 17 per cent and British Columbia, 25 per cent. You will see that, actually, in so far as big farmers are concerned, the prairie provinces have less than Ontario, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland or New Brunswick. When hon. members see these figures on Hansard, I ask them to think about them. They indicate that even when you take the top 75 per cent of farmers of Canada, in the eastern areas, Quebec and the maritimes, 43 per cent of them only earn $2,500 a year or less.
I am quoting now from tables published in a speech delivered at Banff school of fine arts to the Agricultural Institute of Canada convention from June 17 to 20, 1963, by the assistant deputy minister of agriculture. The next table relates to the age and education characteristics by income groups of selected farm families in eastern Canada. This table is contained in the report to which I referred a minute ago. I ask the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of these figures. These figures show the level of education of the farm operator and his children in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. They indicate possible policies that should be adopted.
I am still referring to this same farm survey, and the next table I should like to put on the record indicates the training in addition to school grades completed, by income groups. I should like to have permission again, Mr. Speaker, if I may to put this table on the record when I have completed my speech.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The tables above referred to are as follows:]
Table 2.-Age and Education Characteristics by Income Groups of Selected Farm Families in Eastern Canada, 1962 (preliminary data)
Value of
Total Sales of	Average Years of Schooling Average No.
Farm Products	Average Age	Adult Children
by Province Farm Families of Operator Operator Wife Children per Family
	No.	%	Yrs.				
Ontario							
Under $2,500	50	33	52	7.5	8.9	9.7	2.8$2,500-4,999	56	38	49	7.9	9.2	10.5	3.2$5,000 plus	43	29	46	8.7	9.3	10.3	3.3All groups	149	100	49	8.0	9.2	10.2	3.1Quebec	Under $2,500	145	50	48	5.7	6.5	7.5	5.7$2,500-4,999	99	34	45	5.9	6.9	7.5	5.2$5,000 plus	47	16	44	6.6	7.0	8.4	5.7All groups	291	100	46	5.9	6.7	7.6	5.5New Brunswick	Under $2,500	27	32	51	6.5	8.4	8.6	4.7$2,500-4,999	32	38	50	7.0	9.0	9.8	3.8$5,000 plus	26	30	49	7.6	9.3	10.7	4.4All groups	85	100	50	7.0	8.9	9.6	4.3
Eastern Agricultural Policy Lacking
Value of
Total Sales of	Average Years of Schooling Average No.
Farm Products	Average Age	Adult Children
by Province Farm Families of Operator Operator Wife Children per Family
	No.	%	Yrs.				
Nova Scotia							
Under $2,500	39	44	51	8.6	9.8	10.2	3.2$2,500-4,999	21	24	49	9.8	10.4	10.6	3.1$5,000 plus	28	32	51	9.4	10.3	10.6	3.4All groups	88	100	51	9.0	10.1	10.4	3.2Prince Edward Island	Under $2,500	13	43	50	7.8	9.5	10.7	3.3$2,500-4,999	9	30	48	7.8	9.2	11.3	4.0$5,000 plus	8	27	44	9.0	10.0	10.5	3.6All groups	30	100	48	8.2	9.5	10.8	3.7
Table 3.-Training in Addition to School Grades Completed, by Income Groups, Selected Farm Families in Eastern Canada, 1962 (preliminary data.)
Operators	Wives	Adult Children1Value of Total Sales of	Percent	PerCent	PercentFarm Products by Province	Total Number	with Training	Total Number	with Training	Total Number	with TrainingOntario	Under $2,500	50	8.0	37	10.8	67	28.4$2,500-4,999	56	8.9	52	32.7	70	44.3$5,000 plus	43	7.0	41	24.4	50	54.0All groups	149	8.1	130	23.8	187	41.2Quebec	Under $2,500	145	2.1	133	2.3	426	11.5$2,500-4,999	99	8.8	96	8.3	206	15.5$5,000 plus	47	6.4	43	9.3	103	35.0All groups	291	4.8	272	5.5	735	15.9New Brunswick	Under $2,500	27	11.1	22	22.7	56	16.1$2,500-4,999	32	12.5	30	26.7	54	35.2$5,000 plus	26	7.7	23	21.7	50	42.0All groups	85	10.6	75	24.0	160	30.6Nova Scotia	Under $2,500	39	10.3	30	26.7	59	23.7$2,500-4,999	21	4.8	18	33.3	27	48.1$5,000 plus	28	17.9	25	40.0	49	40.8All groups	88	11.4	73	32.9	135	34.8Prince Edward Island	Under $2,500	13	15.4	10	0	22	50.0$2,500-4,999	9	33.3	9	22.2	7	85.7$5,000 plus	8	12.5	6	50.0	6	33.3All groups	30	20.0	25	20.0	35	54.3
Children who had concluded their schooling.

Eastern Agricultural Policy Lacking


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to come now to the conclusion to be drawn from this report. Figures are meaningless unless you put them into human relationship, and I am going to try to put these figures into human relationship. I refer to the table covering the 660 farms surveyed last January. Referring to the group receiving $2,500 or under for sales of farm products, we find that 43 per cent of the families in these five provinces had a total income per farm, which includes off-farm income from all members of the family, of $2,800 or less. If I may repeat, 43 per cent of the farmers in Quebec, the maritimes and eastern Ontario have an income of $2,800 including all the income from the school teacher, the husband driving the bus, the children cutting trees in the bush, maple syrup and everything else. When you think of the average number of children involved, this means, in effect, that 10, 12 or 13 Canadians are trying to live on a total income of $2,800 or less on each of these farms.
I maintain that there is a slum condition here. I maintain that the government has not tackled the problem or shown any sign of tackling the problem. Of the 43 per cent of farmers surveyed, whose main interest is farming, according to their own statements, and 53 per cent of their income comes from the farm and 33 per cent from off-farm sources, and 14 per cent from social payments. These are the people about whom I am talking. These conditions exist all across Canada but most important, so far as members are concerned, in eastern Ontario, the clay belt and in Quebec and the maritimes.
Now, I have laboured here in the hope that by putting these figures on the record I could get the house in a mood to consider possible courses of action. If you look at those people not on the commercial farms and try to visualize a farmer making $600 or $700 a year cash off the farm, he has anything from five to ten youngsters ranging in ages from five to six years up to 40 years of age. They are on the farm, and if they leave and go to the cities they will be unemployed. So they do not dare leave the farm, because when they are at home they at least eat. The common joke in certain parts of New Brunswick when I was down there was that "N.B." means "no breakfast" instead of "New Brunswick".
I have seen these farms and been on them. Mr. Speaker, you cannot help them by the ordinary price support legislation, by farm credit or crop insurance, or by selling things abroad, because they have very little to sell. Their fundamental problem is twofold. First

of all, they lack an educational base. By "education" I do not mean the formal education of learning to read and write and to add and subtract; I am talking simply about a knowledge of agriculture. Many farmers all across Canada in this category have no knowledge, for example, of what a few dollars worth of fertilizer will do with an acre of land. If you want some figures, in one of these provinces where you now have five to six acres to handle one animal for grazing you can handle over one animal per acre by using fertilizer. Or, to put it another way, $15 worth of fertilizer on an acre of land in a worn-out pasture in eastern Canada will produce $90 to $100 worth more beef. This is the type of legislation about which I am talking. They have never heard of these fertilizers and they certainly do not know of any program by either the federal or provincial governments designed to help them. I can give other examples of the most abysmal ignorance of these farmers concerning the assistance available to them now.
This is not a matter, Mr. Speaker, of being either Conservative or Liberal.


Bruce Silas Beer: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Well, I was hoping to finish this one part. It is not a question of being Conservative or Liberal at all. This is a question of these facts being available to the government. They were available to us and we started to move on them. They are now available to this government, but it has done nothing tangible about it. This question of education is the number one difficulty. You can talk to the premiers of Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland or Ontario and they will be understanding about these things. But this is a problem which has to be faced by all Canadians, because there are over 100,000 farm families in Canada living under conditions which are a national disgrace.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, education is the first matter. The second is sociological. If the minister looks at these reports he will find, apart from lack of education and lack of training after they finish school, that these people have one thing in common, whether they live in Ontario, Quebec or the maritimes. They fear banks. They fear government credit. They fear credit, period. There is a sociological problem here which has to be met, and we have to bring some sociological attention to these problems to find out the techniques required. We can get many of these farmers to realize that if the government have done certain things for them it is not a sin to use those things which the

government have done for them. These things have to be done to implement educational and sociological programs, and we cannot wait five years.
This condition has been gradually accumulating year after year. I think I made it known probably in the fall of 1961. I tried all through the summer of 1962 to get programs worked out. I finally got a program worked out which I called the eastern feed grain and assistance bill, but although it was introduced in the house we never had time to proceed with it. I am not going to say anything more about it, but I should like to ask what this government has done. This government is going to put in two ministers of agriculture. I do not intend to say anything about that, but I do intend to read to the house what was put out as a press statement on August 22, 1963, by the present government, entitled "Feed grain policy". It says:
Mr. Hays stated that the government will request authority of parliament for a broadened feed grain policy to replace the present policy of freight assistance on western feed grains.
This is the third week we have been back in the house, Mr. Speaker, and there is no sign of anything like that appearing on the order paper.
Second:
The new policy will provide for the payment of accrued storage charges on western feed grain in licensed eastern elevators during the period October 15 to April 15.
Today is October 14, and so far nothing has appeared. Their 60 days of decision so frightened the government that they are paralyzed with fear. They now have one more day in which to move, but there is nothing on the order paper.
Third:
-the Canadian wheat board has decided to institute at once a provisional pricing system for oats and barley moved from the lakehead to eastern elevators.
Without going into the details of what a provisional pricing policy is, I pointed out to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) a week ago last Friday that the provisional pricing policy was not working, and for two good reasons. One was that with this tremendous export demand there is no incentive to move that grain eastwards because the rates for moving it eastwards are better for export purposes than those rates applying to movements of grain for Canadian consumption. Second, the storage rates are better if you store grain for export rather than for domestic use. In spite of that I have not heard of any meeting yet with the board of grain commissioners to discuss this vital fact,
Eastern Agricultural Policy Lacking and all this information is available. This is the type of thing which was before me last spring.
Now, what about this eastern market? According to this press release, projections of future requirements indicate that 120 million bushels will be required by 1970, and 150 million by 1975. The present average use is about 85 million bushels of western feed grains. We have the largest market in the world for western feed grain in British Columbia and eastern Canada. This figure of 85 million bushels is a rough figure. In 1970, which is only six years away, it will go up to 120 million, and in 1975, which is only about 12 years away, it will go up to 150 million. And those figures are conservative figures, Mr. Speaker. Here we have a possible market of 150 million bushels. What other country in the world takes as much in an average year? And this is a steady market. The action of the government in announcing their intention on August 22 of doing something but doing nothing is reason for all members of all parties in the opposition to stand together and vote no confidence in this government.
Just to show, Mr. Speaker, the practical results of not putting this policy into effect, a week ago Friday I read a wire to the house received from the head of the maritime co-op, Mr. W. D. Dernier. I should like to read the first sentence again.
Following protest sent government on behalf domestic feeders "vigorously protest discrimination by Canadian wheat board not allowing domestic market to purchase any feeding grades wheat except immediate use. Now price advanced five and one eighth cents since Monday representing along with increase in water freight rates hundreds of thousands of dollars extra cost to domestic feeders. Captive domestic market treated unfairly in relation to export sales. If CWB uncertain over available grades for feed some provision for purchase at price levels prevailing early September should have been made.
That wire is a cry for help from the maritimes, the most sorely hit area in Canada. If you look at the costs of eastern agriculture you will find that 25 per cent of all the money spent by eastern farmers is spent on the purchase of feed grain. What we must do is to reduce these costs and increase the farmer's realized net income.
What have this government done about that? They issued a statement saying that they were going to do three things. Two of these things have not been done, as far as we have heard in this house or in the public press. This government stands petrified before the prospect of doing anything. This cry for help from the maritimes can be heard from every feeding area in Quebec. Where do the members of the Social Credit party stand on this issue? Do they intend to stand

Eastern Agricultural Policy Lacking up and help keep this government in power- a government which allows the prices of feed grain to rise, though they know the Conservative government, when in power, had a policy to deal with this situation? The present government says it will pay storage charges at the elevators if the brokers will take it there. But no one is taking it down, and the prices are rising. The Chinese can go into the offices of the Canadian wheat board in Winnipeg and buy grain for six months for a single price. They can have a stabilized price. The Russians bought over 200 million bushels of wheat and wheat flour at a fixed price for ten and a half months. The Japanese bought wheat for eight months at a fixed price. Even the British bought wheat at a fixed price.
But who is helping the eastern feeders to get grain at a fixed price? Certain hon. members will have the chance to show their constituents tomorrow whether they want these prices to go up and down, or whether they want a stabilized price, such as we were prepared to introduce and in respect of which we had a measure on the order paper last February.
I said also, in the course of the campaign in western Canada, that eastern farmers needed something comparable to the wheat board to look after their interests. Who is looking after the interests of the eastern feeders? Certainly, it is not the brokers in Montreal. Certainly, it is not this government. But the hon. members most affected by this problem must decide for themselves. I turn, for example, to the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Lessard). He comes from a promising agricultural area which could achieve a tremendous increased income if a co-ordinated program for livestock and poultry rearing were introduced there. But there are certain things which must be available as a prerequisite, and among them is a supply of feed grain at a stable price, at a cost which would put the area on terms of competitive equality with the other feeding areas. We had pledged ourselves to achieve this result. I ask hon. members this: is the statement of intention which has been made on the part of this government likely to help the eastern provinces in developing along the lines I have indicated? I suggest it will do the reverse. The policy announced by the present government has done nothing to meet the situation. We suggested that the government should step in and set up an organization to look after the interests of the eastern farmers, in short to do the same for the eastern farmers as the Canadian wheat board does for the farmers of the west. We intended to use the services of a government board in co-operation with private enterprise so as to produce a

system which would result in a stable price for grain, a price which would not vary whether one lived in Bruce county, Lake St. John or Sydney. This was our policy. It is still our policy. While hon. gentlemen opposite have been talking, the price has been going up. It has gone up five cents already, and it will go up a lot more. Wait until the ice comes, and hon. members will see what happens to the price.
I have tried to set before this house something of the background of the great need among many of the farmers of eastern Canada-not all these farmers, but the 25 per cent who are in a very degraded position, the 25 per cent whose income from the farm is less than $1,200 or whose income from all sources is less than $2,800. Let us remember that in Quebec and the maritime provinces 43 per cent of the farmers live under these conditions. When we were in power we were grappling with this problem but we were thrown out of office by the big city vote. Now I ask these representatives of the big city voters to consider these people of whom I have been speaking as Canadians-to get off dead centre, to get the ship under way and do something for them.
I wish to conclude by saying that the series of statements I have made about eastern feed grain applies to many other segments of agriculture in eastern Canada. The dairy industry is a subject in itself. The dairy industry is a basic branch of agriculture. This is not a platitude. It is the background of integrated agriculture in Canada. That industry is not in serious trouble as yet, but it is heading that way. Not only does the solution require co-operation between the federal government and the provincial governments, particularly those of Quebec, Ontario and the maritimes, but it requires international co-operation as well. One of my colleagues will be speaking later on the dairy industry. I should like to leave with the minister the thought that the difficulties of that industry might be solved by getting Ontario and Quebec to agree with the federal government on a joint program, after an intensive study of the situation in Europe and the United States, two areas where there have been long-standing surpluses of dairy products. I think there is a type of cooperation which, if it were followed, might produce a solution to our difficulties.
I made a speech on this subject a few weeks ago in which I put forward a series of suggestions as to how this might be done by co-operation between Canada and the United States. I could, of course, go on to deal with this subject at great length but I think I have said enough to convince all

hon. members that a problem does exist and that, regardless of party, an attack must be made on the causes of the present situation. We cannot merely sit back and say that, on the average, farm income is rising. The figure for average income does not give a true picture of what is happening in these areas of eastern Canada. It is true that income is going up very well in some parts of Canada, but I think all hon. members should cooperate during this session of parliament to make sure that any policies which are brought forward are concentrated on the vital problems of eastern agriculture.


Harry William Hays: This is the first opportunity I have had since April 8 to express my views in connection with agriculture. I have listened with a great deal of interest to what the former minister had to say this afternoon. Believe me, I think he is just talking a lot of junk.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Harry William Hays: The hon. member has been right across Canada talking, yelling and hollering about the condition of agriculture. I have travelled in something like 32 different countries in the world and I feel that I know a little bit about agriculture. Until three years ago I owned and supervised a farm where 125 cows were milked, and I would challenge the former minister to come out to the central experimental farm with me because he cannot even milk a cow. Nor would he know how deep to put in a drill to sow an acre of wheat. Nor would he be able to plow a straight furrow.
It takes a little more, Mr. Speaker, than just looking at statistics. Statistics are for the losers. You can pump them in here, there and everywhere and I do not think they mean very much if things are pretty good. I believe that in the last six months we have done a great deal more for agriculture than has been done for many years, by the improvement of some of our old programs such as feed grain assistance, which was started in the year 1941, and many other programs that were Liberal policies to begin with, but have had their names changed.
I want to refer to an article in the London Free Press of September 28, 1963, a newspaper that has not always been on our side. It has this to say with regard to farm cash income:
Farmers' cash income from farming operations reached a record $1,449,700,000 in the first half of 1963, the dominion bureau of statistics estimated today. It was 5.8 per cent above the figure for the first half of 1962.
The estimate includes income for the cash sale of crops, Canadian wheat board participation payments on the previous year's grain crop, net cash 28902-5-226
Eastern Agricultural Policy Lacking advances on farm stored grains in western Canada and deficiency payments. No allowance was made for production costs incurred by farmers. Biggest factors in the increase were higher sales of wheat, coarse grains, potatoes, poultry products and cattle.
Increases in cash income were reported in all provinces except Alberta where cash receipts were 1 per cent below the 1962 first half. The Ontario total was $476,431,000, compared with $448,920,000 last year.
With respect to feed grains, we have a feed grain policy which I think will be most acceptable to the eastern farmers. I might say that not long after I was made Minister of Agriculture I attended a meeting with all the ministers of agriculture in Canada. We discussed many of the problems that were plaguing various provinces and Canada as a whole, so far as agriculture was concerned. I agree with the previous speaker that possibly Quebec has a problem. I spent two and a half days with the minister of agriculture of Quebec. We sat down with his officials and our officials and discussed many of their problems. He was quite familiar with the feed grain policy which we proposed and which we hope we can get through parliament soon. He thought it was an excellent program and that it would do a great deal to help them.
I might say that this program will pay grain storage costs. It will also put grain in location. I am happy to report to the house now that we have more grain in stock for eastern feed people than there was last year. I might read some of the figures so that the house will be familiar with the situation. These are figures as to grain stocks in various positions as at the end of September this year and last year. At Fort William-Port Arthur we had last year 5.9 million bushels of oats in stock and we have 13.5 million this year. In barley we had 5.7 million last year and this year we have 10.5 million. In eastern terminal elevators oat stocks were 17 million bushels last year and this year they are 37 million. Barley stocks last year were 19 million and this year they are 38 million.
So you can see we are sitting on top of this problem. We knew we were going to have this problem when the wheat board was able to sell such a big amount of wheat to Russia. We realized we would have to keep these grains on spot. I might also advise that last year feed grains were 81 million bushels and this year they will be up 10 per cent, so this is another increase.
We are taking a good look at the problems of the eastern farmers. You will be interested to know that right across Canada the price of milk is higher than it was a year ago and that the price of cheese is higher than it was a year ago. I want to say a word about the price of cattle. Starting in June of this year our own consumption of beef was 16 per
3548	HOUSE OF
Eastern Agricultural Policy Lacking cent higher in the two top grades than it had ever been in Canada's history. This increase must have been caused by a very buoyant economy and full employment. Whenever we had 18,000 head of reds and blues in Canada in previous years we went into the export market. Since June 16 we have been consuming almost 22,000 head of reds and blues per week and we have not gone into the export market yet. In other words, all things being equal, our cattle are a higher price than in the United States and we are eating them.
The hon. member said something about acreage payments. I know there were three acreage payments made and they were $200 a farm. A fat lot of good that is to a farmer in western Canada who has a $50,000 investment. In looking at the matter I can see no sound reason for giving this amount of money, having regard to the amount of good it would do the farmer. The thing that the farmers of the west want is empty bins. We were happy and pleased when we were able to sell wheat to China and we were also happy and pleased when we were able to sell wheat to Russia.
I have farmed in eastern Canada and I have farmed in western Canada, and I know what the problems of the western farmer are. I have lain awake at night wondering how certain problems could be resolved. The most important problem facing farmers today is the high capital cost of machinery. This is the thing that needs to be examined more than any other facet of agriculture. In order to devise something, we are going to need everybody's help. I have discussed the matter with the farmers union and the federation of agriculture. I have discussed it with all the provincial ministers of agriculture. I have discussed it with seven ministers of agriculture in Europe, and said that it seemed to me this was one of the problems we must resolve.
If we are going to have the family farm we must have some sort of rental deal whereby the farmer will be able to rent the machinery he needs when he has good crops. This is the most important thing so far as the farmer is concerned. The cost of machinery is what is killing the family farm. The family farm is a most important way of life and it is most important to the consumers of Canada. You only have to go to Russia and see their system and the terrific problems they are having with production, and you will realize that the family farm is number one in importance.
The second most important thing that the farmers need in Canada today is proper facilities, to be able to finance their farms


in order to convert them into proper economic units. The Farm Credit Corporation is very good, but it does not go far enough and the lid should be taken right off. How can you tie down the farmers in western Canada or eastern Canada to $20,000 or $27,000 today when they need $25,000 or $40,000? When I was in Holland they were selling land in the polders to the farmers because they think it will give them the pride of ownership and will help the production of grain and so on. The government of Holland is doing it on a 60 year basis at an interest rate of around 3 per cent so that the land can be handed from one generation to the next. This is one of our big problems.
Our third big problem is crop disasters and taking care of the farmers when they are hailed out, dried out, blown out or frozen out. This is most important, and these are three programs which we must examine carefully. To say that the dairy farmer is not in trouble is not correct. He is in more trouble than any other type of farmer and it will require all our efforts to solve his problem.
In 1958 the previous government raised the price of butter from 58 cents to 64 cents per pound, and now we are subsidizing it at both ends, 12 cents to the consumer and a great deal to the producer. We cannot live with that sort of thing and we must think of some different way to help the dairy farmer.
Our agricultural policy has been put together, spot by spot, ever since 1935. If things went wrong in the maritimes we dumped some money over there, and that was the pattern all across the country. We have to take a long look at our agricultural policy from the Pacific coast to the Atlantic coast.
The previous speaker quoted a lot of statistics but they do not give the true story. The dairy farmer needs help and we must give it to him. The sooner we do it the better, but how can we do it when we waste so much time in this house? The first thing we should do is take a long look at the operation of the dominion government and the way we operate in this house. I have never seen such a waste of time. It is just fantastic. These are the first things we ought to be examining.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, if I might depart from the topic which has been under discussion, I would like to remind the house that today is Thanksgiving day. We all have very much to be thankful for in this great nation, even though we cannot always be thankful for the words spoken in this house. It is well we pause to recognize the fact that we have much to be thankful for in Canada.

When I picked up the Montreal Gazette this morning I was much impressed with the leading editorial, and I would like the privilege of putting part of it on the record. It
says:
At this time of the year-the season of Thanksgiving-many another country of the world used to look towards Canada as a land blessed beyond other lands.
But it is not so that the world today looks upon Canada. People in other nations are wondering what has happened to Canada, what has gone wrong. It has become a country whose hesitations have fragmented its own parliament. It is a country, despite its prosperity, that keeps questioning its future. It is a country full of quarrels and harshness, frantic boasts and foolish words, a country that struggles and sighs, and wonders and doubts.
What, then, has gone wrong, that a country with so much to be thankful for has none the less taken away the picture of strength and good fortune that it once had abroad, and has replaced it by one of dissatisfaction and fret?
Further along in the editorial it says:
The trouble with Canada today is that it may be slipping into the morbid determination to make the worst of all things; and, having made the worst, to look with dark calm upon the most desperate eventualities. What may be fading away is the constructive spirit, the will to build, the desire to save.
These are good words for us to think of here today.
Never has there been reason for any man to suspend Thanksgiving because the times were hard. Rather, he thanked God, took his courage in both hands, and went forward in faith. True thanksgiving has always been the offering of thanks for the hard task that demanded the best that any man had to give. The pioneer, for all his toil and trouble, was a thankful man.
But this may be the heritage that is in danger: the tradition of giving thanks and taking courage. Because we falter in the courage, we fumble in the thanksgiving.
And so the extreme words beget the extreme response. Doubt finds its echo in an answering doubt. Hardness of heart turns other hearts as hard. The narrow view contracts the corresponding vision. The danger is that we may be making a community of doubt, pooling our hesitations, sharing our want of faith.
On such a day as this the giving of thanks searches out the heart of a country and tests its quality. For true thansksgiving can never be a passive thing. It is not the utterance of a static mind. It is the living worship of God by those who are moving forward, with faith and vision, to the way ahead, hoping for better things.
Out of fullness of vision, courtesy of words, and with the wise admission that even faults have two sides, they are resolved to build and not to destroy, to seek and not to give up the search, to hear and not to close the mind.
Nothing in such a country could be so foolish as despair. No people have had greater opportunities laid out before them. This is as near as any land in history to being the Promised Land, a land to which the old biblical words would apply:
"For the Lord thy God bringeth thee into a good land, a land of brooks of water, of fountains and depths that spring out of the valleys and hills; a land of wheat and barley... a land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness, thou shalt not 28902-5-226J
Eastern Agricultural Policy Lacking lack any thing in it; a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose hills thou mayest dig brass."
In such a land, and with such a people, the way must be found to share more fully the great endowment. And the way must be found to share also the inner enrichment that comes through understanding. We have every need and reason to be thankful, for an unhesitating thanksgiving would release creative faith, and make the future worthy of the present.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What were you reading from?


Robert Norman Thompson: I identified it at the outset. It is today's leading editorial in the Montreal Gazette.
Mr. Speaker, having listened this afternoon to the speech of the former minister of agriculture, and thinking back over the years that have elapsed since 1957-58, we find a strange paradox in our midst. Here is a man condemning a government that has been in office approximately six months for conditions which relate to, as he said, 100,000 families in eastern Canada, in conditions that certainly are not those in which Canadians should be living today. This man is placing the blame upon the new government when actually he, and the government of which he was a member, should have done something about those conditions in the years they were in office.
I do not say that in support of the Liberal government, but the fact remains that the conditions he describes so aptly and ably exist because agricultural policies during the last four or five years were totally inadequate to meet the needs of the eastern farmers. To stand up as he has done today, and try to convince the house that it should throw out this government because of his own failure of action, is something that is just a little bit beyond understanding. Eastern farmers, particularly those in Quebec and the maritimes, would never have turned their backs on the previous government had they been satisfied that its policies were adequate to meet their needs.
So far as the farmers' conditions in eastern Canada are concerned, they are totally inadequate for this day and age, particularly considering the tremendous wealth we have in Canada. What we need, and we need it urgently, is a new agricultural policy which will put these people on their feet, which will provide the markets they need, which will put into their pockets the incomes they must have in a way that will not be mere handouts or subsidies and will allow this basic industry-and it is still the basic industry of Canada-to stand on its own feet. I am convinced that the conditions about which the former minister of agriculture, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), talked so glibly, might I say, exist simply because the federal government has not done for the

Eastern Agricultural Policy Lacking
farmer that which should have been done, balance of trade which is existing at this The hon. member spoke about a bill on the time, the fact remains that our international order paper and says it was put there to indebtedness is something over $19 billion, remedy some of these problems. But I would We, the taxpayers of Canada, are paying ask, why did he delay putting that bill on the more than $570 million in interest charges on order paper until his government had been our international debt alone. How long can defeated. That is what happened.	this condition continue?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would permit me to ask him a question. Has the hon. gentleman forgotten that he never even put it on the *order paper; he only put it on the notice paper.


Robert Norman Thompson: The fact remains, Mr. Speaker, that it was not until after the hon. member's cabinet was falling apart and his government had been defeated in the house that he began to talk about policies which the government thought were needed and should be put into effect.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Robert Norman Thompson: Today he blames the present government for the fact that these conditions exist. To bring in an amendment such as that which was placed before us today is just a continuation of the kind of political manoeuvring of which this house has had too much. There is no other reason for its being introduced in this form. If the hon. member thinks that we in the Social Credit party and others are going to be fooled into giving our support to this amendment, he is badly mistaken.
We are involved today in a discussion which relates to the expenditure of money that is collected from the taxpayers of Canada. Since the last election we have already had two tax increases from a government which promised to keep taxes down and to balance the budget. The fact of the matter is that in the few months this government has been in power, the debt of Canada has gone onward and upward, as has the spending of the government.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He is attacking you now.


Robert Norman Thompson: Looking at the supplementary estimates that were given to us the other day, we find that the previous estimates have increased by $74,166,785, making an expected expenditure on the part of the government of $6,864,808,864. No doubt additional supplementary estimates will be brought in before the fiscal year is ended. The hopes of a balanced budget fade very rapidly as the outstanding funded debt rose between March 31 and August 31. The last interim supply gave the government power to borrow more money. Rising interest rates since the war mean that low cost bonds now maturing are being refinanced at higher rates of interest. While we may talk about the favourable


Mr. Remi Paul (Berihier-Maskinonge-Dela-naudiere):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am listening very carefully to the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), but I fail to see the relevancy of his remarks to the motion of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton).
It is the first time that agriculture is mentioned since the beginning of this session, and it seems to me that the hon. member should have enough material to stay within the limits of the debate, instead of talking about the new taxes imposed by the government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say a word on the point of order. This is the first supply motion that has been moved, and there is no desire on the part of the government to interpret the rules narrowly to prevent freedom of speech in the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since when does the government interpret the rules?


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) for his interpretation of the rules, and I would say to the hon. gentleman who raised the point of order that I am speaking to the subject matter that is before us. I am coming to the fundamental reasons for this situation existing, which neither his government, nor the present government are facing up to. As long as we have these conditions we are not giving a fair deal to the farmers of eastern Canada, or western Canada either. I maintain that we cannot continue to bear the tremendous debt load that we have at the present time. Nearly 14 cents of every tax dollar goes toward paying the interest on our direct debt alone. I am not speaking about the international debt when I say this. This is why our monetary and fiscal policies are floundering today. They are floundering because they are not adjusted to the conditions we face in this world of abundance that is centred in Canada. Something must be done to change this situation in order that our agricultural policy or

any governmental policies which relate to fiscal matters can deal with the situation and do the job which should be done.
This is not just the fault of any one party. The Liberals say they aim for a balanced budget. Generous spending makes this impossible. And they know quite well that Canadian citizens are not going to stomach an increasingly higher tax load; certainly they are not going to accept cuts in what we regard as welfare spending. The government which they succeeded was responsible for much of this situation. This is why it is difficult to understand how the former minister of agriculture could have the gall to speak as he spoke in the house this afternoon about these things. One of the biggest blunders ever committed by his government was the refunding of the national debt at a service cost which we are today paying over 60 per cent more than was the case previously.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I think the point taken a few moments ago was well taken, that the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) must limit his remarks to the text and the essence of the amendment now before the house.


Robert Norman Thompson: I appreciate your advice, Mr. Speaker, but as I said before I am coming to the very basic point in my remarks, which is the position in which we are today. I will bring these remarks to a close as quickly as possible. Members of the New Democratic party say in their declarations that there is nothing wrong in this debt- "we would like to have more of it"-even though the laws of compound interest dictate that the time will come when no nation can hope to have an effective monetary policy. This involves putting off until tomorrow some-think which cannot be solved today. That is why we must have in Canada, if the farmers of Canada are to have a fair deal, the opportunity to use the Bank of Canada to finance the sales of our surplus agricultural production. This would give our farmers the opportunity to sell their products at prices which they must obtain in order to remain in the business of farming, in order to give them the necessary purchasing power to raise their standard of living and correct the conditions which we agree should not exist.
I was in New Zealand a few weeks ago, and I was most impressed to find that in New Zealand they are using the reserve bank of New Zealand, which corresponds to the Bank of Canada, to finance the sale of their surplus dairy products at a cost of 1 per cent. This is the very thing about which we have been talking from this side of the house, and which I think is the key to the solution of
Eastern Agricultural Policy Lacking the marketing problems of our farmers in Canada. Instead of borrowing money at tremendous interest rates which impose a further burden on the farmer himself we should be using our own credit, our own resources in the Bank of Canada, as is done in New Zealand, to sell our surplus dairy products.
What would happen if we were to do the same thing in Canada? The farmers of eastern Canada, the farmers of the maritimes, would find their basic problems removed. They could go ahead and set up their marketing boards, which we believe are essential, and they could do so with the assurance that they would be able to sell their surplus production. It is for this reason I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that what must be done in connection with this agricultural problem is to introduce some basic fiscal policy which realistically relates to the needs of the day. This would help us get our surplus production out to the people of the world, particularly to our friends who are waiting for it and who need it. We can talk about 100,000 families in Canada living on standards lower than any Canadian family should, yet perhaps three quarters of the world population lives on standards much lower than that.
What we should be able to say to our farmers in Canada, in the east or the west, is this: Produce as much as you can because, as a government, we are going to give you fiscal and financial policies that will permit the sale of every bit of our surplus production. Then Canada would be fulfilling the role that Canada can play, that of helping to defeat the greatest enemy we have in the world, hunger. Hunger should not exist in the world with today's potential for abundance, when we can produce enough for all the people of the world to have a basic standard of living as it relates to food, yes, and shelter and clothing as well.
This is the challenge that is before us. This is the responsibility that rests on the government. I agree that six months is not sufficient time in which to introduce all these changes. However, unless the government gives assurance it will introduce these changes, that it will face these responsibilities, how can the government hope to hold the confidence of the people of Canada? These are the responsibilities you have before you.
In so far as setting up the two price system is concerned, which will permit us to sell our surplus agricultural production, it is of vital importance to understand that inseparable from it are the financial and fiscal policies that today restrict us and that today place limitations upon us, and place so many of our farmers in the position in which they are. The two price system will

Eastern Agricultural Policy Lacking guarantee the producer at home a fair price for what he can produce and, at the same time, let us sell our surplus production to a world that is starving. Here is the basic flaw in our present system. Here is the thing that must be corrected.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle has spoken about the needs of the eastern farmer. Yes, it is a national disgrace that these farmers are handicapped as they are. I say we are not going to correct their problem, nor are we going to improve the over-all condition of agriculture and trade as it relates to agriculture, unless we face up to the fact that our present financial policies do not permit us to sell. If we adopt proper financial policy we can have the standard of living that all our people should have, not just those in the farming communities.
I am discouraged when I see before us in the house another attempt at political manoeuvring. When the issues at stake are as basic as they are, and when they are as vital as they are to so many people in our country, what we all ought to be doing at this time is pooling our best ideas in order to formulate these policies which this country needs and which the farmers of Canada must have. Instead of doing what we are doing today in the house, we should be sitting together in the agriculture committee working these problems out for the general good of the country.
These are the responsibilities in a minority situation such as that in which we find ourselves. We maintain that this is the responsibility that falls upon all of us. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle thinks he is placing the smaller opposition parties in this house in a very difficult position by moving the amendment he has moved. He has tried to lay the blame for his own mistakes on someone else, and he thinks he has placed us in a very difficult position.
In view of this fact, Mr. Speaker, although it was not our intention to move an amendment to the amendment, I find that it is necessary to do so. I move, therefore:
That the amendment be amended by inserting, following the word "government" at the conclusion of line 1 thereof, the following words, namely:
"in continuing the completely inadequate policies of the immediately previous government", making the amendment, as amended, read as follows: "This house regrets the failure of the government, in continuing the completely inadequate policies of the immediately previous government, to take effective action in regard to eastern agriculture, and in particular with respect to feed grain for eastern Canada and for British Columbia, so as to provide:
1.	Stability of Canadian supply and prices.
2.	Opportunity for expansion of eastern production of feed grain."


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, may I raise a point of order relating to the amendment that has been moved? I should like to bring to the hon. member's attention the fact that he should read his amendment carefully, because I am convinced that the grammatical construction he has used conveys the opposite meaning to the one conveyed in his speech. If hon. members read it they will find he is condemning the government for failure to continue the policy of the former government.


Robert Norman Thompson: No, I think it reads all right. I respect the hon. member for Port Arthur's knowledge of grammar, since he is a school teacher, but I am one, as well.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to speak to the point of order raised by the hon. member, if he will permit me. I can only assume that they do not teach grammar as well as they used to do.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Where?


John Whitney Pickersgill: In Port Arthur.


Robert Norman Thompson: I think we will leave the amendment as it is because the government has failed, in that it has not been introducing the new policies that are required and has continued to follow the old, inadequate ones of the previous government.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that we spoke in this house last year many times about, and raised many questions regarding, the plight of the eastern farmer. We pleaded with the government of the day to do something about providing storage facilities in the east so that during the winter season, when the lakes were frozen, the eastern farmers would not have to pay higher prices for their grain than they had to pay when lake shipping brought it in at a cheaper rate. This emphasizes the fact that the whole policy which has underlined our present agricultural approach is not what it should be. It is inadequate and a change must be made. This change cannot be made until we face up to the fiscal problems involved in giving the farmers of Canada a two-price system which will guarantee them a price for the produce they raise and, second, gives them the opportunity to sell in world markets at competitive prices. This is the two-price system. This is the parity approach which must be taken by the Minister of Agriculture if the government is to meet the real problems which we have in agriculture today.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? How does he relate his present speech and criticism to his publicly expressed opposition to the selling of grain to the Soviet union?


Robert Norman Thompson: I am very grateful to the hon. gentleman from Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) for giving me this opportunity to answer that question. My stand in regard to this is no different from what it has been over the last two years. It is simply that we ought to be relating our trade policies to our foreign affairs policies and defence policies so that we are co-ordinating towards a mutual objective. If we are at the same time bringing in fiscal policies which will make this possible, we would be selling our agricultural surplus to our friends.


Harold Edward Winch: And who are your friends?


Robert Norman Thompson: We would not, Mr. Speaker, be permitting ourselves to build temporary markets on the misfortunes of other countries in the world, which of necessity do not give to our Canadian farmers the security of markets which they should have.
A gentleman asks: "Who are your friends?". That is not very difficult to answer in today's world, which is so clearly divided as it is. One of the greatest markets we have in the world today is within the commonwealth itself. If the commonwealth can be developed along economic lines its future would be far greater than we ever imagined in this world today. I maintain that what we should do in our world policies is to unite us as friends together, so that we use our surplus agricultural produce to the greatest possible effect for the maintenance of world peace and the stability of our Canadian economy.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, arising from what the hon. member has said, I asked him whether he would be selling to his friends and he did not answer. Will he now tell us to whom he would sell? Whom does he call his friends?


Robert Norman Thompson: The hungry people of India, the hungry people of Pakistan, Japan, the millions of hungry people in Latin and Central America who are right on our doorstep. I could go on and name a good many more nations who come within that category, but because our financial policies will not permit us to sell to them they go hungry.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I should like to address a question to the hon. member. Is the hon. member ready to say "Oui" to Mr. Caouette and his friends?


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member who has just taken his seat a question in connection with his reference to the leadership needed in this country. Does he think the Social Credit party could give this leadership, when the
Eastern Agricultural Policy Lacking present leader of the party cannot get along with the other 24 members his party once had?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I submit that that question is not perhaps germane to the matter before the house.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, we have waited for some time for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) to make a speech in this house, and I find it unfortunate that he should make a speech in reply to an amendment moved on this occasion to grant supply. I find it unfortunate because of the fact that we had expected the present minister to outline new policies giving new hope to farmers in all parts of Canada, rather than give the tirade he did. The Minister of Agriculture said during his statement that he would like to challenge someone to milk cows, and I hereby challenge him. I think arrangements could be made at the experimental farm, and anybody who fills a 12-quart pail selected by officials at the farm in the shortest time would be winner. I would be happy to accommodate the minister, even though I have not done any agricultural activity for a long time. I would also be quite happy to help plow some of the fields, if that could be considered too. This may have been an idle challenge, Mr. Speaker, and if it was then I am unhappy about it. If it is not an idle challenge it may produce some interest in agriculture in Ottawa, and allow people to see the experimental farm. If it brought about that result I think it would have accomplished something for some members of parliament.
It is unfortunate that the amendment moved today has been worded in the way it has, for the simple reason that it has produced recriminations, as well as a great deal of harsh language in a political sense, between the two parties. We have heard talk about things the official opposition would have done had they been in office, and because they were not they were not done. The Canadian public, and particularly the agricultural segment of it, a segment which in my opinion has one of the brightest futures of any section of our development, has been waiting for many years for politicians to quit playing around with agriculture and to start doing something for the agriculturists. I am quite happy to admit that the previous government did a number of things for agriculture. Some of them worked, some did not. Some of them were advantageous to the farmer and some were detrimental. I think this government has already done some things for agriculture which have been advantageous, and they may do some more. They will also do some things not in the interest of the Canadian farmer.

Eastern Agricultural Policy Lacking
We have heard a great deal of talk in recent days about sales which have been made. I think the time for politicians to quit playing around with sales of agricultural products arrived a long time ago. The time is long overdue that we cease regarding agricultural sales abroad as plums for one political party or another. Over the years we have developed through the wheat board an agency which has done an excellent job selling our agricultural produce and which has worked within the political confines of the government of the day. It has done an admirable job. The fact that we have sold this wheat is not to the credit of either the Liberal party or the Conservative party. It is to the credit of the wheat board, whose organization has been developed over many years. We should all be very satisfied that such a situation exists and that these sales have been made, because otherwise Canadians in many walks of life would have faced an extremely hard winter this year. But we were fortunate in having a large crop and in finding a market for that crop through the Canadian wheat board, with the result that many thousands of dollars which would not otherwise have been available to the industrial workers and the professional people of Canada will flow into, the resources of. this nation, the result of the efforts of our farmers who produced this wealth at the source.
I believe that agriculture has a bright future, I think it has a bright future despite governments, rather than because of them. We have a terrific potential. Over the years we have been able to increase the production of any agricultural commodity at relatively little cost except for the land and equipment required. How many other nations are able to increase their capacity, to produce by 25 per cent in a given agricultural commodity each 15 or 20 years? Yet we find this happening, and I think this does give us a great future.
As to the present agricultural situation it is, in my opinion, a grim one. Each year the average age of our farmers increases by one year. There are few young people entering the industry. This is a position we had better face. We should be making some provision for the future in terms, of the people who will be needed to make possible the development of our resources in the agricultural field. As all hon. members know, it costs a great deal of money to enter agriculture today. Even in the east a great deal of capital is required to secure a farm which will provide a decent standard of living, in addition to sufficient income for the repayment of a mortgage. I think an investment in the neighbourhood of $40,000 or $50,000 would probably be required. This might not amount

to much in the eyes, of farmers in western Canada who talk in terms of 5,000 acres and the equipment necessary to manage large tracts of land, but if I am right in the estimate I have made, and if it costs a young farmer $45,000 to acquire a farm which would provide him with a decent standard of living, I think he would find it a heck of a lot better to put that $45,000 into some other industry.
In these circumstances it is up to us to stop playing petty politics and get down to helping agriculturists of this country to establish a strong industry, an industry which people will be happy to enter. This has not been the situation under either of the former governments. It seems to me we must establish a more effective way of making farm loans. It is all very well for the government to say that the present arrangement is a success. I think it is working far better than did the old farm credit board. The terms are better, and the training of. the personnel has been improved. But we all know of many applications which have been turned down because, in order to make his venture financially possible, the applicant would have to supplement his income by wages earned off the farm. This moonlighting has caused great difficulties, not only in the field of farm credit but also in the labour sphere, difficulties which are obviously detrimental to the development of a healthy agricultural economy.
This was mentioned by the mover of the amendment. He said that in many areas it was impossible to get work done on the farms. This very situation affects the young people with whom we should be concerning ourselves. If a worker in a town wants to buy a hundred acres on the edge of a town for the sake of becoming a gentleman farmer in a small way, there is no need to design the whole of our agriculture policy around him. Our main purpose should be to design a policy to assist those who wish to enter upon agricultural production on a full time basis. We should make it possible for all such people to farm without having to seek employment outside.
One of the main reasons for the high cost of farm production today is the cost of farm machinery. I sat on the agriculture committee a few years ago when we considered this whole question. I think we conducted one of the most exhaustive studies which has been made of this subject. The former minister of agriculture cannot take any credit for the operations of the agriculture committee under his jurisdiction, because of his failure to implement any of the reasonable demands which were made by that committee for a reduction of the cost of farm machinery. I should like to mention one or two of the

recommendations which we made. One of them had to do with standardization, so that a John Deere tractor could be backed into a Massey Harris implement and tow an International harvester. We wanted the nuts and bolts and other attachments made standard so that this would be possible. We mentioned such things as the removal of cigarette lighters from tractors; such things as having the agricultural implements themselves made more practical and more basic; we referred to the need for having the machines thoroughly tested before they were allowed to reach the agricultural scene. All the members of the committee were united, I think, in the belief that something should be done on behalf of the farmers. But what happened? The cabinet pays no attention to any recommendation which comes from a committee of this house, and in this respect there was no difference between the recommendations which were made by the committee on agriculture or by any other committee, whether set up under the former government or under the present administration. We are doing as much good in the agriculture committee today, despite the fact the committee has not been called, as we were when we sat under the Tories. We are ruled in this country by the cabinet and the representations of backbenchers, particularly in a majority government, do not carry any weight.
The cost of farm machinery is probably one of the major costs of farming in western Canada, and even in eastern Canada the cost of buying machinery to meet the need for automation represents a large part of a farmer's expenditure. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) may not know it, but if a farmer were setting up a dairy farm in eastern Ontario today, milking cows would be a very small part of his job. Fixing the milking machine would be a much more important chore. He would no longer be cleaning the stables with a fork. He would clean them with a very simple but very expensive piece of machinery which would hose them, and still retain the valuable by-product. Every piece of equipment is very expensive, but in this small field of barn cleaners we have not been able to effect an economy.
There are others. We should not go around the country asking the farmers to produce more if we are not willing to sell what is produced. If anybody is to be given credit, I think the former minister of agriculture must be given some credit for at least making a good fight in the export market. It seems to me that we have been able to develop export markets, and I think he deserves some credit in this field because it was his job to make the general public aware of the fact that we need to sell.
28902-5-227
Eastern Agricultural Policy Lacking
I used to be shocked by the attitude of a former minister of agriculture who had something to do with the sale of some of our commodities and who used to say: We have the best products and everybody knows it, so if they want to buy them let them come and buy them. In my opinion this is no way to sell our products, because it has been proven that you have to go out and sell them.
We can produce almost any agricultural product in abundance in Canada. The farmer, if he is given a year or two, can increase by 40 per cent his production of anything he is now producing, whether it be milk or any other commodity.
What are we going to do with these products? We have only one dairy product that we can sell without doing any work. We could sell more Canadian cheddar cheese on the export market tomorrow if it were produced, but the agricultural experts of this country will not ask the farmers to produce unpasteurized Canadian cheddar cheese that could be sold in the United Kingdom market. There is a shortage of that product every year. But what do the agricultural experts say? Produce more pasteurized cheddar cheese, a product that cannot be sold to most of our customers.
We could search out markets for most of our commodities. I think it is interesting to note that when the farmers themselves have had the courage to do this they have been able to assist greatly in the marketing of their products. In my area two or three farmers in two communities have set up community sales barns. This is a field that is very familiar to the minister, and maybe he can give some assistance in expanding it. Auction sales are conducted in these community sales barns, and in my area which is 350 to 400 miles from Toronto I find that the price we get is probably not more than two cents below the Toronto stockyard price.
The minister has been talking about feed grains. He ought to think about this, because our cattle are usually not fattened on grain: They are fattened in the pasture. Oh, yes, in the last few weeks we feed them, but we have many sources of feed available for cattle. We can use green fodder, we can use silage, we can use corn. There are many things that can fatten these cattle. If what is suggested is accomplished, then I suggest that the former minister of agriculture had better take a look around eastern Canada because he may find that the advantage the western producer has of having a product for feeding his cattle readily will no longer be an advantage, and there may not be so

Eastern Agricultural Policy Lacking many people return from western Canada because the situation may change almost overnight.
The same thing has also been accomplished in a small way by the hog producers of Ontario. They have co-operated to sell their products, and have been able to bring about some stability not by asking for government help, not by asking for their share of subsidization, but rather they have been able to accomplish in sales what the government with a subsidy failed to do over a long time.
If anyone will look at what subsidization has cost Canada he will find it is not a small thing. In the annual report for 1962-63 we see that it has amounted to $461 million. This is a sizeable sum of money and a lot of it has gone into butter production. I listened very attentively the other day to the statement the minister made with regard to the consumer subsidy placed on butter in order to sell it. We have tried to give it away. We have tried to store it. We have tried to convert it into oil and we have tried to pay consumers to buy it.
We spent $42 million in the period from April 30, 1962 to March 31, 1963 in this field. What did it do? I am told we are now eating more butter than we ever did before, because it is being used in the soft ice cream field and that a very large percentage of consumer supported butter has gone into hard ice cream. The ice cream in my area is considered about the best in Canada and I know that most of it is produced with the addition of butter under this program.
I suppose it does not matter what you do with the butter. I had a request from a businessman who wanted to buy butter oil for which I do not think there is any reasonable use. He wanted to buy it at seven or eight cents a quart so that he could help the government, pointing out that he would use it in his company to make bath oil. His comment was: "After all, Cleopatra used it, so we see no reason why we cannot buy this stuff at seven or eight cents a quart to make bath oil which the consumer will use, if it is properly perfumed." People talk about what detergents are doing to our sewage systems. I wonder what butter by the gallon draining out of bathtubs would do to the septic tank systems of municipalities throughout the nation?
We have tried everything except selling these products. If the government would take as much interest in selling them as they take credit for every increase that normally comes about by reason of the expansion of population in Canada and the additional consumption arising from increased wealth and a greater gross national product, I think they


would be doing something worth while. The people of Canada are looking to parliament for a long term solution of our problems. The only solution put forward to date, and it will have to stand until something better is suggested, is the ARDA program. I see it is almost six o'clock and I just want to mention that if the government think they are going to be able to do the same thing with ARDA that they did with P.F.R.A. in western Canada, and make it into a political patronage machine, they have got another think coming. I would rather see the ARDA program scuttled in eastern Canada than to see it develop into a monster like P.F.R.A. was in western Canada, in terms of the patronage that has gone with it. I think this is a program that could work but it is not going to work if applied in any political way.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, before the supper adjournment I had mentioned the ARDA program. It is the only long term agricultural program introduced in recent years that would appear to many people, and I am one of them, to present a long term solution for the agricultural problems of the nation. I do not want to see this program turned into a patronage machine like so many others have been, including P.F.R.A. and P.F.A.A., both of which have been used by governments in power to spread political propaganda and patronage. ARDA should certainly be operated at a higher level than that.
When it was first outlined ARDA, according to the resources for tomorrow committee, had three main objectives:	First, to develop
alternative uses for land classified as marginal or of low productivity; second, to develop income and employment opportunities for rural agricultural areas; third, to develop and conserve the water and soil resources of Canada. I do not think any one would disagree with any of these objectives.
The first thing we should do is provide the most effective use for the available land we have, and certainly we do not need to travel far outside of Ottawa to see the abuses to which our land has been subjected. Some 40 or 50 years ago huge timber stands were to be found in the Ottawa valley, but now there are only very limited amounts of Cyprus cedars, where at one time the area was richly productive in white pine. This land will never be really productive again. In most cases the

top soil covering the rocks is too thin to be of value, but where we run into difficulty is in deciding what to do with this land.
Some people say that the land should be turned over to ARDA for development and let the government reforest it, or let somebody manage and operate it in some other way. Others say they should get advantage of it now. They say, "Let us sell our broken down, worn out land and get a good price from the government for it. If I have voted right and know the right people maybe my farm will be the one someone will buy." This, of course, is the political factor involved in any long term program, but I suggest it should not be the guiding factor.
This may not be true of other provinces, but in Ontario many people have been looking on the ARDA program as a new milk cow from which they can get milk in a very easy stream from the federal government. This is not what I contemplate ARDA to be, and it is not what was contemplated by the resources for tomorrow committee. Here is what that committee said of ARDA in regard to provincial co-operation:
All of the provinces have agreed In principle to co-operative federal-provincial action under ARDA. It would appear that three things are necessary if it is to function for the greatest benefit:
1.	That programs be established with adequate consideration for all uses of all renewable resources.
2.	That planning have the benefit of a national survey of the land and its productive capacities under the guidance of members of various professions (the soil scientist, the economist, the plant and animal scientists, the forester, the engineer). This will require a high degree of co-operation between governments and between several departments of any one government.
3.	That local and municipal organizations take the maximum possible action initiative; that they participate fully in planning programs and putting them into effect.
I suggest one of the things that should have happened under ARDA is that a national survey should have been taken to establish all the land of a marginal nature, and to discover what renewable resources could be produced from it. Such a survey might have taken a year or two, but it would have provided the blueprint for the program. Such a survey would involve a lot of work and energy, and maybe the Minister of Agriculture has not got the capacity to organize it; but if we continue to look for day to day projects that will bring votes we will never realize the agricultural potential of the nation. To do that a survey such as this is necessary.
There are a great number of projects under consideration right now that do not fit into the program of a national survey. I imagine that sometime in the next five or six years a government will come out with a scheme for such a survey in order to put ARDA on the 28902-5-227i
Eastern Agricultural Policy Lacking proper track, where it should have been in the beginning, so that we may know what developments should take place, and in what areas, for the greatest benefit of the nation.
It should not matter whether someone is paid for his farm on the basis of reforestation, or whether the farm should be used for grazing, and so on. A survey would establish what is the best land use. I think this is the prime consideration in the success of the ARDA program. What will become of ARDA remains to be seen. There are many Canadians in the rural economy of this country who are not particularly interested in ARDA, because today the average age of the farmer is over 60 and he is not looking for us to plant trees on his farm. He does not really care what happens to the farm across the road. He wants a decent standard of living today in the profession to which he has devoted his life.
I think this is where governments are involved. The farmer can produce whatever the government suggests. I think this has been admirably shown in what has happened to wheat. Probably this is a very fortunate accident, rather than intention. It really is not the government's fault that there was a crop failure in Russia, or that there has been a famine in China for the past three years. These are facts of nature and these sales really cannot be put to the credit of the Department of Agriculture and its officials. We are very fortunate that these events have taken place, as far as our sales of wheat are concerned. I think it behooves us, even in the field of wheat, to design our program so we will know how much wheat to produce and how much our long term markets will require. I think we also have to establish in Canada a large reserve of wheat against the day when there is a need for this reserve in order to keep alive the people of the world. If I were familiar with the Bible I could probably quote the passage that talks about the planning of storage in the early days in Egypt, when they had the wheat stored in their granaries and were able to give it to those nations surrounding them in order to preserve the very life of those nations. We may find ourselves in that position. It may be necessary to survey the needs of the world in relation to the amount that Canada can produce. It will not really do us much good to change much of the agricultural land that we now have that is in reasonable production, until we know what our potential is and what the needs of the world are. Every year there is going to be a greater market for our agricultural produce. I do not know whether the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) can say the same of his department. I am not sure that we are going to need to produce more cars in Canada, or more textiles, than

Eastern Agricultural Policy Lacking we produce today. But I am sure that because of the geographical location of Canada we will need a greater production of agricultural products. The only thing our governments have to do is find out how we are going to dispose of this production.
I think the government is to be commended, both this government and the previous one, in what they have been able to do for wheat. We will not go into the question of why they were able to do it. Let us give them full credit for that. But I wonder what we are going to do with some of the other things we are producing. This government and the previous one have shamefully neglected the milk production industry of this nation. They either know nothing about it or they have not done anything about what they do know. The milk producers came to Ottawa several years ago and asked for the right to blend their price. They came to Ottawa later and asked for the right to put a five cent levy on fluid milk producers and for help in subsidizing the sale of cheese. What did the government do? Absolutely nothing. They waited until there was no need for the subsidy and the problem had already reached the position where the industry itself could not agree. Now there is a need for planning in regal'd to all milk, because farmers producing milk should be given the opportunity of disposing of that commodity at a fair and reasonable price. This has been highly accelerated in parts of Canada, particularly in Ontario, where there are scientific developments in the production of fluid milk and we are producing commodities such as multimilk, and so on, which are cutting into the sales of fluid milk to a great extent. It is true that this is a secondary milk product. It could be put in the class of manufactured milk, but when the end product is reconstituted into whole fluid milk it takes an expert to detect the difference between the two products.
Therefore I suggest that in this field if in no other the government will have to give assistance to the industry. The federal Department of Agriculture should be giving some advice and leadership as to how to solve this particular problem. Why ask the federal government to do it? Mr. Speaker, who is better qualified to assess the needs of the nation than the federal government. What do we find? The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) challenges somebody who may never have been on a dairy farm to milk cows. I ask the house, is that a very high level of debate? I certainly think that Canada is in need of leadership in this field. We have a great need in this area. We will support the Minister of Agriculture in any reasonable agricultural policy, no matter which political party brings it forward; but


I think we have the obligation as a federal government to convene immediately the agriculture committee and sit down and decide some of the answers to these problems affecting agriculture. I suggest that this amendment will be a very small thing in eastern Canada, considering that we have many other problems.
I also suggest that the committee sit down and solve some of these problems, and after hours and hours of working on a particular problem the government has an obligation to the committee to at least listen to its recommendations. If the government says it does not want to do anything about them, let them at least have the guts to have the Minister of Agriculture inform parliament that they are going to disagree and are not giving any consideration to the report of the committee. I have been here for four parliaments and have heard my colleagues continually saying, "What a wonderful thing, these committees. Let us concentrate more on committees". I agree with them, but in view of my experience of the past one might as well save one's time going to a committee meeting, because when the report is made, what happens? It is laid on the table, and I defy anybody to tell me what is done with it, except to store it in the archives for our successors to read and be amused by some of our solutions.
Therefore I appeal to the Minister of Agriculture to give some honest consideration to the problems of eastern Canada. We have always helped those in western Canada to solve their problems, and we in eastern Canada are in dire need of assistance today in the agricultural field. The farmers are not going ahead; they are going backwards. One does not see new farmers today; we take all the old farmers to the cemetery. Farms in my part of the country are left neglected, because no one can go into farming as a young person today and make a success of it. I do not think it is a very creditable commentary on the situation in Canada when we have this need, we have the ability and yet do nothing to bring these two things together and try to effect a solution. It may be, as one member of parliament said, "We have the gravel; we have the cement; we have the water. Why haven't we got the sidewalks?" I think in this case it is not necessary that we have these problems. We spend a great deal of money on other things. We have the know-how, but we need advice and direction, and this we are not getting from our Department of Agriculture, to solve or attempt to solve many of these problems that have been with us for some time and are today crying out for a solution.

Eastern Agricultural Policy Lacking


Mr, Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
You have recognized a representative of each political party and I am wondering whether it would not be proper to extend this courtesy in the house, in order to enable the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) to express the views of our group.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member realizes that every political party, every group will have the opportunity during these two days to participate in the debate.
The Chair recognizes the Minister without Porfolio (Mr. Tremblay), and, when the time arises, the hon. member for Shefford will be recognized in due time.


Gilles Grégoire: So far, each of the political parties has had one representative recognized. It seems to me that it would be only right to recognize the representative of the Rallie-ment des creditistes as well, instead of a second member of the party in power-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not have the impression that the Chair has actually recognized a representative of each party. The Chair recognized four members, and is about to recognize a fifth one, the Minister without Portfolio.


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with sustained interest to the motion brought in by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton). In my opinion, it was quite a performance on his part to succeed in describing so vividly in so short a time the situation of agriculture in eastern Canada.
Such words are not out of place in the mouth of the former Minister of Agriculture whose inaction caused agriculture to deteriorate in the space of a few short years in eastern Canada. Who could have been better chosen than him to stress in the house the lot of eastern farmers whose standard of living is undeniably lower than that of other farmers in Canada?
The first part of his remarks was a normal introduction to the second part of his speech where he tried to prove that the present government did not succeed to improve the conditions of farmers in a few months.
I will come back to that later on but I should like to point out now that the problem facing eastern agriculture is a very concrete one which must be acknowledged before any solution is sought.
Any political measure, either in the field of agriculture or in any other area of public life, must first be based on a precise and accurate appraisal of the situation. First, we
all know what the situation of eastern Canadian farmers is in relation to modern progress. We realize that his standard of living places him in an impossible situation compared to the population as a whole. We see various craftsmen, professionals improving their lot, their financial status, but on the other hand, the farmer living on a small farm does not share in this progress. He is aware of this, he is unhappy about it and he has been crying for help for many years.
And it took a party like ours, a government like ours, to understand the grief of the small eastern farmer.
His grief is psychological. He needs to feel that the government is behind him, and that is exactly what the present government wanted to achieve in introducing here a measure to enable one of its members to occupy another agriculture portfolio. That need of the farmer to see his lot improved, to feel he is supported in a growing economy, is based on a certain fact and an important one, the standard of living of the eastern farmer in relation to that of farmers in the country as a whole.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle gave some figures. I will go over them and I think no one will be able to contradict such a clearcut situation.
Whereas in 1962, the farmers' net income in the whole of the maritimes, excluding Quebec, totalled $901, in Quebec, it amounted to $1,659 whereas in the western provinces, in Alberta for instance, a farmer earned $4,052 and in the prairies as a whole, excluding British Columbia, $4,011.
If those figures are compared with those in other groups, one finds that the eastern farmer, in the maritimes, Quebec and Ontario, finds himself in the most unbearable situation. It is because he feels the need to improve his living standard that he looks for solutions.
How could the government settle the problem of an inadequate standard of living for the farmer by comparison with other groups of the society? It can contribute to increase the price of his products and services or to reduce his production cost.
Unfortunately, it seems to me that we were too anxious in the past to solve the problem of insufficient farm income by granting repeated increases in the prices of products without making allowance for the consequences on the market of that steady increase in support prices.
More and more-and this is a policy the present government must apply-the farmer's production cost will have to be reduced. And that reduction shall come through improving the farmer's efficiency on his farm. In fact, it has been said for a long time that the farmer, on his small farm, does not have
3560	HOUSE OF
Eastern Agricultural Policy Lacking all the necessary technical knowledge to be efficient and place on the market a product which can be compared to those of the larger farm units.
That is why the federal government, in cooperation with the provinces, feels that it is essential to increase the technical knowledge made available to the farmers. In fact, in the whole eastern part of the country, the experimental farm system will soon be completely reorganized; these farms are precisely designed to make available to the farmer all the latest technical discoveries, the most improved products in order to increase his efficiency and therefore reduce his cost of production.
Besides, the farmer's efficiency will improve through a more rational use of farm machinery. In that respect, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) indicated a few moments ago the concern of the experts in finding methods allowing the small land owner to use in a more efficient and economical way the very costly farm machinery which he also needs, but for which he often cannot afford to pay the monthly instalments.
Production cost could also be cut down by the adoption of a new feed grain policy which would make it possible to breed cattle more economically in eastern Canada. I will have more to say about that later on.
An inadequate standard of living is not the only problem facing many eastern farmers.
A second problem is that of income instability. In fact, not only has the eastern farmer a lower income than other Canadians, but his income changes from year to year so that, at one time, he may get into debt for his farm or for his family and then, later on, he finds himself heavily indebted towards lending companies when he has no money to meet his obligations.
This instability has also a psychological effect on the farmer. Living in a world which requires more and more security and finds it in measures of stabilization enacted by the government, the farmer feels insecure owing to the large fluctuations in his income from one year to the other.
How can we help in reducing these fluctuations of income, this instability in the farmer's income? The experience that our fellow farmers in the west have known will have to be tried differently in many fields of production in eastern Canada. During many conferences on agricultural matters, the provinces have agreed to co-operate with the federal government in the establishment of joint organizations for the marketing in an orderly and stable way of various farm commodities produced on eastern Canada farms.


It would be of no avail for the federal and the provincial governments to pass the buck as far as responsibilities in farm products stabilization are concerned. The time when each could, in its own area, attempt to find a solution to the problem is a thing of the past. More and more, we must find methods of co-operation in the area of farm products stabilization. And the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) did set oil that co-operation in a very effective way at the last conference held in Edmonton.
And that co-operation is proceeded with, specially in the east, in order to set up stabilization and price support organizations which will prevent too sharp variations which were so disastrous for our eastern producers in the past.
The third problem facing the eastern farmer is brought about because he feels so destitute in the face of the tremendous resources the economy enjoys in other sectors while he is still at a primitive farming stage and cannot keep pace with the progress all around him.
Would the solution in that field be the isolation of the eastern agriculture in a kind of ivory tower which could bring about some stability except for relations with the rest of the country and even with the rest of the world? I do not think so. Indeed, I think that in the past too much was done to isolate our eastern agriculture from the whole economy of the country and from all international markets.
The benefits of competition must extend to all areas of agriculture, and international markets as well as the whole domestic market must be made increasingly available to those small producers who often find themselves at a loss when faced with the big economic task they have to achieve.
Faced with those three problems, what does the present government have to offer? What achievements has it already got on the credit side and what lead may be expected from it to deal with agricultural problems in the eastern part of the country?
As for the initial step the government has decided to take, there is a resolution on the order paper and the house will soon be called upon to study a measure setting up, within the Department of Agriculture, a double direction.
I do not intend to dwell upon this problem as we shall have the opportunity, while studying the bill, to point out the beneficial consequences that such a double direction will bring about for the eastern producers in general.
The intention expressed here is not to divide but to unite, so as to get a better management of the country's agricultural business. For once, we want the eastern

farmer to feel himself bound to all the other farmers, so that, with two men working together, we may see, for the first time in this country, the agricultural field as prosperous as other spheres of our economy.
With regard to the stabilization policy, more particularly in the dairy field, the house has already been informed, Mr. Speaker, of the significant legislation this government introduced when it came into office, in order to get away from the concept of the former administration, which had to grant perpetual increases for milk and butter, and was left with a considerable surplus on its hands. This government has got away from that concept and tried to find among the dairy produce markets those who would absorb considerable quantities.
We easily discovered-because it had been demonstrated in several years of inertia on the part of the former administration-that we had to turn away from butter and go into the considerable market for cheese.
Our stabilization policy, which has been in force since May 1, resulted in a considerable decrease in butter production and more particularly-as was intended-in the increase of cheese production by approximately 16 per cent, without having to face any surplus problem, because all that production has already been sold abroad.
Such a dairy policy precisely illustrates how to approach a solution of our farm problems which would duly consider the future of our national and international markets while getting away from old concepts of politics, which had been applied for a long time to our farmers.
In matters of education or technical training, what positive steps has this government taken up to now to help the eastern farmer improve his knowledge in agricultural matters?
Reorganization of the education on farming subjects has already been decided on, so that a centralization can be developed within each eastern province and so that such knowledge, contrary to what was done in the past, can be disseminated in all farming areas through the setting up of experimental farms which will continually get their material from those research centres. In turn, they will be in a position to supply the farmers with technical and other knowledge they need to raise the level of efficiency of that production.
I said that this government was more interested in the reduction of farm production costs for eastern farmers than in an artificial increase of the price of those products. It is in relation to such a policy that the present Minister of Agriculture announced a new feed grain policy some time ago.
Eastern Agricultural Policy Lacking
All those who have studied the problems of agriculture in the east know that one of the most expensive items for the farmer is the purchase of feed grain for cattle during the long winter months when the harsh weather makes it impossible to use the grazing grounds.
In order to prevent an artificial rise in price for such feed grain during the winter, we have set up some policies designed first to pay the cost of storing the feed during the winter in order not to penalize those who have to keep large stocks of feed and who, consequently, had a tendency to transfer those higher prices during the winter to the eastern farmers.
That policy whereby storage costs are paid was followed by another which has been announced and will be explained in detail within a few days; it is a new policy to help the transportation of feed grain to eastern Canada.
As we know, this policy was the work of a Liberal administration, of a Liberal government; but it had to be renewed in the light of experience and new problems which faced us. It is because of changes in the methods of transport that the new policy concerning payment of freight charges for grain will be carried out.
This policy will consist in paying the basic price, the price of transport by water, to which will be added, as the case may be, the extra transportation costs by train or by truck, for the basic ports as far as the various areas determined for that purpose.
The result will be: first, to standardize within an area the various prices of grain, and second, to allow fair competition between the various means of transport. We hope that these will help to reduce freight costs on the shipping of these grains to eastern Canada. Finally, a third feature of our grain policy is the establishment of deferred payments.
Contrary to the system which existed under the previous administration, those buying grain at the lakehead would only pay the price which will be in force at the time of delivery, so that the middlemen will not have to take unnecessary chances on account of price variation and, as in the past, to reduce the grain stocks available for eastern farmers.
We want to point out that those three measures, which have already been announced, are not just promises for the future. We believe that they will improve tremendously the price level situation and the variation in feed grain prices in the whole eastern part of our country, and will therefore decrease the cost of production for our eastern farmers.

Eastern Agricultural Policy Lacking
Now, many questions have been asked since the beginning of this session, and also a while ago about the ARDA program. It has been asked whether the present government intends to maintain that program which was introduced by the previous government, following numerous studies initiated in the Senate under the previous government, by a very intensive investigation of the use of land in eastern Canada.
We have always thought and we still think that technical measures must be set up for farmers who live in what is called submarginal conditions, that is farmers who perhaps do not have all the technical and economic means to succeed on their farms, either because the land is not fit for farming or because the markets are too far away, or because the environment is not adequate for a certain type of farming.
We must consider converting certain marginal farms to more profitable uses under ARDA. A program such as the one embodied in ARDA can allow us to set up, in particular areas, efficient programs which will benefit the people living there.
Many important studies concerning redevelopment and rehabilitation must be made before government legislation is enacted. That is why the Minister of Agriculture has urged every province in particular to co-operate with him in carrying out research in various parts of eastern and western Canada, in order precisely to discover within those regions in what manner submarginal lands could be put to better use. Those studies are proceeding satisfactorily and as they are completed, the federal government, in co-operation with the province, will be able to set up very effective programs for the reconversion of those lands so as to improve the standard of living in the areas concerned.
The purpose of ARDA and the Agricultural Stabilization Act would not be achieved if we failed to tackle the problem of credit. We realized very soon, as the Minister of Agriculture pointed out this afternoon, that in many cases the amounts made available to eastern farmers by the Farm Credit Corporation were insufficient to permit the proper development of many undertakings that bring in a high income in various areas. Therefore, officials of the Farm Credit Corporation have been asked to conduct a detailed survey, by region and by type of farming, on those basic needs, which the corporation would have been unable to meet in the past, so that we can adjust to those various needs.
The study is still going on and the Minister of Agriculture will soon be able to recommend changes most likely to help eastern farmers

to renew their equipment, improve their farms and extend their markets for various agricultural products.
As was often pointed out, too much stress may have been put on milk production in eastern Canada. It was a mistake not to show more interest in cattle breeding in the past, considering the vast markets which were to be found in Toronto, Montreal and the other large centres in eastern Canada. It is because of our awareness of the problem that the Minister of Agriculture has set up within his department a special committee which is to formulate a policy concerning livestock breeding in the eastern part of the country and whose recommendations will be forwarded to the house in due time for the improvement of breeding conditions in eastern Canada.
In our part of the country, farmers are looking for more diversified production while a vast market is being supplied, at least in part, through livestock imports. We should, therefore, establish once and for all a policy to promote development in that important sector of agriculture.
All the steps I have mentioned would not have helped solve the problem of eastern agriculture if the Minister of Agriculture and his officials had failed to realize the importance of setting up and maintaining international markets for our various farm products-those of the west which are doing remarkably well, and those of the east. Demand requires contacts with the United States and various European countries interested in buying certain crops they lack while we have surpluses. It is still partly with such a policy in mind that the Minister of Agriculture has visited various European countries, in order precisely to look into the possibility of co-operating in this field and exporting also our different agricultural products on those markets.
Mr. Speaker, this brief sketch of the problems which existed when this government came to power and the action which we have already taken or which are under consideration for the near future, well indicate that this government has no greater concern than to help efficiently the eastern farmer to solve his problems in order that the stagnation which the hon. member for Qu'Appelle pointed out, when introducing his motion and looking back on his administration, may disappear as quickly as possible in eastern Canada.
Finally, I hope that eastern farmers who in the past have felt neglected and powerless in the face of modern economic phenomena, may at last feel for the first time that a Canadian government, their government, is considering their problems and is finding appropriate

solutions. It will thus have contributed to rehabilitate the people who have been so deserving in the past throughout the country and who are only seeking redress. They are asking the state to consider their problems; this is exactly what the present government has done since it came into power and it is exactly what the Minister of Agriculture is doing. I hope that in the very near future, I will be in a position to help him to perform that task and to co-operate with him in the best interests of our eastern farmers.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, my first remarks will be to tell the house that this afternoon, we were very much surprised when we heard a speech from the Minister of Agriculture-and I do not mean the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Tremblay). I would like to refer to an interview the minister had some time ago with one of the most distinguished farm reporters, Mr. David Suderman of the Family Herald. The interview took place on July 4, 1963. I can relate to the house what that reporter had to say in that paper:

In my first and, so far, only interview with Mr. Hays, who is rapidly becoming one of the more inaccessible ministers in the new cabinet, he declared that there were two topics he did not want to discuss, the appointment of two ministers and farm policy.

Mr. Speaker, that is why we were surprised when we heard the Minister of Agriculture make his first speech in this house on a farm matter.
I wish to pay tribute to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) for delivering such a clear and accurate analysis of the precarious situation of eastern farmers.
I had the honour to work in close cooperation with the previous minister of agriculture and I am in a position to assert that he put forward many policies to help farmers in our country. Unfortunately, we were unable to completely carry out the plan we had set out in order to give more help to the farming community and specially to the eastern farmers.
For instance, we brought in important amendments to the Farm Credit Act and let me state here that in a few years only, because of those new amendments to the Farm Credit Corporation, we put more capital at the disposal of Canadian farmers for the improvement of their farms than the farm loan board did during 22 years under that Liberal government about which the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane was so grandiloquent.
Eastern Agricultural Policy Lacking


Vincent Drouin: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: If the hon. member for Argen-teuil-Deux-Montagnes wishes to ask a question when I have completed my remarks, he will have the opportunity to do so, provided he gets permission from his party's whip.
The former minister of agriculture, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, has also to his credit ARDA, which has begun to be applied in co-operation with the provinces. It is the Magana Carta of agriculture, based on experiments made in European countries and also on His Holiness John XXIII's encyclical letter, Mater et Magistra.
In addition, the former minister of agriculture had put on the order paper an important bill concerning the transportation of western grain to eastern Canada, but as soon as a great number of members of the opposition realized that the bill was to help the farmers, the same as other bills, like the one amending the Farm Credit Act and ARDA, they defeated the government.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay tribute publicly to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle for presenting this bill, following many weeks of study, in order to provide an increased income for the eastern farmers of our country.
Mr. Speaker, as previously mentioned by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, 100,000 families receive at the present time an inadequate farm income and they appeal to this government to help them out of their financial difficulties. At the present time, there is at the national level an imbalance which puts confederation in jeopardy. When a group of citizens within a country are at a disadvantage, when their incomes are inadequate, the rest of the citizens are also affected and this contributes to widen the gap economically speaking and even to put national unity in jeopardy.
There is a national imbalance since 43 per cent of the eastern farmers live on marginal or submarginal land; moreover, labour, fertilizer and farm machinery now cost more. The problems are many.
The situation in the dairy industry is unstable. Tomorrow an expert in that field, the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent), will deal with that matter in detail.
Mr. Speaker, I do not share the views expressed by the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane. He spoke about a new policy regarding the dairy industry. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the eastern farmers were happier with the payment of 25 cents per hundredweight of milk to be processed than with the government's new policy.

Eastern Agricultural Policy Lacking
We should keep in mind that from 1959 to 1963, the policy launched by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle brought in nearly $50 million to eastern farmers, and when we asked the Minister of Agriculture No. 1 why the government had abolished that policy, he answered: "In order to save $6 million". That is just to show how much he was aware of the eastern farmer's problem.
The government should not forget that there are problems in the dairy and tobacco industries. I know that several hon. members from Ontario realize that there are several million pounds of cigarette tobacco yet unsold, and an over-production of cigarette tobacco in the province of Quebec. We would like to know what the Minister of Agriculture did when he went to Russia, and elsewhere and also whether he found a way to sell a few pounds of tobacco to pay for his journey, which was financed by Canadian taxpayers.
There is also a considerable decrease in apple sales.
We should, moreover, increase our subsidies to federal experimental farms in the east, and more particularly, in the province of Quebec.
I wonder whether the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane knows that all agronomists are leaving the experimental farm of L'Assomption. I would urge the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays), to better working conditions, if possible, so that agronomists and agricultural technicians remain in the federal experimental stations of eastern Canada to carry on their research work, as the farm revenue is so low there.
Mr. Speaker, I notice that the Postmaster General (Mr. Denis), who is not in his seat, is laughing. I am dealing with an important matter and the Postmaster General should be more serious and listen to what I am saying.
When I was parliamentary secretary to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, we wanted, by all possible means, to draw here, in Ottawa, in the federal Department of Agriculture, many French speaking agronomists and agricultural technicians, because, at the present time, there are very few bilingual experts at the Ottawa experimental farm, under the Department of Agriculture, so that French Canadian farmers whose farming income is very low cannot communicate easily with the federal authorities, and cannot be conversant with the federal acts which could help them to increase their income.
I suggest that the Minister of Agriculture should ask graduates of the agricultural school of Laval University to spend two or three days in Ottawa so as to show them how


to secure a position in the Department of Agriculture for, if we sincerely want our eastern farmers to benefit, if we want them to have their share of the national revenue, it is essential to improve the channels of communication between the federal Department of Agriculture and eastern farmers.
I strongly urge the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane-I see that he has just left his seat, he is probably not very interested in that problem-I urge him to meet the minister of agriculture of the province of Quebec as soon as possible. A long time ago, I spoke about it myself to the Quebec minister of agriculture, in the hope of bringing about a program of crop insurance beneficial to Quebec farmers, particularly to those among them who specialize in a given type of crop; like our tobacco growers for instance.
Our farmers badly need an insurance of that kind; for them, it is practically a question of life and death. They cannot do without crop insurance. Federal legislation is a great help, as it covers 50 per cent of administration costs, and 20 per cent of the premiums paid.
Mr. Speaker, tobacco producers for cigarettes and cigars have invested considerable sums in their business, in order to see it prosper; however, they do not know whether they will be able to recover their capital. Insecurity is nothing new to them, for they have, only too often, been victimized by frost, rain, drought, and so forth.
I would ask the present Minister of Agriculture to hurry up and get in touch with provincial authorities in order to help the farmers of eastern Canada as soon as possible, because his future assistant or colleague does not seem interested in those problems.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Tremblay) made a speech which amounted to a statement of policy. Now, as you know, the hon. member is an economist and some economists remind me of certain psychiatrists. Under the latter's care, the patient often gets worse. And I would not care to see the situation of eastern farmers get worse under an economist like the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane.
As a matter of fact, that is what we are afraid of on this side of the house.
Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane knew his bill would be brought forward in the house soon and that he would probably be appointed minister of agriculture for eastern Canada, during the summer recess why did he choose to go to Malaysia instead of taking this opportunity to visit farmers of eastern Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes, and experimental farms in

those provinces and to knock on the farmers' doors in order to find out all about their problems?
Malaysia is not the place to find out about those particular problems. And newspapermen have taken the minister to task for those very things I am telling him now. In fact, the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane was not being serious. He should have taken advantage of the recess to brush up on farm problems. If he had done so, I am convinced that he would not have made the statement of policy that we heard this evening, when he merely indicated some of the farm problems.
Mr. Speaker, we, on this side of the house, have been aware for a long time of the problems facing the eastern farmer. That is why the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) tackled them and visited the province of Quebec in order to become familiar with them. Following this visit, he had placed on the order paper, a motion providing for an increase in the farmers' income.
Unfortunately, we lost the election and we have not been able to implement that legislation.
Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Agriculture smiles, we find it difficult not to smile ourselves.
However, for the information of the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane, may I give the results of the survey made by the caisses populaires and the welfare agencies of lower St. Lawrence valley.
The farm situation of the lower St. Lawrence valley, where the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane lives, is typical of that in Abitibi and even in Lake St. John district, except for the lake belt.
The brief divides the population into average farmers, small farmers, day labourers living on old farms, settlers and foresters; the first manage to live on $2,000, but what about the others?
And to show you an example of a family of the lower St. Lawrence valley, of Gaspe peninsula, here is an excerpt from the report:
Here is an example from a case considered by the agency:
Family: 2 adults, 9 children.
Animals: 1 cow, 1 heifer, 1 horse, 30 hens, 2 pigs.
Income (Annual):
Family allowances	$ 648
Unemployment insurance	336
Annual wages	900
Sale of fuel wood	30
Sale of pulp wood	360
Sale of animals	300
Other products	200
Premium	8
Total	$ 2,782
Eastern Agricultural Policy Lacking
Expenses (monthly) Food	$ 85
Term	92
Electricity and telephone	6
Clothing	34
Medical care	12
Taxes	7
Car expenses	8
School expenses	4
Miscellaneous	6
Farm expenditures	400
Annual Total	$3,448
In other words, Mr. Speaker, that farm is more than submarginal. It is but an example, but that situation somewhat reflects the farm situation in eastern Canada, and that is why eastern farmers would have liked to see the passage of the bill which was on the order paper when the hon. member for Qu'Appelle was minister of agriculture, for that measure included many advantages.
As a matter of fact, it would have helped the transportation of western grain to eastern Canada and increase the farmers' income.
Mr. Speaker, here are some principles and facts that should be known concerning a mutual assistance policy on feed grain transportation in the east.
1.	There should be uniform and balanced prices throughout the east, so that no grain consumer will be at a disadvantage.
2.	There should at all times be a sufficient and reliable supply of grain available to all, everywhere throughout the year.
3.	There should be sufficient storage facilities available to satisfy the eastern consumer as well as the western producer.
4.	It is a well known fact that water transportation is by far the least costly, but unfortunately seasonal, so there should be reasonable decentralization of storage facilities.
5.	It is expected that by 1975, grain consumption will again increase by 50 per cent. Let us not forget that in 1960 it already amounted to 400 million bushels, 241 million being produced in the east while the rest came from the west. In general, 35 per cent of the feed grain is purchased by hog and other meat producers and two thirds are produced on the farm.
6.	Price fluctuations in different places and at different times represent a great difficulty indeed for producers. An adjustment of these conditions would be an important basic reform.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, there will surely be opposition to these measures in some circles.
It is extremely important that a bill be introduced as soon as possible for the storing of grain and its movement from western to eastern Canada. That would enable the early transformation of a raw material, grain, into finished products on eastern farms.

Eastern Agricultural Policy Lacking
Mr. Speaker, I should like to repeat here what I said recently. According to the Washington bureau of statistics, the United States will have a population of 300 million by 1980 and possibly 350 million by the turn of the century, that is less than 40 years from now. The population of Canada will not be stationary either. Meat consumption goes up as the population increases. As I said earlier, it is always better for a country like Canada to export raw material as fully processed as possible.
Now, when Canada exports a ton of barley, for instance, our economy is richer by approximately $50; in other words, Canada increases its foreign reserves by $50.
On the other hand, if that ton of barley in the raw state, is transformed into pork or beef in the east and the meat is exported, the same ton of barley brings $125 or more and becomes an additional source of income for the eastern farmer, benefiting at the same time to the economy of Canada as a whole.
In addition, if this product is processed in our country, jobs will be provided for the workers at a time when unemployment is a serious problem, and at least $75 per ton will be added to the international monetary fund which is depleted at the present time.
Mr. Speaker, there is no need to deal any longer with the beneficial effects for agriculture in eastern Canada of the legislation introduced by the former minister of agriculture, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, if the house had given him the opportunity to carry it through.
In conclusion, I can think of no better instrument than a measure such as the one we introduced.
First, it would solve the problems of eastern farmers.
Second, it would provide the western producer with a firm market for his feed grain.
Third, that program would have contributed to strengthen the national economy by creating more jobs and permitting the export of a finished product instead of a raw material.
Fourth, that legislation would have contributed to provide for the future, which is the duty of any legislator aware of his responsibilities.
The policy of the present government, since it came into power, has been a failure, including the farm policy. The government has refused to assume its responsibilities.
I have here the 1962 platform of the Liberal party, which is certainly not very different from the 1963 version.
[Mr. Pigeon.1

Here is what we find:
Support of farm income
Improved price support system
Increased consumption of milk products
And a little further on, we read this:
A new Liberal government will initiate a national plan to promote better food habits, including the free distribution of milk in schools.
Mr. Speaker, during the summer recess, the two ministers of agriculture spent almost two months in Europe and Asia instead of approaching provincial authorities in order to arrive at an agreement which would not encroach on provincial autonomy, in connection with the consumption and distribution of milk in schools.
During an interview granted to a well-known newspaperman, the Minister of Agriculture No. 1 stated that he was interested in many things, but that he did not wish to discuss the appointment of two ministers of agriculture and the Canadian agricultural policy.
Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government is a failure and we urge the government to resign and call a general election, in order that, once and for all, the people may return to power a government which will ensure the prosperity of the country.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. member?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Very well, go ahead.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: With pleasure.


Marcel Lessard: Following the hon. member's statement concerning the legislation which the Conservative government had included in its platform last year and which he just mentioned, can the hon. member tell us why his government waited until it was defeated before introducing this bill last year?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I feel that the hon. member is not reporting the facts accurately. The bill was put on the order paper of the house and, the next day, the government was defeated.
Moreover, if the hon. member was intelligent, he would have noticed that the bill appeared in the Votes and Proceedings before the government fell.


Mr. G. C. Lachance (Lafontaine):: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm tell us how many trips he made while he was parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, as parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture, I

represented the minister at the O.E.C.D. meeting in Paris, to discuss agricultural problems, for three days-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency wish to ask a question?


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm said a little earlier that economists reminded him of psychiatrists. Could he tell us where he finds the resemblance?


Rémi Paul: They are both sick.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere has just given the answer.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is rising on a question of privilege?


Guy Marcoux: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Even if I am not a psychiatrist, I feel that, in all fairness for those specialists of the medical profession, it is quite improper to say that they are sick people, and I ask the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere to withdraw his remarks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency that there is no ground for a question of privilege here; I recognize the hon. member for Shefford.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, we listened with attention to the future minister of agriculture for the east, who spoke after the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) who was also, at a certain time, aspirant to the office of minister of agriculture for the eastern provinces.
It is unfortunate that the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm did not, at the time his party was in office, put forward the fine principles that he outlined tonight. In fact, it occurs to me that, in 1958, the Conservatives were holding exactly 208 seats in the Ottawa parliament. They remained in office for six years and the then minister of agriculture, as well as the aspirant minister, who has just resumed his seat, were not able to carry out any of the famous principles advocated tonight by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.
If the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm had achieved only a quarter of what he outlined tonight, surely he would still be in office. In fact, if he is no longer
Eastern Agricultural Policy Lacking in office, it is because he never could translate his fine words into action at the time he had the power to do it; he never could accomplish anything.
We also listened to the remarks of the future minister of agriculture for eastern Canada and we heard him bewail, and rightly so, the fate of the Quebec farmers.
He stated that the Quebec farmers were in an untenable position. This is true. But he said a little later that the situation was merely psychological. Well, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Liberal party can find enough psychologists to settle the problem of the eastern farmers, because up to now, when anyone spoke of agriculture in this house, unfortunately, it was always about wheat. In my opinion, Canadian agriculture has much more significance and embodies much more than the simple matter of wheat, though this, we agree, is very important.
For the eastern farmers, we have butter, cheese, milk, millfeed, and feed grain, which has been mentioned in the house for only about a year.
It must be well remembered that last year, in this house, the then hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Dumont) raised an outcry, and I wish to point it out-he was the first to draw the attention of the hon. members to the fact that in eastern Canada, we have not the privilege of being able to buy our feed grain at normal prices.
I have here before me a bill from a cooperative society of ours, that is the agricultural co-operative society of Granby, according to which they bought-it is an example, by the way-wheat for $3.50 per hundred pounds; the bill amounts to $70.10 for 1,700 pounds of different millfeeds. Well, Mr. Speaker, it means that our eastern farmers have to pay about $4.25 per hundred pounds for millfeeds.
The Liberals and the Conservatives have been in power since confederation and the agricultural problems we have to face today have never been and shall never be solved so long as we do not take the proper and required means to correct these problems.
The farmer, in the twentieth century, is someone who has invested much capital and who face altogether many risks. He has invested capital on cattle, that is a living investment which, tomorrow, may be stricken, perhaps killed by some diseases.
Moreover, the farmers have invested much capital in their crops, which crops are subject to frost, wind, in brief to bad weather, or nature's whims and fancies.
After having ventured so much capital on machinery, crops, cattle, rolling stock and
35S8

Eastern Agricultural Policy Lacking on the land itself, the farmer never knows the price he may get for his own production.
Presently, the eastern farmer in Canada is especially a slave to the trusts. He receives from them what they are willing to drop into his hat.
The farmers do an important job, they pursue a very hard profession, and they have proved it. They furnish a generous and good quality product in the country, but on the other hand, the more they produce, the more trouble they have to live. Why? Because they cannot solve a problem which is not their responsibility; they cannot solve the economic problem which confronts the farmers in our country.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mata-pedia-Matane (Mr. Tremblay), who is said to be the future minister of agriculture in the eastern provinces, made a great statement of principles. He advocated cutting production costs for the eastern farmers. But he did not tell us which means he will use to reduce the prices. He did not say that the eastern farmers may buy wheat in their country at the same prices as the Russians have lately, that is about $1.50 the bushel, which is equivalent to about $2.50 the hundred pounds. Why do the Canadian farmers have to pay about $1 more than the Russians? Because they are presently the subjects and the slaves of the trusts, as I said a few minutes ago.
An election campaign was held last April during which a stable government was advocated. The Liberal party was returned to power. I believe that the people somewhat considered this slogan in returning the Liberal party to office.
Well, Mr. Speaker, a stable government would also mean a stable farm policy, stable prices, for the farmer who, at this time, sees not only the cost of his farm machinery and implements increase from day to day but also the price of meal and feed grain, while the produce he grows and puts on the market, does not increase, in proportion with what he has to buy.
I have here in my hand a copy of a farm paper, La Terre de Chez Nous, of October 2, 1963, which contains a statistical report by Mr. D. E. Grandpre under the title, "La clef des champs" or rather a synthesis of the taxes which farmers have to pay today, as well as the steady increase in taxation in the last few years.
The municipal real estate tax has increased by more than 200 per cent on Ontario farms in the last 13 or 14 years. The total was $13.9 million in 1946, whereas in 1959, the figure had reached $42.3 million. Yet, in the same period, the net farm

revenue was far from having risen in the same proportion of 200 per cent, but only increased by 29 per cent.
Which means that between the increased revenue and the increased taxes, there is a difference of exactly 171 per cent.
Those are the figures quoted by the federation of agriculture for that province.
A survey has also been made in the county of Restigouche-Madawaska, in New Brunswick, on the farmers' plight in that district.
If we glance over to our neighbour in eastern Quebec, we find the same conditions. Some 116 farmers who recently took a part in a survey in the county of Madawaska, unanimously stated that taxation is one of our main problems, if not the most important in their area.
The study was conducted by the federal rural economics division. The main results have just been published in the Farm Economist which is put out by that branch.
I think the Minister of Agriculture knows that publication. He should get some information on surveys made in the county, in order to settle those problems.
In the county of Madawaska, like elsewhere, and perhaps more than in other areas, municipal taxes have risen rapidly during the last few years. Around 1960 they represented 10.4 per cent of cash expenses on the 116 farms covered by the survey.
The figures quoted by one of our farmers give a pretty good idea of the additional charges brought about between 1951 and 1960. In that ten year period, the land tax climbed from $1.75 to $6.06 for every hundred dollars of assessment. The farm of the man I am speaking about, was assessed at $6,900; he paid $480 in land taxes in 1960, that's to say $342 more in yearly tax, according to the given assessment.
Well, in his speech, the future minister of agriculture for our eastern regions said not a word about the taxes, which are steadily going up everywhere. They affect the farmers who still managed to retain some of their assets, but who might soon lose them, because today from every quarter people seem to pile taxes upon taxes on their neighbours' property.
We heard this afternoon the speech of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), the former minister of agriculture. I have here a copy of Le Droit dated November 12, 1962. At that period, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle headed the Department of Agriculture. He was quoted as saying:
The Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Hamilton, stated recently that the milk surplus is getting so large in Canada that strong and positive action will have to be taken to ease the situation.
The minister said that no government wants to force producers to reduce their production, but it is up to the federal government to warn the producers when they should reduce production voluntary or face a cut in support prices.
In other words, the minister of agriculture asked the Canadian farmers to reduce production if they want to enjoy the benefit of support prices for the products concerned. And

I have other recent press clippings concerning the administration of the new Minister of Agriculture. In Le Droit of July 31, 1963, one could read the following headline:
Skimmed milk surplus thrown away.
And again in Le Droit of September 13, 1963:
Our wheat surplus to be sold even at a lost.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I quoted those headlines to point out to the house that the problem facing agriculture today is not one of production but one of distribution. Milk, butter and cheese are needed in every part of the country. Canadians have a great need of a better and more diversified agricultural production.
I have here a press clipping dated September 14, 1963, where it is mentioned that a scheme has been set up in the United States providing stamps for the disposal of agricultural surplus. That scheme is called:
IText]
The food stamp plan-chiefly sponsored by congresswoman Leonor K. Sullivan (Democrat, Montana) and Senator Hubert H. Humphrey (Democrat, Minnesota)-is proving a success, according to the New York Times. A report it carried sharply refuted past predictions that the program would prove a failure.
"A new 'currency' is finding its way into the cash registers of supermarkets and corner groceries," the Times said-
Under the program, a family certified by a local welfare agency can exchange the amount of money it normally would spend on food for coupons of greater value-
In the year ended last June 30, the Times reported, $31.2 million of food at retail prices was purchased by food stamps. Of this total, $18.6 million was paid by the government. Thus, needy families got $1 worth of food for 40 cents.

Mr. Speaker, that plan was applied in the United States. At the beginning, it was criticised and people predicted that it would be a failure. Nowadays, it is realized that the plan was a real success. It enabled the United States to dispose of a part of the farm production and I think it would be a good thing for our government, which so often follows the pattern set by the United States, to get the details of that plan in order to apply it here.
Our farm production is still plentiful nowadays. We have people who are in need, and if the government would set up a system of coupons to enable needy families to exchange them for the sums of money they spend each week to purchase food, a family spending $30 each week on food could obtain $45 worth of coupons. That would mean an increase in food expenditures and an increase in the disposal of our stocks. Then we could sell our products on our domestic markets before
Eastern Agricultural Policy Lacking sending them abroad so that foreign countries might benefit from our abundant production.
Mr. Speaker, I wish that the Minister of Agriculture would be allowed to apply that coupon system. It would certainly help our families with an inadequate income and our farmers would be quite satisfied to sell their production at home.
Mr. Speaker, I call your attention to these suggestions and I wish the Minister of Agriculture would adopt them so that, in a year from now, the farming situation might be changed in Canada and so that the Liberal party would not be in the same position as the Conservative party which was rejected by the people before they could apply their beautiful policies.
I hope that the Minister of Agriculture can put those suggestions into practice as soon as possible, so that our people can benefit from a more adequate farm policy.


Bruce Silas Beer: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased to engage in the debate on the subamendment sponsored by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), and the amendment which was brought to the attention of the house by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton). Following so closely on the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm (Mr. Pigeon), I should like to say that he accused my colleague of speaking only in terms of principles. I think that to have principles on your side is a fairly strong supporting argument to your case. Much better to have principles than to have neither principles nor fact on your side.
As the hon. member for Qu'Appelle was speaking this afternoon I endeavoured to interject to ask a question or two, and I should like the opportunity of prefacing my remarks at this time by asking these questions. I am of the opinion the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) said that if we were to apply $15 worth of fertilizer per acre we could increase our production of beef per acre by as much as $90 or $100 an acre. That was my understanding of what he said. First of all, $15 worth of fertilizer would be a heavy application and would not normally be applied in most of the beef producing areas. But if it were to be applied over 100 acres it would mean spending some $1,500 on fertilizer. Assuming a pound of beef is worth 25 cents it would mean one would have to produce approximately $10,000 worth of extra beef per 100 acres to
3570	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Eastern Agricultural Policy Lacking
achieve the rate of increase of which the hon. member spoke, and I wish to suggest that before presenting such figures as these to the house the former minister of agriculture should check with someone who has had experience in producing beef cattle, because those figures were outrageous; beef producers do not make that kind of extra money by applying fertilizer. I heard someone interject to the effect that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle meant 15 pounds of fertilizer per acre. That would be just as ridiculous.
The other comment I wish to make on the remarks of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle is this: he suggested that the entire Liberal campaign was fought on a lie and that we said the 92 cent dollar was not good for the farmer. I do not believe any Liberal speaker ever said the 92 cent dollar was not good for the farmer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Bruce Silas Beer: I should like to remind hon. members, however, that the reason we had this 92 cent dollar was no reason for pride as far as Canada is concerned, because this was not a planned thing-it was a situation which came about through lack of confidence. That is why we have a 92 cent dollar. I am not saying it was a bad thing in the end. I am saying that the reason we had it was not a source of encouragement and congratulations.
The other point I have to make concerns feed grain. I would not have been the least surprised if the remarks we heard made this afternoon, on this subject had been made by someone other than an hon. member who was formerly minister of agriculture, a man who had held down that important position for a considerable time. At the end of the last parliament he gave notice of a bill which it was intended should come before the house, and I believe he is not in a strong position to criticize a government which came into power on April 8 and which announced a policy on August 22 in respect of which two thirds of the appropriations have already been approved.


John Whitney Pickersgill: April 22.


Bruce Silas Beer: X was somewhat surprised at the wording of the motion which accuses the government of failing to take effective action with regard to eastern agriculture and, in particular, with respect to feed grain for eastern Canada. I should like to recall a comment made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle when he was minister of agriculture. In 1962, he stated in a speech in western Canada that, now the problems of western Canada were resolved, he intended to turn his attention to eastern Canada. Well, if the

minister had paid any attention to eastern Canada prior to the election of June, 1962, he would not have been obliged to turn his attention in that direction during the campaign.
It has been suggested that we should have made much more progress with the legislation we have brought before the house. I venture to say that if this government is guilty of any misdemeanor whatsoever, it is that we have tried too hard. The twenty fourth parliament was dissolved on April 19, 1962. The date of the general election was June 18 of the same year and the writs were all returned by July 18. The twenty fifth parliament met on September 27, and from July 18 to September 27 there are 71 days. This, under the former administration, was called a cooling off period. In the twenty sixth parliament the election was held on April 8, 1963; the writs were returned on May 8 and parliament met on May 16, eight days after the writs had been returned. Now, with 67 legislative days having gone by, we have presented much more legislation than was presented, probably, during a much longer period under the previous administration, during the time when we were told to cool off.
The government has been criticized for not taking effective action with regard to eastern agriculture, and particular attention has been drawn to the desirability. of having a stable price for supplies of Canadian feed grain, and an opportunity for the expansion of eastern feed grain production. I have already indicated that a feed grain policy was announced on August 22. Implementation of this policy will mean that ample supplies of feed grain are to be placed in terminals in eastern Canada before the closing of navigation, and that assistance would be given to the movement of this grain to eastern terminals. In addition, the government proposes to introduce a forward pricing policy which would take much of the risk out of the movement of grain. Thus, the present government has moved much further along these lines than did the previous administration, which was content to follow the policies which were in force since 1941.
I should like to review some of the problems of eastern agriculture-problems, I may say, of which the present government is fully cognizant. Most of us realize that after the last war there was a tremendous increase in mechanization in the industry. Many farms in Canada were not able to use machinery as it became available, but many others found themselves able to use this equipment and were thus placed at a tremendous production advantage. Those which were not were placed at a corresponding disadvantage. I have been in the county of Bellechasse in Quebec and

I have been in New Brunswick. I believe farmers in such areas as these are at a tremendous disadvantage. When we think of agriculture as a whole, we realize that we are being our own worst enemies, because by the use of machinery we have increased our efficiency to a point where 25 per cent fewer farmers have produced 50 per cent more products. We have reached a situation where production per man hour has increased by 70 per cent. In fact, we have increased our efficiency to the point where we are producing more than we can conveniently sell at satisfactory prices. This is the penalty of over-efficiency. The result, of course, in the government's view is that eastern agriculture has to have some special attention. These many areas that I have mentioned have to be taken into consideration. We have to find new land uses for many of these areas, and some real assistance is going to have to be provided whether under the ARDA program or by some other means.
We believe that probably one of the real causes of the problem in eastern Canada was the tremendous increase in the cost of production at a time when farmers' income remained relatively constant. Our incomes have remained fairly constant since 1945, while our production expenses have increased by approximately 50 per cent. Therefore it does not require much of a businessman to realize that the eastern farmer as a result of this phenomenon is going to be placed at a tremendous disadvantage.
I also want to suggest that probably one of the main reasons we were placed at this great disadvantage lies in the fact that the economic growth of the country had slowed down. We had unemployment and therefore we had to discontinue much of our immigration. As a matter of fact, in 1962 more people left Canada than came to Canada. This is an unfortunate situation.
I suggest to the house that probably what Canada needs more than anything else is a buoyant industrial community and business community which will integrate and employ more people in Canada. There is nothing that the farmer needs more than another 10,000,000 mouths to feed, which would enable us to have more of our markets close to home and make us less dependant on export trade. So, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the criticism that has been levelled against the government is quite unjustified and unfounded. I also suggest that the policies that have been put into effect in the comparatively short time that this government has been in power are worthy of the confidence and support of the entire house.
Eastern Agricultural Policy Lacking


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent, Oni.):: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe that all members of the house, whether they represent farming communities and farmers directly or indirectly, are truly interested in the welfare of the Canadian farmer, and truly believe that something must be done to help their lot in the industrial country that we have today. That is why I believe it is unfortunate indeed that we who have waited so long to hear some indication of an agricultural policy from the government had to take the step of moving an amendment to a supply motion in order, by debate, to prod the government, we hoped, into an announcement of a definite agricultural policy.
We were very pleased indeed to see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) rise in his place this afternoon. We thought that at last we would hear what the government proposed in the way of an agricultural policy to carry this country forward. May I say that I think nearly every member on this side of the house was shocked by the speech we heard from him this afternoon. We were literally shocked to hear a minister of the crown refer to a policy outlined by a former minister, in his sincere desire to appraise and put before the government the problems of agriculture, as a bunch of junk. I believe those were the minister's words.
This seems to me a very ill advised remark to be made by the man who is the head of the Department of Agriculture. We have watched this man since he took office. I have a great deal of admiration for him. We have watched his dynamic personality. We have watched the way that he proposes to meet all problems head on. But when he got up this afternoon and gave that very weak and miserable outline of policy we were, as I said before, shocked. But when you analyse the policy and analyse the man you can understand why he would make such a speech this afternoon. This man is a businessman. This man is a salesman. This man can sell; but when he has nothing to sell the result is exactly what we heard today.
We hoped to hear some enunciation of policy by the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Beer). I think the hon. member for Peel is sincere in his position and in his desire to help agriculture, but once again we heard no explanation of policy. We heard a political speech such as we might hear on the hustings. It is unfortunate indeed that government speakers would resort to political tirades at a time like this, when farmers all over the country are waiting for some indication of a policy.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that in July when the hon. member for Peel, substituting for the minister, was invited

Business of the House
by the millers and elevator men of southwestern Ontario to speak to them he did develop his theme with a great deal of painstaking effort. But, Mr. Speaker, his theme was not the grain policy of the country. Rather, it was the official opening on the first day of parliament. When these same gentlemen asked the hon. member for Peel what the policy of the government was on grain, he said it had not been formulated yet and when it was formulated it would be announced to the house and to the people.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre not going to ask what the business will be on Wednesday?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The business as prescribed by the rules.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On Wednesday. The minister might listen.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, I think the hon. gentleman knows of my disabilities.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I had hoped to discuss the business for Wednesday through the usual channels tomorrow and to indicate it at that time. Since I have been asked, I think the government has pretty well decided that we will ask the house to give second reading to the income tax bill.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, October 15, 1963