1964-05-29

PRESENCE IN GALLERY OP PROVINCIAL SPEAKERS

Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I direct the attention of all hon. members to the fact that sitting in the Speaker's gallery today we have Speakers or their representatives from nine of the ten Canadian provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: They are here in Ottawa to attend the two day conference of the Canadian area council of the commonwealth parliamentary association, and I am sure everyone is honoured by their presence today.



PRIVILEGE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a question of privilege so there will be no misconception or distortion by misrepresentation later on as to what took place. I warn hon. members against accepting at face value a report appearing along with a photograph in this morning's Montreal Gazette to the effect that I explained certain matters of public interest to a meeting in the city of Ottawa from a rostrum described as being "draped with a union jack".
I have no objection to the picture, in which I am as attractive as I am usually depicted to be. But I would point out that the flag on the rostrum was the red ensign, though the only portion shown in the picture is that portion of the red ensign which consists of the union jack. With the statement that I had discussed certain issues of public affairs before a fine audience which gave close attention, I am in agreement, but the flag in question was the red ensign authorized by order in council in April, 1945, and continued since as the Canadian flag in general use within Canada and throughout the world.


Hon. Paul Martin (Acting Prime Minister):: I am sure we all sympathize greatly with the
Leader of the Opposition over the pictorial representation of his person which appeared in the Gazette this morning. I think the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -or the Leader
of the Opposition would both recognize the embarrassment to which the Leader of the Opposition has been subjected. But what I rose to say is this. I cannot understand why the Leader of the Opposition should have risen this morning and affirmed to this house and to the country his embarrassment at having had his picture taken alongside the union jack.



AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Russell C. Honey (Durham) presented the first report of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: The question I am about to ask is one that is urgent because it involves the privileges of the House of Commons. I ask the Minister of Defence Production whether it is a fact that the sum of $90,000 has been set aside in his department for the manufacture and procurement of one of the two flags in the resolution, that is the maple leaf flag, before this matter has been discussed by parliament.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: am unaware of this. I would be glad to take the question as notice.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: May I ask a supplementary question. May I ask the Minister of Industry whether his department or any other department of government leaked the information to any manufacturing concern

Inquiries of the Ministry before the introduction of this resolution introducing the three maple leaf design, so that pins, such as the one I hold in my hand, of good quality could be manufactured at a cost of several thousand dollars?
I have a further question, sir. Has the manufacturing concern involved in the production of this pin paid any money to the government for this prior information?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: There has been considerable speculation regarding the design which has been proposed to parliament. I can say with assurance that no money has been received by the Department of Defence Production or the Department of Industry in respect of any information provided by them to any manufacturing concern. I would hope that if the hon. member has any evidence of such a payment by a manufacturer, he would bring it forward rather than by insinuation-


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -endeavour to cast a slur upon a government body of which he is a representative.


Erik Nielsen: I have a further supplementary question for the Minister of Industry. By way of explanation I might say that this pin was in existence eight days ago, well before the introduction into this house of the resolution concerning the maple leaf design. It seems to me in view of what the Minister of Justice said last night-


Mr. Speaker:: Order; the hon. member well knows that this is not the time for speeches. If he has a question he may put it.


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielfe-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister's representative intend to use his prestige and his influence to convince the government, including the Minister of Justice, that Canada should have only one flag and not two, three or four?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that when that proposal is submitted to the house all those matters will be discussed. For the time being I think that questions such as that asked by the hon. member should be considered as an effort on his part to embarrass the government. But the fact remains that it is the hon. member himself who is greatly embarrassed by the step taken by the present government.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question of the Acting Prime Minister. Does he not feel that his government is embarrassing all the people of Canada, including the Minister of Justice, by wanting to give two flags to Canada?


Mr. Favreau:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I was just about to speak to a point of order myself, if I may put it that way. Standing order 39 (1) reads, in part:
-but in putting any such question or in replying to the same no argument or opinion is to be offered-


Mr. Churchill:: Then, Mr. Speaker, will you reprimand the Acting Prime Minister for his extraneous statement?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: We face the same old bunch.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this a real supplementary or is it a continuation of the argument?


Erik Nielsen: I have a valid supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, and I direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. Has the government consulted with the government of Great Britain on the propriety of the Canadian government introducing into the parliament of Canada legislation dealing with the flag of another country, namely the union jack, which is the flag of the United Kingdom and is outside the territorial jurisdiction of this parliament?


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, this question and all related questions will be discussed and dealt with at the appropriate time, and that is when the matter is before the house.


Erik Nielsen: Then may I direct this supplementary question to the Minister of Justice, because I think it is urgent to establish this before the debate on the resolution takes place. Has the government secured a legal opinion on the question of this resolution, dealing as it does with the flag of another country and thus being ultra vires this parliament?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: This is a proper question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is always happy to receive advice. On the other hand the Chair has a responsibility, and under the orders given to me by the house may I recall to the

attention of the hon. member who has just spoken that such questions should not require answers involving legal opinions.


Erik Nielsen: But my question to the Minister of Justice was, has the government secured a legal opinion on the question of this resolution from the law officers of the crown-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Whether the question is direct or indirect it still adds up to the same thing.


Erik Nielsen: With great deference to Your Honour, I am not asking the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Erik Nielsen: If hon. members opposite would cease their howling I would be able to put my point to Your Honour. I am not asking the Minister of Justice for a legal opinion. All I am asking is whether the government has secured an opinion from the law officers of the crown as to whether the action taken in this resolution is intra vires of this parliament. Has the government secured such an opinion?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry; perhaps the hon. member has a greater knowledge of the law than I, but if the answer were to disclose that an opinion had either been given or not been given, and if an opinion had been given, its disclosure involves a legal opinion. Therefore the question is out of order.



PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED AFTER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. I wish to ask him under what authority there is now being flown on the lawn of parliament hill, on a flagpole about 15 feet in length, a large replica of a new and, of course, presently unauthorized flag.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would not wish to answer in a way which would suggest there is not absolute freedom for Canadian citizens in this country-


John George Diefenbaker: On parliament hill?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think parliament hill is part of Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: I now ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs what the government intends to do if the resolution on the flag-on the two flags-is passed by parliament. What course is to be taken by the government?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


John George Diefenbaker: Does somebody say "order paper"? I want parliament to have this information. I am asking what course is to be followed, what steps will be taken then. Will there be an order in council which in turn would authorize a royal proclamation to issue providing that the royal union flag, generally known as the union jack, shall be recognized as the symbol of Canadian membership in the commonwealth and Canadian allegiance to the crown? Is that the course the government intends to follow?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have already indicated that questions of this type will be dealt with at the proper time when this matter is formally before the house. No one knows this better, or should, than the right hon. gentleman.


John George Diefenbaker: That is fine. Now I rise on a question of privilege and point out that this information which is being denied to parliament was given to Premier Smallwood in a telegram. The hon. gentleman gives me a lesson in deportment, yet does not know that in the last two days his own government has given this information to Premier Smallwood. Now I intend to read the telegram which was sent by the Prime Minister to Mr. Smallwood and ask the minister whether parliament is to be pushed aside and the information given elsewhere.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, the right hon. gentleman is now, I understand, about to read a telegram sent by another individual-


John George Diefenbaker: "Another individual"?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am using the right hon. gentleman's language. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a most unusual situation-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I ask you if it is
not clearly established from what the right hon. gentleman has already said that he is altogether out of order.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The right hon. gentleman is out of order in the way in which he is proceeding. If he resorts to the proper course there is a way in which he might be able to put himself in order. I hope he will not mind my making the suggestion. But at the present time he is clearly out of order.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand the
Leader of the Opposition is taking responsibility for the telegram he is about to read?


John George Diefenbaker: I certainly am. I am asking what business the minister has to deny parliament the information which has been given to Premier Smallwood. I read fom the telegram which was tabled yesterday in the Newfoundland house of assembly by Premier Smallwood. It is directed apparently, to Premier Smallwood and it begins:
You have asked me for an explanation of the course which will he followed by the government if the motion is adopted to authorize the government to provide that the royal union flag generally known as the union jack may continue to be flown as the symbol of Canadian membership in the commonwealth of nations and of our allegiance to the crown.
Now here is the significant information which has been denied to us:
The steps which would then be taken would be to recommend an order in council which in turn would authorize a royal proclamation to issue providing that the royal union flag generally known as the union jack shall be recognized as the symbol of Canadian membership in the commonwealth of nations and the allegiance of Canada to the crown.
I am asking the minister why parliament is being denied the information which has been rendered available to Mr. Smallwood.


An hon. Member:: That information was given to parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not think those members down there who are interrupting me have even heard about this. They have not been told. I will ask further questions in this connection after the minister has given his answer and given parliament the same kind of information which, up to now, he has denied should be made available to us.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The right hon. gentleman knows that parliament has not been denied any information.


John George Diefenbaker: Certainly it has.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What I have said today, and what I propose today, is that in accordance with our rules any question having to do with this matter should be discussed when the subject is formally before the house. This is the clear practice, and what my hon. friend is saying does not either abridge or fail to justify the course that is being taken. These questions are being put by my hon. friend not because he wants information but because he hopes by these questions to cause confusion and disunity. That is

his obvious intention and it must be clear that in the interests of orderly discussion we must await the time when the matter is properly before this house.


John George Diefenbaker: I have the right of reply, in view of the gratuitous statements made by the hon. gentleman. He cannot hide behind a smokescreen.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise on a point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: I have the floor, and I am not going to have any interruptions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is speaking to a point of privilege, and I understand that the Acting Prime Minister wishes to raise a point of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is this. I indicated that I did not mind having questions put, but the hon. gentleman has no right to get up and lecture this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are now on
orders of the day, so let the right hon. gentleman put his questions and he will get replies. But I do not want, and I do not propose to take any lectures from him.


John George Diefenbaker: There we have in the clearest terms an indication of the attitude of this government; their divine right. He just finished telling us what we should do, but we are not to reply. "When I ope my mouth, let no dog bark"; that is the attitude of the hon. gentleman.
Now that he is so desirous of giving information, I ask him this. What is the course to be followed? Is the Smallwood telegram a revelation as to what course the government is going to follow or is it not? Will there be an order in council confirming the union jack as one of the two flags of Canada? Is that the government's intention?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot add to what I have already said on this question. I believe this question, and questions like it, should be put at the appropriate time, and when that is done my hon. friend will be given the fullest explanation, an explanation which I believe he now really understands.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the hon. gentleman admit that the confusion is in his own mind and he has no knowledge of this whatever?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It does seem to me that we have had a long discussion. I very much doubt if this was a question of privilege. In any event, the question has been asked and if the answer is not satisfactory, perhaps the adjournment debate is the proper time to raise it again.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the hon. gentleman now, would he table in the house this afternoon this telegram which was tabled yesterday in the Newfoundland legislature, so that parliament may have before it what has been available to a favoured premier?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. gentleman has been so temperate in the question that he has just put to me, and since he has already tabled the telegram-


John George Diefenbaker: No, there is a lot more.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -I will give consideration to this request which has been put in such a friendly and polite manner.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, in all fairness to members in the house I think it is about time some action was taken on these remarks that are made every time I rise to ask a question. You have informed me before that at no time would I be given the opportunity to waste the time of the house. I will insist that this persistent hissing from the opposite side when I rise to ask a question be stopped. I will continue to stand on my rights in connection with this matter and delay. I do not care how many charges they want to make, I am not going to stand for this kind of treatment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member was accorded the courtesy, if I could put it that way, of asking a question. The hon. member must realize that to abuse the Chair is absolutely against the rules, against the customs and against the traditions. Furthermore I must tell the hon. member now that the Chair does not have to recognize a member. This is one particular privilege, thank goodness, given to the Chair.


Malcolm MacInnis: In answer, I may say that I do not mind any interjections or any remarks made while I am preparing to ask a question. However, this continual hissing is an insult to the Chair. If I feel, as a member of the house, that I am being insulted I do not see any reason why the Chair itself should not
Inquiries of the Ministry consider itself insulted. Hemarks or interjections I do not mind, but these continual interruptions that are going on over there, I think it is about time the Chair recognized them.
My supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. He referred to the lectures being given, and that is all I am going to say about that. However, he reminded me that parliament hill is also part of Canada. My question to the Acting Prime Minister is, will all the supporters of the 3,000-odd new flag designs that have been sent forward also be given the privilege of displaying their flags on parliament hill whenever they choose, as is being done today with another design?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that we live in a country where freedom, in the context put by the hon. member, is not being denied to any section of this country.


John George Diefenbaker: It is not? Refer to the minister of citizenship.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the two proposed new flags will be designated as "one for show and one for Joe"?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, that question will be dealt with at the right time.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Last night he told the house that 16 persons in Canada were being detained for deportation purposes, six of whom had been in detention for over 30 days. May I ask the minister whether all these 16 persons have had the benefit of legal counsel?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that any person who is arrested in Canada has the right to be represented by counsel before the court.
Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I should like to reply to the question which was put to me last Wednesday by the hon. member

Inquiries of the Ministry for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) concerning the number of people who are detained in jail pending their deportation.
In various centres throughout Canada, sixteen persons are being held pending their deportation. Six of them have been in custody for over 30 days. In each of these cases, the detention is due either to steps taken by the individual himself or by someone else on his behalf to prevent deportation, or to arrangements being made to secure authorization of the intended country of deportation or to obtain transportation. Two of those people are to be deported Saturday, that is tomorrow. Hon. members will understand that in cases of deportation some time is needed for the normal legal proceedings at which the parties concerned can be represented by counsel, after which there is the right of appeal to an independent board. The government must also secure authorization from the country where the individual will be deported and make arrangements for transportation, even when no effort is made to fight the deportation order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did I understand the minister to say that legal counsel had been made available to all the 16 persons in detention?


René Tremblay: No, Mr. Speaker. I said that anyone had a right to be represented in any court by legal counsel.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask then, Mr. Speaker, why legal counsel was not made available to Eric Hooper?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hooper had a right to be represented by legal counsel. If he did not do so, it was his right.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: May
I put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which may assist the minister in giving the information to the house. While these people were incarcerated were they permitted to get in touch with a lawyer? That is the point. Were they permitted by the police or other authorities to get in touch with a lawyer?


Mr. Deschaielels:: Of course.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You say "of course"-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I did.
IMr. Tremblay.)


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I wonder why the hon. member is asking this question in the house. He knows very well that every person who is arrested and brought before a court has a right to be represented by legal counsel.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister answer why someone was incarcerated in this country for 90 to 100 days without the right to consult counsel?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I asked the minister why Eric Hooper had not been able to get legal counsel. The minister said that such people have the right to legal counsel. I am asking why he was not allowed to exercise that right.


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, that question might have to be answered by Mr. Hooper. [Text]


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister has no right to ask me to ascertain that information from Mr. Hooper. It is the responsibility of the minister to do so. The minister is the one who is responsible for keeping this man incarcerated for 96 days without access to legal counsel-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And without charge.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -and after he has deported the man he says we can ask Mr. Hooper why he did not get legal counsel. I am asking the minister to answer the question.


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I feel that the hon. member has no right to put into my mouth words that I have not spoken in this house. I said that Mr. Hooper was perfectly entitled to be represented by counsel. As a matter of fact, during a ten day period, I believe, Mr. Hooper was asked whether he wanted to seek legal counsel. He was granted ten days precisely to get in touch with a lawyer. A second investigation was held for the sole purpose of granting him this privilege. If Hooper did not want to take advantage of it, I do not think that my departmental officials or myself are to blame.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, does the
minister not think that this man having been kept in custody for 90 to 100 days, an apology

by the government of Canada is in order under these circumstances against such unfairness and injustice?


René Tremblay: We had every reason for keeping this individual in prison during that period, under the Immigration Act, because it provides that, in certain cases where the security of the country or that of its citizens is involved, such an individual should be kept in prison.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, now that the minister has started to give his ideas of the law, is he telling the house that the government of Canada now asserts the right to keep a person incarcerated because of the caprice of a minister?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I am not a bit
surprised to hear the former prime minister talk of the minister's whims where a right is involved which has been committed to the care of the latter by legislation of parliament, to implement the regulations approved by the house.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister has said that a man has this right within ten days, under Canadian law. Is the minister telling the house that Canadian justice is denied a man if he has not the money to obtain legal advice?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker this is a
second issue which is being raised and I do not think that it has any direct connection with the case that we are discussing. In my opinion, the various bar associations of Canada provide assistance to those who cannot afford to be represented before the courts.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I was wondering whether the minister would be kind enough at the next sitting of the house on Monday to give us a report in reply to a question I asked some time ago and with regard to which I told the minister that I would be willing to wait for a reply. My question concerned the detention for over three months of a Greek seaman in London,
Inquiries of the Ministry Ontario, who was held by the department and refused counsel for that period. I believe he has now been deported, but I was wondering whether the minister would give us a report on this matter on Monday.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Give it now.


René Tremblay: I shall be very glad, Mr. Speaker, to bring down that report on Monday.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister this question. Since Mr. Hooper has now been deported, will the minister or his assistants take the trouble to get a report from the counsel Mr. Hooper finally obtained through legal aid and ascertain whether he received any information that Mr. Hooper was not permitted to obtain legal counsel during the 100 days he was in the Don jail?


René Tremblay: The reports are certainly going to appear in the records and I shall be very glad to table them.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am not interested in the files of the department; certainly the department can defend itself. But will the minister take the trouble to contact the counsel who acted for Mr. Hooper; or does he want us to do it, in which case we can debate this question for a long time when his estimates come before the house?


René Tremblay: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that it is my duty to answer.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the minister says it is not his duty to make counsel available and he has told the house that this man had ten days in which to obtain counsel. Statements have been made in the press that the man was denied the right to obtain counsel and that he refused to answer questions until he had obtained counsel. The minister and the Minister of Justice told the house that the man was kept in detention because he would not answer questions. The house has a right to know whether this man actually had the chance to obtain counsel; or was he kept there on the subterfuge that he would not answer questions? I think we have the right to an answer to this question. I would ask the

Inquiries of the Ministry minister to make inquiries from the counsel the man was belatedly able to obtain, as to whether he had the opportunity to obtain counsel and refused that opportunity.


Guy Favreau: On
a point of order, Mr. Speaker, four of the last five questions were formulated in such a way as to assume a set of facts which the minister could not be in a position to ascertain. I say it is against both the standing orders and regulations of this house to make a statement assuming a fact when putting a question. The only questions that are acceptable are those which ask the minister to answer something, such as "Was this man prevented from obtaining counsel?"; but not "Why was this man not allowed to obtain counsel?" That is a statement, and it is completely unfair.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to speak to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the Minister of Justice will recall that I asked that very question. My question was, here we have people incarcerated and did the police prevent them from contacting legal counsel? That was the point the leader of the New Democratic party was making in his question. We want to know whether, in the face of the bill of rights of Canada, these people were denied their right to obtain counsel. One man was held between 90 and 100 days, and we are told that he was faced with a cooked-up charge under the act.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On the point of order that has been raised by the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker, the minister says we are asking questions about which the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration could not possibly know.


Guy Favreau: No, I did not say that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Minister of Justice-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister's point was as to the form of the questions which have been asked. As to the legal form, there seems to be a great deal to be said in criticism of the way in which the questions were asked, but as to the right of members of the House of Commons to inquire into a matter affecting the right and liberty of any citizen, it seems to me that is the overriding consideration and the legality should step aside for the moment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I understood the Minister of Justice to rise on a point of order in which he said that these questions were improper because they were asking the minister-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -to state an opinion regarding something which he could not possibly know about.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I would have been wrong if I had said that. What I said was that it is wrong to assume a fact, thus making a statement, and then ask the minister why did this take place, when we do not know whether or not it did take place.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister is now saying that these questions have been based on an assumption of fact which has not been established. I submit that it is perfectly proper for members to ask these questions, having seen in the press statements to the effect that this man, incarcerated for nearly 100 days, was denied counsel. Surely we have a right to ask the government whether these statements are correct. All we have had from the government is a statement that the man had a right to counsel. We all know he had a right to counsel. We want to know whether he was given an opportunity to exercise that right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: All the minister had to do was say he had been in touch with Hooper or Hooper's counsel, whom he obtained only in the last few days he was in Canada, and that he had been assured that the man not only had the right but had been given every opportunity to exercise that right and had decided not to avail himself of legal counsel. If that is the situation, of course we accept it; but we have had no such statement from the minister, and I seriously doubt that this man was ever given the chance to exercise his right to have counsel.


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, 1 have already answered this question quite clearly I think.
According to the information given to me by officials of my department, Mr. Hooper was interviewed twice between March 16 and March 23. He was told twice that he could avail himself of legal counsel. He appeared before the court on March 23 and he could, at that time, have been represented by counsel.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, was he not told that he was going to be kept in custody until he answered questions?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, according to the information on file, I am not aware that such things occurred.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister look this up and get some full information, rather than the kind of information that he is trying to put before the house today?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I prefer to get my information from my officials rather than from newspapers.


Mr. Peters:: You should be cited for contempt of parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, will the minister look into this question so we can be assured that the injustice, the indescribable injustice, perpetrated here will not occur again? That is what we want to know.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It does seem to me we have had a pretty full discussion of this question. I think the original difficulty started in connection with the translation and a misunderstanding as to the reply of the minister, who answered in French. I think the misunderstanding may have arisen because of the English translation. It does seem to me the point at issue is very important, and I think the minister indicated that he would do considerable research and reply later.


John George Diefenbaker: I want to get that answer from the minister. That is what I am asking him about. Your Honour's idea of the information is exactly what I want, and I want that assurance from the minister in this house, instead of the almost insolent attitude he is assuming.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On the point Your Honour has raised, it seems to me the minister has been asked a very simple question, whether or not officials of his department told this man he would stay in jail until he rotted unless he answered questions. Surely in courtesy to the house the minister ought at least to agree to ascertain whether any officials of his department did make such a statement and, if they did, they ought to be dismissed. If they did not, the minister ought to clear their names in this house by making a public denial.


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say I would be quite ready to try to assess
Inquiries of the Ministry whether it is right that those words were used by an officer of the department, but so far as I know this statement has never been made by any officer of the department. As I say, I would be quite ready to make an inquiry to ascertain whether it is right that an officer of the department said so.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a related question about the right to counsel. Has he inquired into the practice of special inquiry officers notifying people of their entitlement to the right of counsel, and then telling them it is not worth their while having counsel because in effect a decision has been made before the hearing?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member has any factual information in order to justify the type of question he has asked. The question is important, but it seems to me he is assuming a great deal in it.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have had a very wide personal experience in respect to these matters and I know this practice exists. I would like the minister to inquire into it.



ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PENITENTIARY-REMISSION OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice).
Mr. Speaker, before prescription comes into effect and I lose my right to do so, I should like to answer the question put on May 12 last by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) concerning the remission of lash sentences at the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary and the right of the parole board to remit or change those penalties.
Under section 18, paragraph (1) of the Parole Act, the parole board has the right to revoke or suspend sentences to the lash passed under the Criminal Code.
When a request for the suspension or repeal of a sentence to the lash is submitted to the board and the board orders an inquiry, the sentence is usually suspended while the inquiry is in progress. At the conclusion of the inquiry, the board's decision is made known to the warden of the jail where the prisoner who has applied for a remission is held, and the warden must then carry out the penalty of the lash if the board refused to remit the sentence.
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry
During the first 64 months of operation, the board received 24 requests to remit the penalty of the lash. Of these, eight were granted and 16 refused.
The board has received eight requests during the year 1964, four of which came from the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, and they were refused.
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
First of all, I should like to thank the minister for having answered me this year. Could the minister tell the house when the penalty of the lash was last applied at the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly inquire and reply as quickly as possible this time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does the minister not think the time has come to dispense with this brutal relic of a past age, and do away with corporal punishment?


Guy Favreau: That is a question which 1 should like to answer, because I have my personal views on it; but unfortunately I am prevented by one of the rules recently set up by this house from giving a personal opinion, if not a legal opinion, on the matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Has the government given thought to the possibility of amending the Criminal Code in this regard?


Guy Favreau: This is one of the things which the Minister of Justice ought to have under serious consideration.


Some hon. Members:: "Ought to have"?


Guy Favreau: I try to do what I ought to do.



SECURITY PRECAUTIONS RESPECTING PERSONS CHARGED WITH MURDER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lucien Plourde (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice. Does he intend to take energetic measures concerning the detention of murderers in a safe place pending their hanging, in order to prevent such incidents as the one which happened in the Dion case a few days ago, in Quebec city?
IMr. Favreau.]


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I think I know what the hon. member who just asked this last question is referring to.
Evidently, to the extent that jurisdiction may be involved, it is my duty to do so, but as for the fact on which this question is based, I feel this case comes under provincial jurisdiction, on which I have no control whatsoever.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cole (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will have no objection to my digressing from the subject under discussion to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
Following a statement made in Montreal on May 26 last by the right hon. Prime Minister to the effect that decentralization required financial means which would have to be provided under the constitution, does that mean that the royal privileges granted to commercial banks to issue credit will be withdrawn by the federal government?


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member put that question on the order paper.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Could he tell us if the aerial surveys of the islands and territories around James bay, which are scheduled to start next Monday, June 1, are related to the Grand canal project?


Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, could I take this question as notice.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member repeat his question?


Gérard Laprise: Can the minister tell us whether the aerial surveys of islands and territories in the vicinity of James bay,

which are due to start next Monday, on June 1, will be made in connection with the Grand canal project?


Mr. Speaker:: It strikes me this is a question for the order paper.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Could the minister tell us whether he has informed the government of the province of Quebec of his decision to keep the responsibility for northern Eskimos' education, health and welfare, as he announced in Winnipeg on Wednesday, May 27?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am quite certain the hon. member is referring to a press report, and unlike the Leader of the Opposition I do not say that I am not prepared to accept the press report. I have never said that I have been misquoted and I am not going to start saying it now. But in addition to those things which I was reported to have said, I said other things, and I think I was inadequately reported.


John George Diefenbaker: You did not have the picture with it.


Arthur Laing: I did say that for the present it was our responsibility to take care of the education and welfare affairs of Eskimos and that we were negotiating with the officials of the province of Quebec to take over some of those matters which might in the ordinary course of provincial-municipal relations, relate to municipal affairs. But I agree that if the report were exactly as stated, I would have been required to advise Mr. Levesque of a change in our policy, and so far the policy has not been changed.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Pontiac-Temisca-mingue):: Can the minister say how the negotiations are coming along?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, there has been a series of negotiations between my officials and those of the department headed by Mr. Levesque in the province of Quebec, related
Inquiries of the Ministry to the possible use of some of the personnel that the province of Quebec has in the area, and related also to the possible provision of municipal services such as housing, water and electric light.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: A supplementary question. May I ask the minister when the last meetings were held between the federal government and the Quebec government concerning the transfer of the administration of Eskimo affairs to the province of Quebec?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to be held exactly to the day, but my officials have met with the officials of the province of Quebec within the last week.


Erik Nielsen: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I believe it was on March 4 that the minister made a statement in this house to the effect that a commission was going to be set up composed of Canadian government officials and Quebec government officials. May I ask has that commission yet been set up?


Arthur Laing: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not been able to come to an understanding with the province of Quebec with respect to what consultation with the Eskimos means.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of his statement on Wednesday night to the national joint council of the public service that collective bargaining for the civil service must be recognized as one of tomorrow's facts of life, can he say when it will be "tomorrow" for the civil service?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not remember making a statement in exactly those words.
I think I was much more likely to have said today's fact of life.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then can the minister say when this fact of life will become a reality for the civil service?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Just as soon as the procedural details can be worked out and, as I expect
3734	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry my hon. friend knows, they are making considerable progress in that direction.



FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN INTENSIFIED WORLD CRUSADE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yesterday the hon. member for Saint John-Albert asked me about a speech made by Hon. George Hees. I have now had the opportunity of reading this speech, which was sent to me by the hon. gentleman. It is an excellent speech and I commend it to my hon. friends. He asked me whether we were participating in the new and intensified world trade crusade. I draw to his attention the fact that in the month of April, as will be seen from figures released today, exports were up 27 per cent over last year. The figures for the first four months were up by 21 per cent.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: Then I take it from the minister's remarks that there is no truth in the statement that there is a billion dollars worth of trade for the government if they were to go out and get it, and that the government are not going to do what Mr. Hees did in 1961 but are going to remain on the seat of their pants.


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perlh):: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question in relation to an answer he gave a short time ago. I think he referred to an increase of 27 per cent in exports during the month of April. He seemed to have these figures at his fingertips, and I wondered if he also had figures concerning imports. Was there any increase in imports during the same period?


Mitchell William Sharp: The figures for imports are not out for the month of April. This is just the first release. I think they will be up; they have been up substantially. Fortunately exports have been up a bit more.


Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Could he tell us whether the surplus of Canadian exports is due to the devaluation of the Canadian dollar and whether he intends to maintain that policy for a long time yet?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a question for the order paper. In explanation


to the hon. member before he rises on a point of order, I would point out to him that questions should be such as not to raise a matter of policy too large to be dealt with as an answer to a question.


Georges-J. Valade: Then I should like to debate this question at the next opportunity.



ADDRESS BY MINISTER TO U.S. INVESTMENT GROUP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in connection with his visit to New York yesterday by jet star. It is stated in the press that he had talks with United States investment dealers. Would the hon. gentleman tell the house whether he advised them that the restrictive policies of the Minister of Finance and the government are going to be changed, or what was the nature in general of the revelations which he made to the investment brokers?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to assure the right hon. gentleman that the discussions I had with one of the most distinguished groups of Americans I had ever met were most amicable. Relations between Canada and the United States have never been better. I received no particular criticism at that time of any of the policies of the Canadian government.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, after those self flattering remarks on the part of the hon. gentleman would he tell parliament what he was there for? Was he taking the place of the Minister of Finance to secure further investment in Canada by United States investors, or what was the purpose of his visit?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that I was greatly flattered to have this invitation. I have not yet been able to understand why I in particular was selected, but I found a very warm welcome waiting for me for which I was very grateful.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Royal: have a question for the Acting Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the minister convene a seminar where the facts of life can be gently explained to, but not so

as to offend the sensibilities of, the members of the Rideau club?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must suggest-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will see that the question is passed on.


Mr. Speaker:: -to the hon. member that this question is out of order.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Acting Prime Minister can now give me an answer to the question I asked him yesterday with regard to the number of provinces which have replied to the federal request for co-operation in the changes to the constitution to precede the Canada pension plan.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give an answer today but I hope to be able to give it on Monday.



INQUIRY AS TO SUMMER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a noncontroversial question to the Minister of Justice. In his capacity as leader of the house would he tell us whether a date has been set for the summer adjournment of the house?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I feel that the more progress there will be with the work of the house, as is indeed the case now, the least controversial this date will be. As far as I am concerned, I am not in a position to determine exactly when it will be. I think the Prime Minister said he hoped he would be soon able to make a statement in respect to the work of the house and those measures it is most urgent to pass.



FARM CREDIT ACT


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
20220-237i
Export Credits Insurance Act
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Farm Credit Act to increase the authorized capital of the Farm Credit Corporation from sixteen million dollars to twenty four million dollars and thereby to increase the maximum borrowing capacity of the said corporation from four hundred million dollars to six hundred million dollars; to increase the maximum loan limits under part II of the said act from twenty thousand dollars to forty thousand dollars; to increase the maximum loan limits under part III of the said act from twenty seven thousand five hundred dollars to fifty five thousand dollars; and to provide further for certain other changes in connection with the administration and operation of the said act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.


The Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Hays thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-100, to amend the Farm Credit Act.
Motion agreed to and bin read the first time.



EXPORT CREDITS INSURANCE ACT


Mitchell William Sharp: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act to increase from four hundred million dollars to six hundred million dollars the limit of the liability of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation under contracts of insurance entered into under section 21 of the act; to enable the aggregate liability of importers under all instruments guaranteed by or payable to the said corporation to be increased from three hundred million dollars to four hundred million^ dollars; to permit the said corporation to enter into reciprocal arrangements with export credits insurers in other countries for the reinsurance of liabilities under contracts of insurance with exporters; and to provide further for certain consequential changes in connection with the administration of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the resolution carry?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, in taking the stand we have on this and the preceding resolution regarding the Farm Credit Act, we are indicating our regard for the need for action in both these fields. When the government brings in necessary and desirable legislation and places these matters not only on the order paper but brings them before the house, the same co-operation will be continued

Supply-Agriculture
providing the government is prepared to act and to bring these matters forward in a regular and proper manner.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, we have also agreed that debate on second reading of both these measures will be sufficient.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, may I say in the name of the government that we are very appreciative of the stand which has been taken by all parties as to these two measures.


John George Diefenbaker: That stand will be taken on all matters when the government acts with decision.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Sharp thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-101, to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
I.	Departmental administration including the national co-ordinating committee on agricultural services, contributions to commonwealth agricultural bureaux and a contribution to the agricultural economics research council in an amount equal to the contributions of the provinces but not exceeding $50,000, $3,368,900.
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, while I was away from the house the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Agriculture on May 15 again spoke to a matter which I raised initially in the debate on April 24. I will not take much of the time of the committee today, but I think some of the remarks made by both the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Agriculture deserve some comment.
You will recall that at that time an affidavit of Mr. McKay was tabled as sessional paper No. 249, a copy of which I have before me, and the affidavit of Mr. McKay would appear to be at variance with the situation as I described it partly on April 24 and partly on May 7. The Minister of Agriculture said on May 15, as found on page 3311 of Hansard:
I told the house several times that the hon. member's claims-
Referring to myself.
-were entirely without foundation.
He had something to say about the tactics which I employed in introducing this matter

in the committee, and made certain other references about which I will not go into detail at this time. But the interesting portion of the minister's remarks is found on page 3312 of Hansard for that date in the left hand column, where he is reported as having said:
Our investigations also confirmed that neither I nor my officials requested that the contract be interfered with.
That is the contract with Purity Dairy.
I have, however, since May 7 learned of a matter which I did not know on that date but for which I, as the minister, take full responsibility.
This is the important sentence.
This in no way changes any earlier statement...
The matter to which the minister refers as having learned about subsequent to May 7 is the matter of requests made of Mr. Trach to cut the contract from six months to three months. As found on page 3020 of Hansard of May 7, which was well prior to the minister's statement I have just read from Hansard of May 15, he had this to say commencing at the foot of the left hand column:
I now wish to inform him that neither I nor my officials were in any way involved in contracts with the Purity Dairy for the supply of dairy products to the R.C.A.F. station Namao or the army station at Griesbach, and that at no time did I or my officials have discussions with Jacob Trach or any other member of the Purity Dairy firm with respect to those contracts.
Also on May 7 the Minister of Industry, as found on page 3021 of Hansard, said substantially the same thing; that there had been no discussions with Mr. Trach and no attempt at interference with the running of the full term of the contract. The Minister of Industry challenged me on May 15 to produce an affidavit from Mr. Trach. He also did so, of course, on May 7. He questioned my rising in the committee and making statements which he said were utterly without foundation, and on May 15 the Minister of Agriculture referred to the statements as completely false, utterly false and used other similar descriptions. I think "patently false" was another phrase the minister used.
The Minister of Industry went on to say, as found on page 3314 of Hansard of May 15:
...and I challenge the hon. member for Yukon to produce an affidavit from Mr. Trach to the contrary effect. I regret that he has been unable to do this, and perhaps in the light of his inability to do so he will withdraw his remarks.
Sir, I have for the benefit of the committee just such an affidavit, and I am going to read it. While it is perhaps not possible for members to compare the affidavits at this

time, certainly when they have the record before them they will be able to compare Mr. Trach's affidavit made under oath with that of Mr. McKay to see whether in fact I had any justification for raising the matter as I did, not as a charge but as a matter in which I felt the committee should interest itself since it involved the activities of both the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Agriculture. Mr. Trach's affidavit reads as follows:
In a matter of a certain dairy contract between Purity Dairy and defence production and in particular with Greisbach barracks and station Namao.
Affidavit of Trach
I,	Jacob Trach, of the city of Edmonton, manager, make oath and say as follows:
1.	That I am the manager of the Purity Dairy Company in the city of Edmonton and therefore have personal knowledge of the facts deposed by me, except where stated on information and belief.
2.	That Purity Dairy Company, my firm, had and have a contract in reference to milk and ice cream with defence production to supply for a period of six months milk and ice cream to Greisbach barracks and station Namao and which contract was for the months of October, 1963 to March of 1964 inclusive.
3. Late in October of 1963 a McKay of defence production telephoned me at the Purity plant in Edmonton and we had a telephone conversation in reference to the said six month milk and ice cream contract in question.
4. In brief the said McKay said that he had been approached by Ottawa authorities in the department, and at that moment he didn't mention names, requesting that the said Purity contract with defence production be cut to three months. He stated there were certain pressures being applied and because of the said pressure he wanted the Purity Dairy Company to agree to have the contract changed from a six month one to a three month one.
5.	In the same said telephone conversation I, as manager of Purity Dairy Company wanted to know under what circumstances and what legal right defence production had the right to cut our contract from six months to three. I told him this was very disturbing and that I would like to talk to him personally.
6.	In the said conversation an appointment was arranged at the said Mr. McKay's office for some time in November of 1963.
7.	I went early in November 1963 to the said Mr. McKay's office in the federal building, Edmonton, and a discussion between the said McKay and myself took place. There was no one present during this discussion.
In this regard I would refer the minister and members of the committee to paragraph 7 of Mr. McKay's affidavit.
8.	The context of the conversation which took place during the said appointment in November 1963 in the federal building in McKay's office is as follows :
He told me that there were certain elements and certain people who stated that if we did not go for a three month contract (that is to reduce the said six month contract to three) the Depart-
Supply-Agriculture
ment of Agriculture could make it very tough for us. He then referred to the federal Department of Agriculture at Ottawa, and in particular minister Hays. He stated he had instructions that the minister wanted the contract cut. I told him that in our opinion the said department in question could not break the contract as it was in writing and properly executed. He said there was a group of lawyers in Ottawa looking into the validity of the contract. It was just after that he mentioned the said lawyers in question that he said minister Hays, the Minister of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture were going to take the contract from us, or at least reduce it from six to three months. Then he said, "We could, in accordance with instructions from Ottawa, find something wrong with your product, the milk in question. And from this pressure the department would make Purity Dairy Company agree to a new contract or to cancel the one it has." This would force our will.
9.	The said Mr. McKay said, "I do not like to bring this up in reference to having your product declared unfit, but it is my superiors and the Minister of Agriculture in Ottawa that I take my instructions from."
10.	I took it from those said statements of the said McKay that he meant his instructions came from minister Hays, the Minister of Agriculture, and the Department of Agriculture.
11.	Our company did not bow to this pressure and have continued to supply milk and ice cream to both Greisbach and Namao and have since been advised by the said McKay that contracts will be rotated between various dairies when our contract has expired, all of which I verily believe to be true.
12.	I only had one interview with the said Mr. McKay in his office at the federal building where the said abovementioned conversation took place and that interview lasted approximately 45 minutes and it took place in the early part of November. 1963.
Sworn before me at the city of Edmonton, province of Alberta-
Here, Mr. Chairman, I would ask committee members to note the date, to determine whether I had justification for raising this matter at the time I did:
-this 26th day of March, 1964.
This affidavit was sworn before a commissioner for oaths in and for the province of Alberta and it bears the notary's official seal as a notary public in and for the province of Alberta. The affidavit is signed "Jacob Trach".
With the unanimous consent of the committee, should they so desire I am fully prepared to table the document in question.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: These charges, as I stated when I first raised the matter on April 24, were serious indeed. I put it to the committee at that time that the circumstances which I described were based on information that I had, and I took it upon my responsibility as a member of the committee to say that I had made certain that they
,3738

Supply-Agriculture
were not frivolous charges at all. I invited the minister to' give an explanation after investigating this matter, and I said at the time-1 think he will recall this-that I would hope his investigations would exonerate him and his officials. He has made a statement or an explanation on information supplied to him and the Minister of Industry by Mr. McKay, information which committee members will have no alternative but to conclude is at direct variance with the sworn affidavit of Mr. Trach.
For instance, Mr. McKay says that at no time did any discussion take place in his office between himself and Mr. Trach. There is one conflict. I invite the minister to peruse very carefully Mr. McKay's affidavit, and I think he will find it is quite conflicting both within itself and with the affidavit of Mr. Trach. Those circumstances, I feel, should be investigated by the departments concerned, and I think this committee will perhaps come to the same conclusion now.
The minister's explanation on May 15 concluded with his assertion that he wanted to see patronage eliminated in his department and in government. If that is so, why should Mr. McKay say he had received instructions, as he did in his affidavit, from the department in Ottawa to rotate the contracts? This still involves the method of selection. He said it was his practice to award contracts on the basis of the lowest cost. The only way you can get the lowest cost is to invite public tenders; and the practice in the department now is to rotate those contracts, not by inviting public tender calls but by selecting the dairy or concern that is going to supply the milk to these various users. Surely the only way to get rid of patronage in the minister's department is by inviting public tenders when requirements exist for the supply of goods and services to the government. If the minister is really serious and sincere about wanting to get rid of patronage in his department that is precisely what he will do, and eliminate or end this practice of rotating contracts to individuals or individual firms and corporations.
In the light of the affidavit which I have just read into the record and which, as I say, I will table if that is the desire of the committee, I submit to the committee through you, Mr. Chairman, that the information I supplied to the house on April 24 and on May 7 was information that I was fully justified in providing to this committee; and it was not in keeping with the proper usages

of the committee or of the house for the Minister of Industry or the Minister of Agriculture to question my motive in presenting that information to the house.
I took it upon myself, as a responsible member, to put these matters before the ministers, and I did so. Because these two ministers thought I could not substantiate in any way the information I placed before the committee they became all-incensed and made charges about my tactics and my motivations in placing this information before the committee. But I invite the minister again to look at the date of that affidavit sworn by Mr. Trach-March 26-well before I raised the matter on April 24. I invite him too, sir, to reconsider the error of his ways, and when members in all sincerity and seriousness bring irregularities such as these before the committee he should take cognizance of them and not immediately jump to the conclusion, as he did, that there was nothing wrong in the situation I presented to him.
In fact both he and the Minister of Industry, subsequent to April 24 and well before May 15, made complete denials before they had information which would have placed them in possession of all the facts. The minister expressed some surprise to learn that an approach had even been made to Mr. Trach to cut the contract from six months to three months, but he has found out since that this was the fact. I invite him now to scrutinize very carefully what Mr. Trach has had to say under oath, and said under oath well before the matter was raised in this committee.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, we have two affidavits, one by Mr. McKay denying all these things and another by Mr. Trach saying they are correct. My position is that I think the house and all hon. members know what I have said, and I still feel exactly the same way. I am the Minister of Agriculture. I suppose, being a minister, you must expect some of these things. They tell me these things happen. I am not going to argue about it; I am not going to dignify the accusations made by the hon. member with a reply. I stake my reputation in the province of Alberta and the city of Edmonton against those people, and I am quite prepared to let it rest that way. Time takes care of these things.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Elections do, too.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, I would like to get on with the estimates. I want to thank hon.

members for the consideration they have given the Department of Agriculture today in connection with the resolution on farm credit which farmers are very anxious to have and which they need, and also for the consideration given by many hon. members in connection with the debate on the supply motion the first two days of this week.
We are now dealing with the main estimates of the Department of Agriculture, and of course we are going along spending this amount of money. I would hope this afternoon that in view of the fact that we have been dealing with both the supplementary and main estimates for eight days this session- I believe this will be the ninth day-and that we do have two amendments to bills and a new machinery bill coming before the house in the next 30 days, hon. members will consider there will be a lot of time on these measures to have a full discussion on agriculture. There will be lots of time for a full discussion on agriculture on those matters, and possibly today we can get down to the details of the estimates of the department.


Erik Nielsen: If the minister is not going
to dignify the statement I made by replying to it, will he at least tell members of the committee whether he intends to take any action with respect to the obvious conflict which exists between the affidavits of Mr. McKay and Mr. Trach?


Harry William Hays: I have nothing to add to what I have already said.


Erik Nielsen: Then may I quote, sir-


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member has just made his speech, and we have heard from the Minister of Agriculture. We are still on the first item and the hon. member for Yukon will have an opportunity to make another contribution. I respectfully suggest we should give other members an opportunity to participate in the debate. With the co-operation of the committee I suggest that we call on the hon. member for Shefford.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to contribute to the discussion of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. There are certainly many things to be said when discussing our farming industry, and I shall limit my considerations more particularly to the problems of eastern farming.
A few days ago the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) told us that he intended to put an aircraft at the disposal of committee
Supply-Agriculture
members so as to enable them to visit the various provinces and see for themselves on the spot, what the farm problems are in each Canadian province. This suggestion will certainly please several committee members, and at least enable them to study new farm problems which have not yet been brought to their attention.
As far as we are concerned, in eastern Canada, we are quite familiar with farm problems, and when I think that the minister is putting an aircraft at the disposal of the committee on agriculture to make its members aware of farm problems in other provinces, I am reminded of the farmer who was taking a plane for the first time. When the plane was airborne, the farmer went to the washroom. Once there, he saw that there was a poster above the door: Do not use over towns and villages. And the farmer thought to himself: "We are the ones who will get that on the head".
Mr. Chairman, when I consider the agricultural policy, and especially the intentions which were put forward by the Conservatives, during the six years when they were in office-and I must state that several Conservative members said that their party intended to develop a feed grain policy in order to help the farmers of the province of Quebec, but that unfortunately they could not do it because they were defeated and a general election was held-I feel that we must ask the Liberal party to act as quickly as possible so that the Canadian agricultural policy will not be made only of good intentions but will also include achievements. In fact, we must remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and parliament must not be the place where only good intentions are found, but also achievements.
When the Minister of Agriculture tells us that there are no more agricultural problems, that everything is fine, I have no alternative but to ask him a single question, to which I should like to have an answer. How can he explain that bird seed which, last year, was worth 14 cents a pound, cost now 42 cents? That means an increase of 200 per cent, for only one of the grains that the farmer must buy.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to support my remarks with some excerpts from the newspaper La Terre de Chez Nous, which is known as the official publication of the Catholic farmers' union of the province of Quebec, and especially of the French Canadian element in our agricultural class.

Supply-Agriculture
However, before that, I wish to pay special tribute to our Canadian farmers who, to date, have placed a plentiful production at our disposal. They produced eggs, milk, pork, butter, cheese, chicken and broilers in large quantities, as well as various vegetable products, and I feel we should recognize that fact and be proud of it. Indeed, if we profit today by such a varied and abundant farm production, we should be grateful to our farming population, which unsparingly works our soil, which is recognized as very fertile.
As for our farm production, I wish to quote an article which appeared in La Terre de Chez Nous on April 22, 1964. On page 24, we read this:
Plenty o 1 eggs and chickens.
During the first two months of 1964, egg production increased by 5 per cent as compared to the first two months of the previous year. The rate of laying had increased by 6 per cent on February 1 and by 3 per cent on March 1.
For the first two months of 1964, broiler chicken production remained higher than during the same period last year. For the second quarter of the current year (April-May-June), such production is likely to exceed by about 4 per cent that of the second quarter of 1963.
Turkey.
General prospects for 1964: weak to fair increase of numbers in relation to 1963. Up to now, there has been an increase of 5 per cent in incubation of young turkeys.
Turkey meat stocks increase continuously.
All this, Mr. Chairman, goes to show that our farm production increases constantly and that we should commend our Canadian farmers for it.
But on the other hand as our agricultural production increases, we must also consider what income our farmers are getting in Canada, in the province of Quebec and more particularly in eastern Canada.
We must take a look at the income that those farmers who produce so much and so well are getting as a return for their production. And on that matter, I refer once again to the newspaper La Terre de Chez Nous, and more particularly to page 11 of the May 6, 1964 issue:
Fifty per cent of Canadian farmers make less than $2,500 a year.
The proportion of Canadian farmers with an Income over $10,000 a year is only 10.4 per cent. But those who make up that 10 per cent own 23.4 per cent of farmed lands and provide 44.7 per cent of the whole farm production in our country.
That first group of 10.4 per cent is therefore by far the most important as regards agricultural production. That group is also the one which collects the best of government grants such as fixed acreage payments and summer fallow grants, two measures applied to date only In the prairie provinces.

Another group, which offers a striking contrast with the first one, is the group of farmers with a gross income of less than $2,500 a year. That second group involves about half of Canadian farmers.
Now, when you consider our plentiful production and at the same time the statistics and the official reports of the Catholic farmers' union a certain anomaly is brought to light.
At the same time the income of our agricultural people is very low but in the house, there does not seem to be any other way than to offer farm loans to our farmers and to get them more and more into debt.
Again, this morning, a resolution is being moved and in a few days a bill will be put before us to increase the Farm Credit Corporation's borrowing capacity so as to enable them to grant more loans.
The farmers' credit problem is not the only important one; there is also the problem of providing them with the necessary income, proportionate to their production, so that they will be able to meet their obligations concerning these loans. On page 20 of the April 29, 1964 issue of La Terre de Chez Nous, it was stated:
For the first time in the history of this organization, the total amount of loans exceeds $100 million.
According to the figures released by Mr. George Owen, president of the corporation, the total number of loans approved last year amounted to 8,689, for a value of $108,009,100.
In comparing these figures to the previous record of 7,438 loans and $90,924,300 for the fiscal year ended on the last day of March 1963, we find an increase of 16.8 per cent in the number and of 18.8 per cent in the total value of the loans.
Well, it is proposed to make more loans available to the farmers without worrying too much about a farm policy that would enable them to meet their obligations. The Porter commission has also examined the matter of farm loans and here is what it suggests.
I am in complete disagreement with what it suggests concerning farm loans. In one of its recommendations, the Porter commission is advocating the increase of the interest rate the federal Farm Credit Corporation is charging on its loans, that is, that the 5 per cent flat rate be raised to the prevailing rate on the market, which is about 6J per cent. And the commission recommends:
1.	The removal of the 5 per cent ceiling on the interest rate charged by the banks;
2.	The withdrawal of government guarantees as soon as the banks realize the loans are safe;
3.	The increase from $7,500 to $10,000 of the maximum amount of a farm improvement loan granted by a bank. The commissioners noted that the lending rate had remained at 5 per cent since

the Farm Improvement Loans Act was first put in operation 18 years ago.
The commissioners added:
We do not believe that the banks would reduce their lending to farmers if the general mortgage prohibition were removed and the banks were permitted to lend at approximate market rates of interest which would at times exceed the present 6 per cent limit. They might be prepared to lend more freely than at the present uneconomic 5 per cent rate.
Here we have the Porter commission suggesting that, in order to assist our Canadian farmers, the interest rate on farm loans should be raised. Then, they will wonder why it is that with an average income of $2,500 for 50 per cent of our farmers in Canada, with a farm loan which it is suggested to raise to $40,000 with an interest rate of 6J per cent, which will amount to some $2,600 in interest every year on the farm loan, that the farmer cannot meet his obligations. How can he meet them if our agricultural policy is not changed?
In La Terre de Chez Nous of April 15, 1964, page 3, we could read the following:
"Master of our own house". There is an almost ideal slogan for politicians. It could also be a very laudable and even a very sound objective, provided the necessary steps to reach it or at least to get closer and closer to it are taken.
For our farmers, we must recognize that such is not the case and that it is rather the contrary which is shaping up. Indeed, the farmer, because of a continually deteriorating situation and because of the failure of the leaders at the various levels to consider his lot, is less and less the master of his own business. You just have to think about vertical integration in agriculture with everything it implies and the various forms it takes, to realize that farmers are more and more at the mercy of enterprises whose interests are far from being the same as those of farmers, when they are not absolutely at variance.
Moreover, for all practical purposes, government authorities unfortunately ignore or forget altogether the problem of production credit. Indeed, there are certain forms of credit but they consist mostly in financing anew, at each generation, the farmer's property-
When we consider such basic problems as marketing and all related factors, we have the distinct feeling that some of the major officials of the department, who are supposed to look after farmers, consider with nostalgia and regret the disappearance of a regime which enabled them to grant farmers a few favours and to bring them to heel. In some cases, they do everything they can to prevent the regime from dying out.
For the time being, we would like to quote from a speech delivered recently by a former Nova Scotia deputy minister of agriculture which shows that we should open our eyes a little to find out what is happening outside our province before beaming complacently over our situation and our achievements. I quote: "Marketing, said the guest speaker, is the key to farm prosperity. Not production or anything else, but marketing. The speaker also immediately added that, for 20220-238
The late Mr. S. H. Rideout
rather strange reasons, many provincial governments and the government at Ottawa preferred to turn their backs on marketing. They are instead placing more emphasis on the production and the efficiency of those they are calling "production guys'. Such a policy may have its good points, said Mr. Walsh, but it cannot solve the farm problem because the farmer produces everything in abundance and very efficiently." A conclusion is obvious at this time: unless there is a radical change in the concept of the role of the various people responsible for the fate of our agriculture and unless that is truly translated into practice, in spite of the general aim proclaimed for the province, "Masters in our own house", the farmers of Quebec will become more and more "Slaves in their own house".
Mr. Chairman, may I call it one o'clock?


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. As it is one
o'clock, I now leave the chair.

At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, would you rise and report progress?
Progress reported.



THE LATE SHERWOOD H. RIDEOUT TRIBUTES TO DECEASED MEMBER

Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that, on behalf of the Prime Minister, I rise to speak of one of our number who passed away suddenly this morning at eleven o'clock as he proceeded on the Ocean Limited to Moncton in his constituency. I am sure that all members of this house share with me a deep sense of sorrow at the loss of one of our members from New Brunswick, Sherwood Hayes Rideout, the member for Westmorland.
Mr. Rideout was one of the younger and active members of this house. He was born in 1917. During his life he gave much to the public life of his community, his province and to Canada. Certainly, as a member of this house he served his constituents industriously and with sincerity. Mr. Rideout served as a trainmaster on the Canadian National Railways in his home community, and as such he had a special interest in transportation and trade problems of the Atlantic provinces. He was an active member of local 162 of the brotherhood of locomotive engineers. He served as an alderman in his city for two terms and became mayor of Moncton in 1961,
3742	HOUSE OF
The late Mr. S. H. Rideout serving in that capacity until 1963. He was in the house yesterday and many members have told me, since we adjourned at one o'clock, that they had talked with him yesterday.
We are all the losers because of his untimely passing. We remember him as a man of devoted interests who served his country with distinction. But it was not only in the larger sphere of public life that he took part in the affairs of his people. He served them officially and unofficially, and he served organizations such as the mental health association and the retarded children's association. He was a valuable member of this party and we on this side will miss him greatly. He was a friend of all of us. Every member in this house shares my sense of sorrow as I speak of his sterling qualities.
He was a friendly man, a man with a good sense of humour. He was a practical man. We are reminded, as we speak of him in this context, of the words of Goldwin Smith who wrote:
The men who saved the world are those who work by rule of thumb; who do the day's work by the day's light and advance on chaos and the painful dark by inches; in other words, the practical men.
To his family, his wife and his three sons, I extend the sincere sympathy of the Prime Minister, the members of the government and the membership of this house. A good man has left us, but he has left a rich memory of devoted service to his people and to his nation.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I join with the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his expression of heartfelt sympathy of all of us to Mrs. Rideout and to the three sons on the passing of a beloved husband and father. He had served in many fields of public service. He was a kindly man. He was one of those who had a good word for everyone and whose contribution to good works was exemplified in particular by what he had done on behalf of retarded children. I think it was Edmund Burke who said that all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. He was a good man. He did what he could in his day and generation.
He served his city and he served in various organizations for the benefit of his fellow man. He had served here in parliament for a period of years and so earned what to me is the most important element in the parliamentary arena, the respect of those who, not belonging to one party, none the less have a


regard for the sincerity and devotion of others. His life was given to service in a genial, friendly and generous way.
Speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, I extend to the members of the government and to the Liberal party, the sympathy of those for whom I speak. We extend our sincere condolences to his loved ones on the passing of one whose loss will be felt, not only by his family but by his constituents and by Canadians as a whole.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, during the luncheon recess all of us heard with sorrow and regret of the untimely passing of the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Rideout). Although he was only 47 years of age he already had a very considerable life of public service to his credit. He had acted on the county council, on the school board, had been an alderman and more recently mayor of the city of Moncton, and he was a member of this parliament. This is a very enviable public record for a man only 47 years of age, and those of us who had the privilege of meeting him since he came to Ottawa were impressed with his friendliness and convinced that his career held great promise for the future. Now he has been cut off at this early age, and I am sure all of us feel a great sense of regret and loss.
The members of this party would like to extend to the government and all its supporters, to Mrs. Rideout and the members of the family, and to his constituents in Westmorland, our deepest sympathy at the great loss which they have sustained this day.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this party I wish to join with the other members in expressing our very deepest sympathy with the members of the Liberal party and to his family at the loss this morning of the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Rideout). Mr. Rideout came from an area and was mayor of a city which I think exemplify the way in which French and English speaking citizens can live in harmony. I think we must pay tribute to him for the various offices he held, particularly that of mayor.
In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, I feel a very deep personal loss. It may not be well known to the members of this house, but the city of Moncton and the city of Medicine Hat were twinned for the centennial celebrations which are to take place in 1967. During the past few weeks and days the hon. member and I had discussed on many occasions some of the things which we could do as members

of parliament to bring about an intermingling of the citizens of these two cities with a view to strengthening the understanding between the various regions of this country. We had decided that we were going to exchange positions for a day or for a week so that we could learn about each other's constituencies. One of the special reasons for twinning the city of Medicine Hat with the city of Moncton was because of the large French speaking population in that city.
Canada has lost a great citizen, Mr. Speaker, a citizen who could look beneath the surface and who could look into the future and try to work out some of those problems which we as a nation have. I want to say on behalf of the leader of this party and all of the members of this party that we have a very deep sense of sympathy at this time for his family.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, we join with the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Martin) and all the other members of the house to express our deep sorrow upon the sudden death of the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Rideout).
He was a likable and jovial man, and always good-natured.
On the committees I had the privilege to sit with him, I had the opportunity to realize that the Lord had gifted that young member with great talents.
The house will feel for a long time the loss of a man as dedicated and hard-working as the hon. member for Westmorland. It is also a loss for the town of Moncton, which mourns the death of its mayor.
To his afflicted family we express our deepest sympathy upon the death of that model father and exemplary citizen.


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with those who have spoken, and share the sorrow of all members of this house. The news of the sudden passing of our colleague Sherwood Rideout has been a deep shock to all of us. His years of experience as an alderman, as a county councillor and as mayor of the city of Moncton had made him well prepared to serve best the constituents of Westmorland as their federal representative.
Sherwood Rideout was a devoted public servant respected by members on both sides of this house, and he was friendly to each and every one of us. Yesterday he was occupying his seat in this chamber. Later in the day he 20220-238J
Supply-Agriculture
decided to go home and spend a quiet week end with his beloved wife and three children. This morning at about 11 a.m., when the conductor called at his compartment on the Ocean Limited, there was no answer. Sherwood Rideout was dead.
My New Brunswick colleagues wish to join with me in extending our deepest sympathy to the population of Westmorland county, to the citizens of Moncton city, and particularly to Mrs. Rideout and her three children. Members will be interested to know that the funeral services will take place at the First Baptist Church in Moncton at 2 p.m. Monday afternoon. Tentative arrangements are being made to have air transportation from Ottawa leaving here Monday morning to return after the funeral. Any member interested in attending the funeral of our friend and colleague Sherwood Rideout may contact my office later this afternoon for further details.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, as a fellow New Brunswicker and a member from the Atlantic provinces I should like to share in the expressions of sympathy which have been so eloquently expressed respecting the life of service of Sherwood Rideout. He came to this chamber at the same time as I and we shared some of the new experiences which new members have in this place. He was, as has been said, a friendly, a genial and a dedicated person, and we shall miss him.

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



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration including the national co-ordinating committee on agricultural services, contributions to commonwealth agricultural bureaux and a contribution to the agricultural economics research council in an amount equal to the contributions of the provinces but not exceeding $50,000, $3,368,900.
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Chairman, before the noon recess 1 was saying that the farm situation in Canada was not too attractive, in spite of great abundance. I sketched a picture of the years to come and I also dealt with farm loans. I said that what farmers needed to solve their problems was not so much farm loans as an income in keeping with their production, which would allow them to honour their obligations. In this respect, I quoted several articles published in La

Supply-Agriculture
Terre de Chez Nous, the official organ of the Quebec Catholic farmers' union.
I should like to quote another article from the same publication. This way I do not think we can be accused of talking about this and that without consulting the experts. On page 3 of the March 18, 1964 issue, we can read the following testimonial of the general secretary:
Agriculture on the auction block in Ottawa?...
Politicians have short memories. Especially when it comes to election promises. That is a little game which served them extremely well as long as political matters remained under the exclusive jurisdiction of a few people in the know and especially the "election makers".
Because of the political situation at that time, the party now in office in Ottawa was particularly generous with its promises during the last election campaign. The rural electorate whose vote is often decisive had more than its share. That is particularly true for the farmers of eastern Canada who had bared their teeth very menacingly during the last few years and especially during the last months.
It is then that the Liberal party, through Its official spokesman, disclosed on the national t.v. network its policy in order to settle the serious and urgent problem of supply and feed grain prices for the eastern farmers. Even if some measures have been passed in order to prevent a catastrophic deterioration of the situation, a complete fulfilment of that promise has yet to come.
For the information of my good friend from Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette), I must tell him that those are the words of the general secretary of the Catholic farmers' union. I go on quoting:
Another positive promise of the Liberal party made by all its chief leaders to the eastern farmers was to appoint a minister to specifically look after their interests. We do not intend to go over the history of that famous department of agriculture for eastern Canada which created such a sensation during the past months and which stirred up so many conflicting statements.
This is not the first retreat on the part of the present federal government. However, there are limits to retreats, to changes of opinions and to dismissal of promises. It seems that we are just about to reach these limits as far as the representation of eastern farmers' interests in the cabinet is concerned.
A little further, the author says:
But the situation of eastern farmers is too different for them to accept as their only and privileged spokesman a gentleman farmer, who anyhow seems to be not very much concerned with their problems. They do not object to the minister acting as a public auctioneer, but they definitely refuse that their lot should be, so to speak, auctioned off.
Mr. Chairman, it is the general secretary of the Catholic farmers' union who made those remarks and who criticized the present government for not having carried out its two

main promises, that is the establishment of a department of agriculture for eastern Canada and the adoption of a policy concerning the creation of a feed grain agency to facilitate the supply of eastern farmers.
I should now like to quote the article which was published on page 5 of the same newspaper, on April 8, and which reads as follows:
Eastern farmers have had enough of being treated as poor relatives.
The Minister of Agriculture is reported as saying, during a press conference he gave the day before in Winnipeg, that he is dead set against the setting up of a feed grain agency for eastern Canada.
During the past few days, the Minister of Agriculture has been discussing all kinds of farming problems, but he never stated whether he was in favour of a feed grain policy in eastern Canada and I would like him to tell us at the first opportunity whether he is in favour of a feed grain policy designed to help farmers in eastern Canada.
And the article continues:
It appears, taking into account the spirit in which Mr. Hays gave his press conference, that for him, farming problems of western Canada alone matter.
Moreover, the establishment of a feed grain agency for eastern Canada has been widely discussed, according to reports published following the last meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
And I continue:
Yet, during the last general meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.. .a feed grain agency for eastern Canada and British Columbia, they claim it vigorously.
Honourable minister, the farmers of eastern Canada feel they have been treated as poor relatives long enough; what they want, whatever you think about it, is an agency for the east whose duties would be the following:
1.	Administer the aid policy for transportation of the feed grain, flour-mill products and screenings;
2.	Make available storage space for the warehousing of feed grain required by eastern Canada;
3.	Administer the storage subsidy policy;
4.	Advise the government on the import permit policy for feed grain;
5.	Make the necessary studies and give needed advice on policies in respect of feed grain.
That is the five point program submitted by the Catholic farmers' union to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
And the article says further:
Eastern farmers accept to be a guaranteed outlet for western farmers, on condition that their basic rights be observed.
Mr. Chairman, the Liberal team has been in power in Ottawa for more than a year, and it seems to me that we should have seen some concrete results before now in the agricultural field.

For the six years that they were in power, the Conservatives only told us of what they intended to do and I would not like to see the Liberal party in the same position, so that we should have to appeal to the people in order to have our eastern farmers enjoy a favourable policy in the matter of feed grain supply and a marketing policy.
I have here another article of La Terre de Chez Nous. On page 8 of the copy dated May 6, 1964-


Mr. Choquetie:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member allow a question?


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Certainly, Mr. Chairman.


Auguste Choquette: I wish to ask my hon. friend, who shows much interest in farmers, as we also do, whether he is satisfied with a government who appointed a minister responsible for the administration of ARDA, as well as with its policy on feed grain, which procedure at least resolves farming problems in the east?


Mr. Gauthier:: Not at all.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I shall answer this question and it is very easy. If the hon. member wants to speak about rural development, the matter does not specifically concern eastern Canada. It was intended to circumvent the problem, to ignore farmers from eastern Canada, and a new thing was devised, that is, rural development, and this in order not to say that a minister had been given to farmers in eastern Canada.
I appreciate the fact that the minister has problems to solve and that he is especially anxious to solve the agricultural problems of the west, and I particularly consider that a minister for eastern Canada would be still more important.
I have here a poem which was written by a farmer about our parliament and the agricultural policy of this country. This poem was published in La Terre de Chez Nous of May 6, 1964, on page 8:



HOMMAGE AU PARLEMENT -1-

[Stage Direction]
Le Peuple tous les quatre ans Elit au Parlement Des hommes qualifies Pour nous representer.
Rendu A Ottawa On se croise les bras C'est pour mieux ecouter Les ordres des financiers.
Mais il nous faut bien faire Quelques choses pour piaire
Supply-Agriculture Afin que le peuple croit Que nous sommes des rois.
Afin de piaire aux gros On leur fait des cadeaux C'est pour mieux s'attirer Les faveurs d6sirees.
Pour se bien satisfaire On remonte les salaires Dix-huit mille par annee C'est 1& notre estimee.
On augmente les impQts La presse y fait 6eho C'est le coup de gSnie D'un ministire pourri.
Aux mllliers de chomeurs On promet du labeur Afin des empt'cher De ne pas se rfevolter.
Tous les grands Quotidiens Chantent sur le mSme refrain De mSme que sur les ondes Ce n'est que des mensonges.
Ce sont les banques a charte Qui sont maitres des piastres Devant ces grandes vedettes Le pays s'hypotheque.
Des ressources naturelles On donne les mamelles A la grosse industrie Qui tire tous les profits.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that those few verses give a fairly good idea of the situation of agriculture in Canada.
Dealing with agricultural problems on page 9 of its May 20, 1964 issue, La Terre de Chez Nous states that, the farmer is being victimized by speculators and that there is nothing in the policies of the Liberal government to limit or to end such activities.
Nowadays, there is speculation on the wheat a farmer must buy, on the hogs he must sell, on eggs, milk, cheese-
Lucien Lamoureux: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time is over.


Mr. Jorgenson:: Mr. Chairman, before
beginning my remarks related to the estimates of the Department of Agriculture let me express my sorrow and regret at the passing of one of the members of the Liberal party, the late hon. member for Westmorland, whom I knew but briefly but found to be one of the most friendly and sincere people I have had the pleasure of knowing. I am sure I speak for everyone on this side

Supply-Agriculture
of the chamber when I say, as our leader has said, that we shall miss him very much.
I want to assure the minister that there is no desire on the part of the members of this party to delay unduly the passing of his estimates. However, at the same time I am sure he will realize that we have an obligation and a responsibility as members of parliament to offer our suggestions and indeed our criticisms as well as subjecting the estimates of his department to that careful examination that is required of us at these times. The minister mentioned that we had already spent nine days on the estimates and I think this impression should be corrected. He lumped in the supplementary estimates with the main estimates. Of course we all recall what happened during the course of the debate on the supplementary estimates. I think the minister knows full well that had they come clean with us at that time, had they answered the fears that we expressed during the course of that debate, the estimates would have passed in considerably less time than they did. As it turned out, the examination that was carried on under the auspices of the Minister fo Justice revealed without any doubt at all that there was some question as to the legality of the actions that were taken during the period when there was a transfer of responsibilities; and the fact that a special order in council had to be passed to ratify the actions that had been taken was, to us, sufficient justification for the prolonged debate at that time. Our experience, also, has been that any estimates or policies of this government require careful examination.
During the introduction of the minister's estimates to the committee he dwelt at some length on the work that has been done in so far as production research is concerned. Certainly we on this side of the chamber are well aware of the need for production research, efforts to reduce the costs of production and to provide better varieties of crops suitable to the growing conditions that exist here in Canada. But he said nothing about a matter that we feel is very much related to the question of production research, and that is marketing research. To proceed apace with production research without carrying on the kind of marketing research that is necessary to dispose of the increased production that will result is simply asking the farmers to run faster but to stay in the same place. I would suggest to the minister, in keeping with the promises the Liberal party made during the election campaign, that some con-

siderable effort needs to be spent on the question of marketing research, and I would like to hear him say something about that matter as we proceed with the estimates.
He also quoted with some relish the cash income figures for agriculture during the past year. Admittedly the cash income figures look very appealing, but 1 cannot understand the reluctance on the part of the government in power to quote the figures that really mean something to the farmer; that is, the realized net income figures. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle put those figures on the record the other day and I have no intention of repeating them. However, they certainly do reveal that all is not as well as the government proclaims. No matter how good the cash income figures for Canada may look, my experience has been that there are always areas, always pockets where all is not so well. To quote these figures without giving consideration to the areas that are in difficulty is like suggesting that a man with one foot in a bucket of ice and the other one on a hot plate is, on the average, very comfortable. I am sure no one will agree that this is the ultimate in comfort.
The minister suggested, also-and I was rather interested in this remark-that the farmer's image, as far as the urban populations of Canada are concerned, has been somewhat tarnished, and he referred to a conversation he had with someone in Toronto when he said, "How do you like all that money we sent you to keep you on the farm?", referring to the western farmer. He said something might be done about this. I would suggest that the minister can do something by telling the Liberal candidates in the next election campaign that when they are campaigning in their ridings they should not exaggerate and falsify the figures and should not say that the Conservative government had to be turned out simply because they were doing too much for the farmer. I think that to a large extent this is the reason for that tarnished image. I am not blaming the minister for this, but I hope he will bring together some of the members of his party and call them to task for the misinformation they spread during the last two election campaigns.
The minister made some comment about dairy policy. This has been dealt with at some length by the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska and I do not intend to go into that matter. But I think the minister should remember that the dairy industry is a com-

plex one and the figures relating to that
industry as a whole can be somewhat misleading, because there are four component parts of the dairy industry. I am quite convinced they are not all enjoying the degree of prosperity which he indicated. He took great pains to point out the policies he had initiated since he took office, and said they were responsible for the success which he alleges the dairy industry is enjoying. None of us on this side is going to be fooled by those comments. We know the dairy policy he has followed is the policy that was initiated by the previous government through the hon. member for Qu'Appelle.
If the minister wants a complete solution to the dairy problem I would suggest he should pursue that very same policy whereby the four components of the dairy industry -the fluid milk producers, the concentrated milk shippers, the men who ship milk to the cheese factories, and the cream suppliers- can all have the same opportunity to enjoy the same degree of prosperity.
On occasion when listening to the minister I have come to the conclusion that his idea of Utopia in agriculture will be when millionaires and industrialists purchase all the smaller farms in the country and operate them, as was the case under the feudal system. I hope this is not his philosophy, but sometimes I wonder when I listen to his remarks.
During the past few weeks we heard a great deal about solemn commitments and how important it is to implement the commitments made during the election campaigns. Mr. Chairman, quite a number of solemn commitments with respect to agriculture were made by the Liberal party during the last two elections, and it might be well to put a few of them on the record and find out how many have been implemented.
Surely a commitment to a farmer is as valid as a commitment to anyone in any other segment of industry. Surely the government has not completely forgotten some of the promises it made during the course of the last two campaigns. I have in my hand a pamphlet which I had some difficulty locating. It is entitled, "A Square Deal for Farmers," and I could not locate it until I looked under the file marked "fiction." Some of the promises contained in it are startling in view of the results achieved thus far.
First of all, the Liberal government was going to expand Canada's exports of farm products. I would like to hear from the minister in what way exports were expanded, other than simply following the patterns and
Supply-Agriculture
policies laid down by the previous government, except for some modifications and changes which I am not criticizing because, in the light of changing conditions, perhaps they were necessary. I would like to know what specific effort has been made to encourage exports of Candaian farm products.
The Liberal party said it was going to serve farmers with information on the market outlook, but I happen to recall that not long ago in this chamber the Minister of Transport, who in those days acted as agricultural critic, took the former minister of agriculture to task for spending money for that precise purpose. He was in disagreement with any effort to pass on to farmers information that was important to them in the planning of their production, and information regarding the market possibilities for their products. I do not recall the particular date or year, but I do remember the date. The Minister of Transport is not in the chamber today, but I am sure he could remind members of his party when that debate took place.
Another item in this pamphlet states they would improve consultation about farm policies. I wonder in what way has consultation been improved. Only the other day the minister had an appointment with leaders of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I think it was on Tuesday, May 19, and the appointment had been made some time previously, but an hour before the delegation was to arrive in Ottawa they received a phone call to say the minister could not see them. He had gone out west to speak to a Kiwanis club.


Harry William Hays: What date was this, because I spent a whole day with the federation of agriculture?


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: This was Tuesday the 19th.


Harry William Hays: The 19th of what month?


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Of this month.


Harry William Hays: This is not correct.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: I will be glad to be corrected if I have misrepresented the facts, but this was my information and if the minister wants to put the record straight, well, fine, that is all right with me.
Another one of the policies which the Liberal party said it would implement was the establishment of an independent research council for marketing, processing and production. At the time this promise was made there had already been an independent research council set up under the responsibility of the minister of agriculture for the province of Manitoba, Hon. George Hutton.

Supply-Agriculture
Perhaps the minister would care to outline how an independent research council, sponsored and paid for by the government, can be independent. The independence of the council that is in existence today certainly cannot be questioned, but I doubt very much if such a council paid for, set up and appointed by the government, can exercise any degree of independence whatsoever.
The pamphlet went on to say they were going to provide long term capital for cooperatives through the industrial development bank. I have not seen anything of this. They were also going to encourage the establishment of marketing boards where farmers wanted them. Mr. Chairman, marketing boards can be established in any of the provinces any time the farmers wish to do so. This pamphlet is only a lot of useless words, trying to gild the lily a little bit, but meaningless, as were most of the Liberal promises during the election campaigns.
They said they would improve price support measures. I would like to know in what way they have done so. I know the Liberal candidate in the Provencher riding carried on his own election campaign, and I suppose this was true of most Liberal candidates across the country. The federal Liberal party had one policy and the candidates followed another.
I have in my hand a full page ad that appeared in my local newspaper, in which the Liberal candidate for Provencher started out by saying that if the people wanted these things they must vote for him for strong, stable, responsible government. I do not think I need to comment on the stable aspects of this government. These are well known. The candidate also promised deficiency payments to cream shippers, to eggs and pork producers, paid on a regional and quarterly basis. I wonder where that promise has gone. Then he went on to promise higher initial payments for wheat, oats and barley, announced before seeding time. Have we heard anything about that? Then he promised a guaranteed scale of price supports on wheat, oats and barley, for example, with a minimum guaranteed price of $2 for No. 1 wheat. That is another promise that has gone by the wayside. Then for No. 2 wheat, he says, $1.99 and for No. 3, $1.98. He is taking it upon himself to set the spread between Nos. 1, 2 and 3 wheat and anyone who knows anything about wheat marketing in this country knows that these spreads of one cent between each grade are about the most ludicrous thing we have ever seen. Finally, he says: "For a two

price system on wheat calculated on the unit quota".
Well, we have heard the last of that, no doubt. This is set out in somewhat less detail in the pamphlet. They were going to provide deficiency payments for grain, which includes, I suppose, the program announced by the Liberal candidate in Provencher and then, by a consumer subsidy, improve the return to farmers on wheat consumed by Canadians. That is a general statement and I do not think anyone knows what it means. We certainly have not seen any results. Then, they state, they would underwrite provincial crop insurance programs. I presume the intention is to introduce a system of re-insurance such as that proposed by the government of Manitoba, who have been leaders in the field of provincial crop insurance programs. As most members are aware, the legislation we passed as to crop insurance was enabling legislation providing for some assistance to provincial governments which adopted a system of crop insurance in their respective provinces, and the province of Manitoba has enlarged this program now to the point where more than 6,200 farmers are covered, as compared with about 5,100 last year. So this program is expanding and they are prepared to expand it still further as soon as this government is prepared, as was indicated in this election speech, to implement this promise about re-insurance as requested by the Manitoba government. They said they were willing to improve farm credit and we are glad to see that the bill respecting this has been given first reading and that it is likely to become a reality soon. Then they go on to say:
By area development programs, and with the necessary capital, improve farm land, turn submarginal land to more profitable uses, draw new sources of jobs to rural areas, and improve educational and training opportunities.
Surely they do not think they are fooling anybody with this gobbledygook. They know full well that these are the objectives laid down in ARDA. All they are suggesting here is that they intend to carry on the ARDA program and I do not need to tell members of this house or anyone in the country who introduced that program.
Then it says: "Undertake a program of water conservation". That also has been carried on for years under P.F.R.A. and it is also a part of the ARDA program. Speaking of water conservation, I should be happy if the minister would take another look at the Morris dam in my riding. I should be very happy if the minister could convince treasury

board that this project is one of the necessary water conservation projects for the province of Manitoba.
Then, I suppose in order to fill up the page, they say they intend to carry on all these policies in co-operation with the provinces. I suppose that is a departure from what they have been doing under the various programs they have introduced so far. But we are happy to see they intend to co-operate with the provinces in the field of agriculture, at least. The parliamentary secretary, who is listening to my remarks intently, emphasized when he spoke the other day on a supply motion the amount of production research which is being carried on under the government and he left the impression that this was something new-something which had been initiated by this government. I cannot let such an impression be given without making some comment, because surely the hon. gentleman should know that production research has been carried on ever since there have been experimental farms in Canada. There can be no question but that the production research which has been carried on under successive governments has been a credit to the Department of Agriculture. However, he sought to leave the impression- I think, a superfluous one-that new vistas of opportunity were suddenly to be opened up to the farmers simply because they were carrying on this production research.
I was interested in the comment made here the other day by the hon. member for Kings, who seemed to be most impressed with the fact that the Department of Agriculture had been divided up so badly. He seemed to think this would lead to all kinds of co-operation and that great things were to be done as a result of this division. We do not know who is actually in charge of the department because the other day when the hon. member for the Yukon brought some matters to the attention of the government there were a number who took part in the debate, including the Prime Minister, the Minister of Forestry, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Industry. They all pitched in and joined in the act. I wonder how they can reconcile their philosophy and approach in the Department of National Defence, the achievement of unification there, with the divisions which are taking place within the Department of Agriculture. In one instance we are told of a wonderful new move to have everything unified in one camp, while in another department the best thing which could hap-
Supply-Agriculture
pen, if we are to believe the hon. members opposite, is to split the administration up. I contend there can be no effective co-operation in the face of the division of responsibility which now exists in the Department of Agriculture. The hon. member for Kings went on to say-


George Robson Muir: On a point of order, I am not bilingual and there is a battle going on in the other official language in one corner of the chamber. I cannot take in the two languages at the same time.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: He seemed to find in these divisions the ultimate solution, but as far as the government is concerned, it has led to a ludicrous situation. They want two ministers of agriculture. We have been supplied, so far, with four pension plans; we have two flags, and they have two policies for the tobacco industry, one to discourage the use of tobacco and another to encourage the use of tobacco. If that is their idea of unification and co-operation, if that is how they intend to run the department, I begin to feel sorry about what is going to happen.
The hon. member for Kings went on to tell us that the minister had made a well received statement to the federation of agriculture in Charlottetown. We know the minister has a good deal of personal charm. There is no question but that he enthralled his audience. But I can hardly concur with the conclusion drawn by the hon. member that this one speech to the federation of agriculture suddenly resolved all the difficulties of agriculture.
There is one thing I should like to put on the record. The other day the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska put some figures on record relating to feed prices in his area and the fluctuations in those prices from month to month. I thought they were interesting because the hon. member for Kings, the parliamentary secretary, the minister himself and other speakers on this subject have drawn the conclusion, prematurely I think, that stability had finally been brought to the industry in eastern Canada. Well, the fluctuations which took place between August of last year and April of this year certainly indicate that this stability does not exist. I say this because there was a fluctuation between the low and the high of 75 cents a hundredweight.
I went to the trouble of communicating with the accounts division to find out what were the particular prices allocated on a monthly basis for these same months. I find

Supply-Agriculture
a variation in prices during that same period, from a high to a low, of 16 cents per bushel. If you want to relate this to the hundredweight, it amounts to about 24.6 cents. The price to the producer in western Canada varied by about 24.6 cents per hundred and the price to the consumer in eastern Canada varied as much as 75 cents per hundred. Surely, in the face of figures such as those no one could claim that ultimate stability has been created. I ask the minister to take a second look at the program he has instituted and not be so complacent about how successful it has been.
In the case of oats, the variation to the consumer is about 28 cents a bushel, compared to a variation of 26 cents a bushel in the wheat board average price at the lake-head. This was approximately 60 cents per hundred. In the case of barley, the variation is 37 cents as compared with a variation of 8 cents a bushel or 16 cents a hundredweight in the wheat board price. I have these figures in table form. I do not want to take the time of the committee to put them on the record, but I am sure the committee would be interested in having these figures put on Hansard as part of my speech. I ask if this course is agreeable to the committee?


Harry William Hays: Could we have them read into the record?


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Do you want them read into the record? I have put on the record the important parts. The variations in monthly prices in eastern Canada were put on the record by the hon. member for Nicolet-Ya-maska; I do not think it is necessary for me to put them on the record again. I choose not to read them into the record. As a matter of fact, I intend to give them to the press if they want to use them. I know what members opposite are attempting to do. They want to restrict my speech by having me read these figures into the record, but I do not intend to accommodate them. I have a few minutes left and I intend to devote that time to other matters.
The minister certainly cannot conclude that the policy he adopted of paying the storage charges on grain in store in eastern Canada has in any way whatever created that degree of stability that he tries to leave the impression has been created in feed mill prices in eastern Canada. I ask him to continue looking into this situation and to pursue a more aggressive policy in order to ensure that there is real stability in feed prices in eastern Canada. This is a problem for the eastern

farmer, and will continue to be a problem until some effective action has been taken.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order; I must advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity this afternoon of taking part briefly in the debate on agriculture. I believe the fact that so many days have been spent on agriculture is an indication of the importance which this item holds for all members of the house. We have had a general debate on agriculture. In addition, we have had a discussion with regard to the problems of eastern agriculture. It may be that many of us are not aware of the fact that agriculture does hold a very important place in the province from which I come, the province of British Columbia. It is true that the arable land area in British Columbia is very limited. I believe the maximum would be about 4 per cent of the land area at the present time.
In spite of that fact, it is a very important industry so far as British Columbia is concerned. In so far as my own constituency of Fraser Valley is concerned, it is most assuredly one of the major industries of that particular section of British Columbia. I have the British Columbia News Letter for July, 1963, in which there is a reference to the cash income of British Columbia farmers. This is broken down by major commodities produced by the British Columbia farmer in 1962. It is pointed out that dairy products account for about $36 million; cattle and calves, $30.4 million; fruit, $19.4 million; eggs, $15.3 million; poultry, $12.2 million; vegetables and potatoes, $10.2 million and wheat, $3.7 million. I believe these figures indicate as I have pointed out before, that agriculture is an important part of the economy of British Columbia.
In a brief presented by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to the Prime Minister of Canada and members of the cabinet on February 26, 1964, there are several observations made in respect of farming in general. They agree that they are possibly taking a new approach in the presentation of an agricultural brief and point out, for instance, that as an industry agriculture has been and remains, in spite of whatever necessary measures have been taken to improve its position, the most vulnerable and relatively unprotected industrial sector in the country. I feel this is one of the things that has been a matter of great concern to the people engaged in agriculture. It certainly has occupied the time and

the attention of the organizations representing agriculture. They have pointed out time and time again that while the costs of production are increasing, there is very little protection so far as the farmer is concerned of the prices he receives for his products. This, of course, places him in a very difficult financial position.
The brief also points out that, as a group, the farmers have shared less in the post-war period in the rising levels of wealth and income than any other group in the country. I think that the statistics that are presented from time to time will show this is very true. The brief points out also that the expenditures in agriculture are taken up pretty well in increasing the quality and abundance of food which has been sold at lower prices. It also refers to agriculture assistance. I believe the hon. member for Provencher referred to this when he called attention to the criticism that is levelled sometimes against the agriculture segment of our economy because of the subsidies or the assistance that is granted in various forms.
While there have been times when it almost seemed as though there were substantial amounts of money being put into this particular phase, I think that, in the over-all picture, the assistance has been very modest. Furthermore, it is justified in view of the particular problems that agriculture faces. I am sure we are all aware of the necessity for agriculture production. We are dependant upon agriculture for our sustenance. I believe, therefore, that in the consideration of the problems that agriculture faces we should be thinking that any assistance we give in this connection is worth while in that it maintains production for Canadian consumption.
Another factor mentioned is that agriculture is a vital sector of the health of the economy; and I think it has been said many times that as agriculture prospers so the economy prospers. I think that is true. Another factor pointed out by the brief is that among advanced nations Canada spends a relatively small proportion of the national budget on agriculture, and I believe this as well is borne out by statistics.
Coming to the problems of British Columbia and especially of my own riding, I should like to say that I have had a number of communications from those engaged in the industry and also those who are representative of the industry in the province of British Columbia. One of the main points of concern is the effect of possible tariff changes as they relate to agricultural production. The British Columbia coast vegetable marketing
Supply-Agriculture
board, representing a great number of organizations, have submitted material for consideration, and perhaps it would be interesting to record the participating organizations associated with this particular submission. They are as follows: Abbotsford growers co-op association; B.C. coast vegetable marketing board; B.C. coast vegetable co-operative association; B.C. interior vegetable marketing board; B.C. interior marketing agency limited; B.C. blueberry co-operative association limited; B.C. certified seed potato growers association; B.C. lower mainland farmers' co-operative association; Columbia potato growers association; Colebrook potato growers association; district "E" farmers' institute of B.C.; East Chilliwack co-operative growers; Fraser valley fruit and vegetable growers association; Fraser valley pea growers association; Fresh-Pak Limited, Burnaby (processors); Georgia potato growers association; lower B.C. mainland horticultural association; Pacific co-operative union (growers); south Vancouver island potato growers association; united flower growers co-operative association; united Fraser valley growers co-operative association, and the Vancouver island vegetable co-operative association.
This indicates, Mr. Chairman, that this brief and the fears expressed therein is representative of the great many organizations, and of course producers, in these various areas of activity. I should like to read a short paragraph from page 2 of the brief. It is pointed out that:
We, as producers in B.C., with a minimum ot tariff protection now available are able to supply other western provinces with early crop vegetables and various small fruits. We firmly believe that it is to the benefit of our producers, consumers, distributors and processors and the economy of our country to further foster this ever increasing movement within our Canadian regions rather than have these markets supplied by imported produce which we believe would completely dominate our Canadian markets under any method of reduced tariff protection.
It is pointed out in this particular brief that prior to 1959, I believe it is, the producers in that area were severely handicapped owing to the importation of fruits and vegetables from across the border. The producers there had the best of the market in their own country, and then just before our own producers put their produce on the market it was flooded with what was left over from south of the border. Then certain changes were effected which placed them in a more competitive position and I believe added greatly to the stability of the fruit

Supply-A griculture
and vegetable industries in the province of British Columbia. The fear is that in the event that certain proposed changes are made and tariffs are reduced, our producers will once again be faced with this very same problem. They are voicing great concern and asking that in any negotiations which are carried on between Canada and other nations of the world under GATT or the Kennedy round, as the present negotiations are called, or any type of negotiations, some of these basic considerations will be borne in mind and that nothing will be done to jeopardize the position of our industries in the province of British Columbia. I think this is fundamental. I think it is basic. I believe it is only fair, because if our own producers lose the position they have now and the market is supplied from outside, our own industries may be put out of operation and prices could rise to the point where we would wish we had our own producers producing our own foodstuffs for us.
There are many problems faced by those engaged in agriculture. As I have said, those in my own riding also have their own particular problems and have to face the situation with a great deal of courage, realizing that there are so many things which could happen to interfere with the satisfactory production and distribution of their products. I just call these matters to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture.
There is one other matter I should like to mention at this time. Some time ago the question was raised as to protection for agricultural producers under the Bankruptcy Act. There have been cases where producers who are farmers have delivered their produce to companies which have subsequently been declared bankrupt. Under the terms of the act no provision is made to reimburse farmers or to enable them to make a claim. Therefore they are requesting that the act be amended so that these people will receive protection, and in the event of such a thing happening will not be in the position of losing their entire crop or their entire production.
I do not propose, Mr. Chairman, to discuss agricultural matters any further at this time. I realize there is a desire on the part of the committee to facilitate the passage of the estimates in view of the fact that we have spent considerable time on them. May I again say that this is only an indication of the fact that we are all interested in and concerned about the problems of agriculture in our own areas as well as right across the nation, and we trust that these matters which are brought

to the attention of the minister from time to time will be given every consideration.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to dwell unduly long this afternoon on the subject with which we are dealing. I would like to extend to the members of the government, to his colleagues on the other side of the aisle and to his wife and family who survive him, my deep condolences upon the death of Sherwood Rideout, the hon. member for Westmorland.
My remarks this afternoon will deal primarily with the dairy industry, and principally with the cheese segment of that industry. I will also have a few words to say about ARDA and some of its facets, and in a limited way, regarding farm credit.
Beginning with the cheese industry, Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out that the farmers of Ontario and the Ontario cheese producers marketing board, which works in their interests, were very disappointed with the recent announcement of the Minister of Agriculture on Thursday, May 14, cutting cheese export assistance by another cent. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the assistance in the amount of four cents a pound, so wisely and beneficially established by the Conservative administration, has now been cut exactly in half so that whatever benefits the cheese producers receive are of very little consequence to such a vital industry engaged in exporting Canada's principal specialty product.
I reiterate that Canadian cheddar cheese is Canada's principal specialty export product. Canada has other products, of course, that are specialties of our nation. I am not taking anything away from Canadian maple syrup or No. 1 northern hard wheat; but of all the products that Canada exports to the old country cheese seems to be the leader, so far as the tastes of the British consumers are concerned. Therefore the action of the government, the Department of Agriculture and the man heading that department has been retrogressive with respect to the progress that the cheese industry must and should make.
Is it not true that the minister was asked by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the dairy farmers of Canada, the Ontario cheese producers, the L and S co-operative and the Lake St. John co-operative, representing the Quebec cheese producers, to continue the three cent subsidy on export cheese? In spite of that the minister left these people in the lurch and cut the export assistance by another cent. From whom did the minister take his advice when he lowered the subsidy on export cheese from four to two cents?

Did he take the advice of the butter and milk powder interests?
Is it right, with this reduction of one cent in the assistance for export cheese, that farmers all across Canada should have to take a reduction of nine or ten cents per 100 pounds for their milk? That is what the mathematics of the matter will mean unless it is possible to raise the price of Canadian cheese one cent per pound on the United Kingdom market. It would be a very ill-advised thing to raise the price on that market because this year we must export a great deal more than last to take care of the reduction in the subsidy, and the contemplated increase in production of cheese-milk.
The price of Canadian cheese on the United Kingdom market has already been raised four cents in a two year period compared with an increase of one and a half cents in the price of New Zealand cheese in a four year period. Our Canadian cheese costs the English importer 37 cents a pound laid down in London compared with 32J cents a pound for New Zealand cheese properly aged for consumption. Remember that the United Kingdom importer has to keep Canadian cheese approximately one year for aging purposes whereas it seems that New Zealand cheese is already aged when it arrives in England.
Does the minister think it wise to increase our price in that market by another cent? We could well ruin our market there by too high a price and by always asking more and more for the product each time a shipment arrives in England. This latter is not good business. I have here the statement that the minister made in the house on May 14. As found on page 3255 of Hansard he said:
-so it is now considered in the best interests of all that this subsidy should be reduced by a further one cent per pound.
When the minister says "in the best interests of all" what does he mean? Does he mean the cheese industry, which is mostly farmer owned, or does he mean the butter and milk powder industries which are controlled by large corporations? I leave that question with members of this committee, Mr. Chairman, because it has not been answered and it is most vital to the progress of the cheese industry.
While I may be slightly out of order, Mr. Chairman, in passing I should like to point out the great discrepancy in the methods of taxing the various kinds of cheese companies. First, let me take the limited cheese company factory tax, which includes income
Supply-Agriculture
taxes and so on. A good example is the Elm-brook Cheese and Butter Manufacturing Company of Picton, Ontario, in Prince Edward county. That company has to struggle along paying as much as $1,200 a year in income taxes whereas a nearby co-operative manufacturing cheese pays no income tax. I am sure you will allow me to point that out to the house, Mr. Chairman. This situation is not the fault of the Department of Agriculture but it certainly represents a handicap to the limited companies which manufacture cheese in Canada today, and should be corrected.
There are a couple of other points I want to make on the question of the cheese export subsidy. The reduction of one cent per pound on export cheese will mean a reduction of nine or ten cents a hundred pounds on cheese milk to Canadian farmers, unless the price of cheese is increased in the United Kingdom market. We feel that such a move is unsound. Second, unless the export price of cheese can be raised to offset the one cent reduction by the federal government, the farmers of Canada are due to lose $1,370,000 on the basis of the production of 137 million pounds in 1963. The government of Canada has saved some $280,000 by reducing the export subsidy by one cent on 28 million pounds exported.
Officials of the government are predicting an increase of ten million pounds in cheese production in 1964. Are they asking this small group of farmers in the province of Ontario, who increased exports by ten million pounds in 1963, to increase them by another ten million pounds this year at a higher price? This does not look right, when the big companies that own whole milk powder plants are subsidized to the extent of 6.3 cents. I hope the minister realizes that this action simply represents a betrayal of the cheese milk producers by the government. I should like to see him rectify the situation soon in order to get that section of the dairy industry back on the track.
To turn to ARDA, although the government claims that it has made some progress and has put certain policies into effect, one can travel across the province of Ontario and see that it has done nothing by way of improvements under ARDA. ARDA has three main aims: to put to better use some marginal land that is not very productive in its present use-and nothing is being done along those lines outside of some pilot projects- second, ARDA is meant to develop income and employment opportunities in rural areas;

Supply-Agriculture
third, to develop and conserve the water and soil resources of rural Canada. I submit that this government has done nothing along these lines.
I do wish to remind the committee, Mr. Chairman, of the very able work performed by the hon. gentlemen in the other place. I have in my hand a report issued by a committee of the Senate, and having read most of it I want to compliment those hon. gentlemen in the red chamber for their able compilation of this report. I refer to the recent report of the special committee on land use in Canada. When the government and some political parties in this chamber are loudly contemplating and voting for the abolition of the other place, good work of this sort should remind them of the folly of such a measure. I want to quote from this report what the committee has to say about water and land use:
Water occupies a very influential role in determining the most beneficial use of land. Because of this, various witnesses devoted a part of their submissions to expressing a need for more concern about the use of this resource. The briefs pointed out that most uses of land require water. Despite this, the value of water is often overlooked. This lack will have to be remedied, especially in the areas where the limitations of water are becoming apparent. Less pollution and squandering of water will have to result, it was noted.
Here is the key point:
Decreasing water supplies in relative or absolute amounts create limitations to urban, industrial and recreational development, it was stated. Large quantities of water of suitable quality are required for these land uses.
Of particular concern to the committee was the role of water in agriculture. In eastern Canada many lands have the problem of too much water. Drainage must be provided for many agricultural lands. All levels of government are active in drainage programs. Many details were reported to the committee of the various schemes that are in operation to assist farmers in draining farming areas.
This is my point in this connection, Mr. Chairman. If this government really wishes to give leadership and guidance to the farmers of Canada, particularly those of eastern Canada, they should bend their efforts toward providing assistance to farmers wishing to instal tile drainage. I have here a copy of a resolution submitted to me over a month ago, but this is the first opportunity I have had to bring it to the attention of the government and hon. members. It is a copy of a resolution submitted by the Lennox and Addington county federation of agriculture regarding assistance that could be given to

farm drainage projects. I quote the resolution:
Whereas the present depreciation on farm installed tile drainage systems is now 2J per cent
And whereas at this rate, it would take 40 years to recover this cost
And whereas tile drainage is necessary in modem day agriculture
And is the first consideration in good farm management
And whereas this farm practice of tile drainage installation should be encouraged to a greater degree.
Therefore, be it resolved that the Lennox and Addington federation of agriculture request the Department of National Revenue taxation division to increase the capital cost allowance on already installed tile drainage systems from the present allowable 2J per cent to 10 per cent.
You will agree that this resolution is very valuable to the agricultural industry and its recommendation should be put into effect. I urge the government to think along those lines and see what they can do to assist the agricultural industry where tile drainage is required and farmers are loath to start on any large projects because of the small benefit that is granted taxwise.
My last point, Mr. Chairman, concerns farm credit and I wish to quote from that respected old journal, the Family Herald of May 21, 1964. This is the 95th year of publication of this magazine, which is very well known across Canada. In fact I can well remember running out to the mail box on the farm as a child once a week to get the Family Herald, which at that time was one of the main news media for rural Ontario. The article in this magazine is headed, "A crisis in farm credit" and it reads in part:
Though most Canadians find their weekly grocery bill a heavy burden to bear, they eat as well as any other nation on earth and a good deal cheaper than most. Their thanks for this blessing should be directed to the Canadian agricultural industry, a group of small, independent farmers producing a tremendous volume of food with a slim profit margin.
The article continues by referring to a well informed authority on real estate in western Canada, a person with a farm background, saying:
-that for his area, Farm Credit Corporation land value appraisals are out of date by at least ten years. "Farm Credit Corporation limits of $50,000 with terms of 35 to 50 years at no more than 3 per cent would be more realistic", he says, "even if it took two generations to pay it back".
I think we should be thinking along those lines, Mr. Chairman, with regard to lending money to prospective, young farmers who want to get into this industry. The article continues:

A charge frequently made Is that Farm Credit Corporation money is inflating farmland prices.
If that is so, it is making it all the more difficult for young people to get into the business. Then the article says:
Financing land purchases for increased efficiency is perhaps the farmer's biggest problem but close behind looms the problem of paying for basic and specialized machinery.
Many hon. members are farmers and know how difficult it is to finance machinery, where tremendous costs are involved, and pay mortgage interest and payments on their land, and so forth. I think it is time that we are looking into the loosening up and the expanding of the terms of these Farm Credit Corporation mortgages. To conclude the quotation:
It is frequently reported that the annual sums allotted by parliament to cover F.I.L. borrowing are never over-expended. Estimates of money actually borrowed vary and stood at around 60 per cent in a recent year. The repayment record on these funds is excellent. Where, then, is the bottleneck? Why are these funds not fully subscribed?
This is a question for which we are all responsible, but more particularly the government of the day. I hope it will look into this so that the agricultural industry can be put back on its financial feet. Our prime responsibility to this country is the working of the millions of acres of the top six inches of the soil of Canada.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should first like to join with my fellow members and the leader of the official opposition in paying tribute to the late hon. member for Westmorland and in offering my condolences to the loved ones he has left behind.
While the minister may complain that this debate has dragged on, much of the time has been spent pointing out the evils of political patronage in the government, and it may be that not enough time has been spent on this important segment of our economy. Agriculture is still the biggest employer in Canada and is still the main industry of the country. This was admitted by the Minister of Finance on bringing down his budget this year. It was also pointed out by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, at various times throughout the year, that wheat sales and the agricultural economy itself brought buoyancy to our foreign exchange and improved economic conditions which were felt all across the country.
But is seems the government is more concerned with images than it is with agriculture, with this great economic lifeblood of Canada. From time to time we see the Prime Minister
Supply-Agriculture
worried about his own image and cancelling television programs. We see the Minister of Agriculture trying to portray his image across Canada as a robust auctioneer who has the small farmer's concern at heart, and who is bringing down four pieces of legislation which will vastly revolutionize farming. Why has he not brought them down? Why have we not had a look at them? Only one with regard to farm credit is on the order paper.
In a speech which he made in Lethbridge on April 30 he tried to give the impression that the opposition was doing nothing but filibustering. What legislation has come before parliament this session? We have had the speech from the throne and we spent six days of what might be termed our own time, during the Easter holidays, trying to proceed with government work. Certainly it cannot be said that those six days were taking up government time.
The minister said in Lethbridge on April 11:
The government legislation program is bogged down by opposition filibuster.
Where is this legislation that he wants to bring down to revolutionize farming? We see one item on the order paper and we have asked for it to be presented in bill form. The minister says some parliamentary rules and procedures could be changed to facilitate the passage of legislation through the house. He is very anxious to bring in his proposed legislation, and I personally would like to see the measure dealing with farm machinery.
The minister went on to say that his policies will vastly change the agricultural economy. I remember reading about the minister, at a meeting he had at Claresholm, Alberta, in the following day's Calgary Herald. I do not have the clipping here, but he said he had been farming for 15 or 18 years with a 1928 model tractor, and he felt this was good enough for all farmers, that farmers were being abused by the machinery salesmen, that they were over-buying machinery, and that the farm machinery agents were just taking advantage of them.
I just wonder what will be in this farm machinery legislation, coming from a minister who is supposed to have farmed 18 years with a 1928 model tractor and who said it was every bit as good as his neighbour's rubber tired tractor. I myself did quite a bit of farming with a 1928 tractor and with a team of horses, but when you compare the three modes there is no doubt that the rubber tired tractor is superior.

Supply-Agriculture
The minister also said at the Lethbridge meeting that as soon as the pension bill was passed through parliament his farm legislation would be presented. In a sense the pension bill has passed through parliament. It has been withdrawn and now we have a flag issue that also will eventually be withdrawn because Canada does not want two flags. It too will occupy the time of the house and keep this vastly important agricultural legislation from being proceeded with, and these smokescreens will continue until the minister makes up his mind as to what type of farm machinery bill he wants.
We have also noticed that the minister is greatly interested in improving his image. He has found out it is not too good across western Canada, particularly in Alberta. Therefore he has got a new assistant, a former member of the press gallery, who has written a letter, on the minister's stationery, to weekly newspapers in which, the assistant, Mr. Peacock, says:
He-
The minister
-is concerned that the people in your area have every chance to learn as authoritatively, objectively and comprehensively what their government is doing.
I am pleased to hear this because if it is going to be an authoritative weekly column this means the minister is going to spend more time in parliament, and if it is going to be objective and comprehensive, this means he is finally going to start comprehending his own department and parliament itself. In fact, I have a couple of copies of some news releases he has already issued, and it is interesting to note that in some respects he is bypassing one large branch in the Department of Agriculture, the information branch.


John George Diefenbaker: At what price are they being auctioned?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister is not as smart-I should not use that word-not as wise, or perhaps in such financial difficulty as the hon. member for Port Arthur, because he is giving these out to weekly papers free.


Mr. Herridge:: Will the hon. member permit a question? Does he realize this is not the information branch? It is the propaganda branch.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Well, if I were chairman I would rule that that was a statement I wholeheartedly agree with, rather than a question. But these releases are going to be interesting. I am told that some 20 weekly
(Mr. Horner (Acadia).]
newspapers already subscribe to the minister's weekly complimentary and authoritative report on parliament, and perhaps the Clerk of the House or someone else in this house could make a notation in each one of those weekly papers saying how often or how long the minister spent in parliament in order to grasp this information.


Mr. Byrne:: The hon. member is notably away more than any other person.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Now we hear something from the authority on the rules over on that side of the house. There is no question but that I find myself extremely occupied and not in the house on occasions, but my voting record is there for everybody to see, and while I know it could be better I am still not ashamed of it.
The minister is trying to create an image. The other day he was still auctioning, but that was an auction engagement made some time ago. Recently, no one has made any comment on his auctioneering services. Oh, maybe I am a bit envious; maybe there is a bit of auctioneer in me, too. But I notice that on May 18 he auctioned a famous Holstein herd for an amount which totalled $323,000. I roughly figured out the commission on this at the rate of 15 per cent-I was told this by a contributor to one of the sales. It comes to $48,000, a nice day's work-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -and an honourable profession. But surely if the minister is going to report authoritatively and comprehensively on this parliament and the work of his department he should spend full time at it. There is a report with regard to his auctioneering services in the Western Producer of October 3, 1963. The Western Producer is, I may say, a well known rural farm paper. This is what the editorial had to say:
We can think of dozens of good reasons for Mr. Hays to be quite properly absent from the house, carrying out duties directly connected with his job as minister. Auctioning cattle isn't among them, no matter how good the cattle, nor if they are owned by senators and other prominent people. There are other auctioneers. The minister's first responsibility is to his job as minister.
That is why I began my remarks by pointing out that these estimates we are discussing today concern the largest single industry in Canada, the biggest employer in Canada and the life saver of 1963 with regard to Canada's financial situation. Yet the minister is more concerned with improving his own financial position than with looking after the biggest

single employer in Canada and the biggest single industry in Canada.


Harry William Hays: I think I should correct one or two of those statements.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the minister rising on a question of privilege?


Harry William Hays: Yes. I received nothing. There were 2,000 farmers there from 15 different countries. I was happy to be there and I discussed many problems with them. But I did not charge anything for my services.


An hon. Member:: What was your own farm income last year?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: More than yours.
It is all very well for the minister to say he did not charge anything. How much did he receive, and how much will he be receiving?


Harry William Hays: On a question of privilege; I received nothing.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Only time will tell. How much is Romandale Farms obligated to the minister for selling those cattle? When is the next election coming, and how much will they contribute to his campaign fund or to the campaign fund of the Liberal party? Nobody in public life does $50,000 worth of business and says: "Don't pay me". They definitely feel obligated and will certainly make a contribution in respect of that obligation in the future. One may rest assured of that. This sale of Holsteins resulted in record prices. There is a full report of it here. To quote the minister's own words, only time will tell, and in this case only time will tell how much Romandale Farms are obligated.
The legislation which the minister hopes to put on the order paper has been advertised in many papers. One of the items deals with farm improvement loans. We had that on the order paper as far back as the spring of 1963 -it was intended to increase the amount which could be loaned under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. Everyone knows we have been interested in the Farm Credit Corporation. We set it up, we got it working and we increased the grants from time to time. I am interested in this piece of legislation and in particular in what they intend to do with regard to interest rates in respect of it. Did they ever stop to think that it is fine and dandy to give a farmer $40,000 and charge him a huge rate of interest on that money while providing very little marketing information, very little marketing help to market his product in order to pay the debt? Forty
Supply-Agriculture
thousand dollars at 5 per cent interest-we can be certain they would not lend a farmer as much money as that without maintaining the present rate of interest; that comes to $2,000, no small sum.
I see in a newspaper clipping that the minister's farm machinery bill will be the saviour of the small farmer. He is making some small farmers big and maintaining others by giving them 1928 tractors, I would imagine. Forty thousand dollars at 6 per cent interest would come to nearly $2,400 a year in interest alone. Surely, the minister will give consideration to saving a farmer $400 a year in interest?
We have heard some talk about the length of time a farmer would have in which to repay his debt. Certainly, the period should be lengthened, but with the increasing length of time it becomes of the utmost importance that the interest rate should be maintained and should not be increased. Because of the time increase a farmer instead of paying back $40,000 will be paying back more like $80,000, if he takes the full time allotted to him under the proposal which the minister may or may not have in mind. Certainly he has suggested from time to time that the time should be increased along with the amount of the loan. Well, I am in full accord that the Farm Credit Corporation should be able to lend more money, but I would rather see many other changes in the legislation to allow the small farmer to get started, or add to the property he may now own. But, of course, we shall see the bill in due time and no doubt I shall have more to say when it is before us.
The recent image builder which the minister has in mind is that he plans to fly members of parliament to various farm regions. This is going to be an interesting junket. It should increase the tourist expenditure by Canadians in Canada. But what real purpose will be accomplished? Is the agriculture committee going to fly to New Brunswick, for example, and set up a day for a meeting, and will farmers be called in and be told: Here is the minister, here are the members; ask your questions and the minister will be glad to answer? Is this to be the purpose of the junket? Or are we to go around interviewing farmers throughout Canada and asking them what will help solve their problems? As a member of the committee I shall certainly be pleased to go along, but it will be a waste of the taxpayers' money because it is the minister who designates the legislation; it is the minister who puts it on the order

Supply-Agriculture
paper or does not put it on the order paper; it is the minister who brings in the useful legislation which will benefit various segments of the agricultural economy. If the minister wants to fly all around Canada, and he has done a considerable amount of it already, to bone up on the various farm problems, then I think that would be money well spent by the Canadian taxpayer. He might find some answers to a lot of the problems that have been troubling him and his government with regard to agriculture.
This was the party that was going to make decisions. Last fall the Minister of Agriculture told the farmers not to grow wheat: "We have enough of it." The Minister of Trade and Commerce told them not to grow any more wheat, that we were going to have enough of it. We were lucky to have this one big sale. The farmers have gone ahead and pretty well completed putting in one of the largest crops of wheat this country has ever seen. I think it will be in the neighbourhood of 30 million acres. Did they receive any advice from this government about markets, about whether or not it was wise to plant this wheat? At one time they were told by both ministers not to plant wheat. Then reports appeared in the newspapers that the Minister of Trade and Commerce said the outlook was good for wheat sales to Russia to continue; that Russia would continue to be a buyer of Canadian wheat. The Minister of Agriculture has backed away somewhat from his initial statement that farmers should go into other branches of agricultural production, such as beef cattle. The beef cattle industry does not look too good this spring, with a surplus in the United States, the country that sets our market price.
I point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that this government, as it has done in connection with many pieces of legislation, has wobbled and waffled in giving advice to farmers with regard to markets for their products. Today we see the agriculture committe studying the tobacco industry. What is the purpose of that inquiry? It is to improve the image of the present government with the tobacco farmers in order to try to undo some of the harm the Minister of National Health and Welfare did from a political point of view. The government should be concerned about the tobacco industry. Many governments have been. The Ontario government just appointed a commission to study the industry. Why the concern all of a sudden about images? We have concern about the image of the party the

image of the Prime Minister, the image of the Department of Agriculture and the minister, as a prime concern of the government today. One would almost think they were preparing for an election.
Certainly the country does not want an election. I read in one of the newspapers today that the flag issue will bring about an election. This country has waited a number of years for a truly distinctive flag, if this is what people want to call this new version we are getting. Certainly we can wait another couple of years. The country does not want an election. Why be concerned about image building? Why has the Minister of Agriculture started issuing free press releases for the rural newspapers? Why do we have members of parliament flying all across Canada in this process of image building? There is no other reason than to make Harry, if I may use the term, look like one of the boys in relation to the agriculture committee and the members of this house. This is another effort at image building. Image building will not create the smokescreen that is desired by that party. As long as there is an opposition in this house, members will be able to clear away the smoke and see where the real action has been with regard to agriculture.


Mr. Kindt:: I shall not detain the committee long by the few remarks I have to make. It has been brought to my attention that a number of newspapers in my riding have received letters from Mr. Don Peacock, who I presume is an employee of the Department of Agriculture, which are characterized as reports from parliament hill. During the past six years that I have been a member of this house I have written articles on the debates which have occurred in parliament when, in my view, it was thought of public interest to do so. The custom has grown up for individual members to send reports from parliament hill to their own constituents. This practice has grown up over the years and is not something which I have popularized. I have simply taken it as a practice which has grown up. Certainly under no circumstances has it been the practice for a minister of the crown to try to improve his image by circulating, far and wide, the "Hays Report From Parliament Hill". This is plagiarism. If the minister had any thoughts of decency in relation to the private members of this house, he would reconsider his position in choosing a title which is reserved by custom and practice for hon. members.

If the minister wants to send the "Hays Report From Parliament Hill" to the constituents of Calgary South, no one could find fault. However, if he wants to employ somebody on his staff, who is receiving $12,000 a year, to make up a report to send far and wide as the "Hays Report From Parliament Hill", while he is out conducting auction sales and has not heard what has taken place on parliament hill surely his constituents will not think well of that. What are the people of the country going to think? I would suggest, for his own self-respect, that the hon. member from Calgary South reconsider his position. If he does not, then I am certain the criticism he is going to receive will more than balance the benefits which he might think he is going to receive by way of improving his image as Minister of Agriculture. The minister's popularity is at a very low ebb, make no mistake about that.
I understand the minister has a ranch in my riding of Macleod. I have heard it said that in the next election he intends to run in the Macleod riding. I shall be delighted to have him as an opponent. If he does, I might say that he had better lengthen his legs if he is going to run against me. It will probably fall on the shoulders of this Conservative party to clean up this whole mess in agriculture which he has created. We shall be able to do it. Let me say that every Liberal who has run in the Macleod riding in the past three elections has lost his deposit, so he is welcome to be in the same category.
I should like to say that there are many things about the minister's department which should be mentioned, but I do not wish to repeat the things to which other members have referred.
While I am on my feet I should like to ask about the Chain lakes project out of Claresholm. We have been working on that project for some five years. There was some question whether this project should be at Chain lakes or at the Flying E, and after P.F.R.A. had made their surveys of Chain lakes it was decided to wait until the department had examined other sites. Now at last the local people have agreed to go ahead at Chain lakes. The engineering studies have been completed and the minister has said yes, we will go ahead at the Chain lakes site.
However, in this year's estimates I understand from checking with the department officials that all that is being done this year is to carry out certain studies. There will be
Supply-Agriculture
no bulldozers getting to work, there will be no construction work; only a small token amount of the estimates before us are devoted to this purpose, just enough to make surveys. In other words, the department does not intend to do anything this year at Chain lakes; and if that is the case the minister should tell the people at Claresholm and at Granum, who are depending on the Minister of Agriculture to get busy, how much of this project is to be completed this year. The minister has said that this project is going to be completed in 1965, which is more than a year away. In other words, he is going to do nothing this year. He is going to wait and see whether or not it rains. That is the situation; and make no mistake, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, the people of Claresholm and the people of Granum who depend on the storage of water in Willow Creek are expecting something more important and more definite than this.


Harry William Hays: Whom were they depending on two years ago?


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: They were depending on the government in power at that time, which initiated the study by P.F.R.A. which brought in a report on the Chain lakes project. It was also recommended by the council of Willow Creek municipality that the Flying E site be re-examined, and at the suggestion of Willow Creek municipality the government postponed any construction at Chain lakes until the alternative site at the Flying E was properly examined.
These are the facts, Mr. Chairman. The minister can smile, look fat and prosperous and everything else-


Mr. Mcllrailh:: The pot is calling the kettle black.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: -but these are the facts, and the people out there, do not forget, are watching what the Minister of Agriculture is trying to do. But they are having a hard time trying to see anything at all that he is doing. I shall be out at the Cartwright ranch on Sunday at a big old timers picnic. I shall be out near the minister's ranch, and since I am a lifetime member of the old timers association in that area I would extend an invitation to him to be my guest. I should be glad to pick him up and bring him over to the Cartwright ranch if he is in that part of the area. We might be good friends as individuals outside the House of Commons, but I want to tell him this, that the policies of this government will certainly not

Supply-Agriculture be tolerated or accepted by the people in my riding, or for that matter any of the people in the other agricultural ridings of this country. Regardless of what the minister may do by way of writing articles to improve his image, he is going to find difficulty in correcting the image of this government and the record of the present Minister of Agriculture.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have been sitting here this afternoon hoping really that item 1 would be passed and that we could get on with the details of the estimates. Seeing that that is not likely I want to make a few kindly observations. I have read the minister's speech in opening his estimates and I have read his speech on the occasion of the amendment on going into supply last Monday, but I must say I fail to see in either of those speeches the sort of reply I should like to the requests of farm organizations in many respects.
We note that there is going to be an amendment to the Farm Credit Act, which we are pleased about. We also note that there is going to be an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act, which the farmers will be very interested in, because they have suffered losses. We also note that more active consideration is being given to the ARDA program than has been the case for some time. However, I wish the minister would give the committee his reaction, before these estimates are concluded, to the representations of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture with regard to the world food program and with respect to taxation policy. We should like to know what he is doing within the cabinet in this regard.
The federation presented to the Minister of Finance immediately following its annual meeting a submission containing recommendations on excise and sales tax and customs tariffs on goods which enter into the farmers' cost of production. We should like to know the reaction of the minister to these recommendations. Page 9 of the brief presented by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to the Prime Minister of Canada and the members of the cabinet on February 26, 1964, reads, in part, as follows:
In a somewhat different field, we would like to draw your attention to the resolution in appendix K in which we ask both provincial and federal governments to work out means of ending the use of property taxes for financing local education costs, and instead find means of ensuring that federal funds are made available for education in amounts which will ensure that financing needs for education in Canada are adequately and equitably met.


We should like to know the reaction of the minister to this representation in connection with property taxes. I think this is a nationwide request on the part of the farmers of Canada. I know it is a matter which is brought up at every provincial convention of agricultural organizations and it has been the subject of discussion throughout the years.
We should also like to hear the minister's attitude toward this particular problem, because the burden is increasing every year, owing to the increasing cost of taxation, the need for new and better schools, more teachers, and so on, all of which we support.
Then we should like to know the minister's views with respect to the representations concerning pension plans. Paragraph 25 of the brief states:
We would hope to be submitting to you more detailed views and recommendations on this subject of pension plans. At this time there is one central point of policy on which we would like to be very emphatic. We think it is essential that, from the first, participation in the plan should be mandatory not only for employees, but also for self-employed persons.
I mention that because I have had some correspondence from the farmers in my own constituency who are concerned with this aspect of the Canada pension plan. We should like to know whether the minister supports the proposals of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and other farm organizations in this respect.
Then we should like to know the minister's attitude toward the federation's proposal with respect to the St. Lawrence seaway. In paragraph 29 of their brief the federation submits that:
Our federation opposes any increase in St. Lawrence seaway tolls, or any Welland canal tolls whatever.
Then we should like to know the minister's reply to the question of unemployment insurance for farm labour. This matter has been brought up as a private measure by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale. We all give him full credit for it. He is a good representative. He knows how to represent farmers. He has his feet on the ground instead of his head in the air. Paragraph 44 is headed "Unemployment Insurance for Farm Labour" and reads as follows:
We appreciate that the government must now be very intensively examining the findings of the royal commission on unemployment insurance, and planning new legislation. What we wish to emphasize is that there are many farmer employers who are at a distinct disadvantage in the labour market created by the lack of coverage for farm workers. This is a very serious matter for many farmers and

very unsatisfactory also for the man who would otherwise like to enter farm work. Our request is that, without delay, insurance be extended on a compulsory basis to farm employees in particular, defined geographical areas or industry groupings. This we believe should be done when requested by groups of farmers in a particular area or producing a particular commodity.
We wholeheartedly support that request. I know a number of farmers in my constituency who have been unable to obtain good employees who would have liked to work for them and who would have preferred to do farm work, but because of the lack of unemployment insurance in this field these workers have had to go into occupations where they could get their insurance stamps and their benefits later on, if necessary.
We would like to know what the minister thinks. We think that the Minister of Agriculture should rise in this house as the representative of the farmers of this country and say that he believes in this idea, and then behind the scenes in the cabinet he should be doing his best to get the Minister of Labour to see eye to eye with the farmers of Canada.
I have one other question to raise which is of interest to the fruit growing industry of British Columbia. It has to do with certain resolutions passed at the 75th annual convention of the British Columbia fruit growers association which was held at Kelowna on January 21, 22 and 23, 1964. There are a number of resolutions of interest here but I want to draw two particularly to the minister's attention. I have had some personal knowledge of fruit growing over a period of 50 years, but have had to go out of it in recent years. One reason for having to do so is the fact that men employed in this work are not covered by unemployment insurance. I wish to refer to resolution No. 39, diseases and insects of pome fruits, which was introduced by the Keremeos local of our organization. It reads as follows:
Whereas pest and disease control on apples and pears is a major problem throughout the industry, and
Whereas costs of spray materials are steadily rising with tolerances of spray residue being ever more rigorously controlled, and
Whereas there is an excellent publication by the Canadian Department of Agriculture, "No. 915, Diseases, Insects and Mites of Stone Fruits", available to growers, and
Whereas there is at present no publication available on diseases, insects and mites on apples and pears,
Therefore be it resolved by this 1964 B.C.F.G.A. convention that the B.C.F.G.A. apply for such a publication, namely, "Diseases and Insects and Mites on Apples and Pears and Their Control".
Supply-Agriculture
The next resolution, No. 40, is related to that resolution. It has to do with non-chemical insect control and reads as follows:
Whereas we appreciate the work already being done on the control of insect pests by non-chemical means, and inasmuch as the need for such control increases as insects rapidly develop resistance to chemical sprays, so that new and costly materials are continually required to replace materials which have become ineffective,
Therefore be it resolved by this 1964 B.C.F.G.A. convention that the federal Department of Agriculture be requested to accelerate research into non-chemical insect control increasing appropriations for this work if necessary.
I do not want to delay the passage of item 1 but I do ask the minister to give consideration to the representations of the farm organizations including the last two resolutions I have read.


Harry William Hays: I will be very pleased to do that.


Mr. Hamilton:: Before item 1 goes through I should like the minister to agree that I may discuss crop insurance under the P.F.A.A. heading. As the minister knows, there is no item in the estimates for crop insurance because it comes under supplementaries. I trust it will be all right with the minister if I raise the question of crop insurance under the P.F.A.A. heading, vote 15.


Harry William Hays: Yes.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Second, I would ask the minister to facilitate the work of the opposition and save our having to ask questions by requesting the department to take each of the votes and give us a list of the major increases and the major decreases, not the small ones but the ones that are sizeable, so that we may have a more complete breakdown than appears in the estimates. If that can be given to us before we next study these estimates I think it will facilitate their passage.


Harry William Hays: The hon. member wants the increase or decrease in each vote?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Just the major increases and decreases. If there is an increase of over 10 per cent in an item let us have the increase and what caused it and the same thing for the decreases.


Harry William Hays: We will be glad to do that.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I wish to take the opportunity afforded by the debate on the estimates of the Department of Agriculture to make a few comments on the present

Supply-Agriculture
position of the Canadian farmer, especially the eastern farmer.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that farming falls in a very special category in Canada. In fact, it is the most important profession in Canada, and I think it would be worth while to consider it for a few moments and fully analyse the problems facing farmers, in view of the economic stagnation existing in the country.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it five o'clock? [Text]


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether it would be possible to pass item 1 today. We have had four full days of discussion of this item and I should like to get into the details at the next sitting.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: We agree.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall item 1 carry? [Translation]


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, it would probably take me about eight or ten minutes to deal with agriculture estimates, before the first item is carried.


Mr. MacNaught:: Mr. Chairman, maybe you would not see the clock for ten minutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We would be happy to agree to that.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it agreed that we continue for a few moments with item 1 of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, I thank the house for its kindness and I will do my best to be brief.
For the past few days, that is the period just referred to by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays), the various problems facing our farmers have been under consideration.
In my opinion, farmers know quite well how to solve their production problems. Indeed, they are assisted in that by their professional associations, organizations and unions which have at their disposal the necessary means to look into these problems.
But another problem which must be urgently settled has to do with the sale of the production. Farmers must not only produce, but they also have to dispose of their production at a reasonable price which will enable them to meet their other obligations.
In the past, people were inclined to think that anyone could be a farmer; this opinion

is still current in some circles. I do not agree with that. Today, farming methods are changing more and more, and a farmer must necessarily be conversant with agriculture and moveover be a businessman. In fact, he has to make purchases and if he is not well up in business, he is liable to be cheated sometimes.
In addition, he must have salesmanship; he must know the tricks of the trade in order to make profits. He must also have some knowledge of mechanics, welding and a whole lot of trades; otherwise, he has to make expenditures which are hard on his budget.
In my opinion, contrary to members of all but a few other professions, a true farmer has a variety of skills and that is why he deserves more consideration from the people of Canada. He should be shown greater respect and his income should enable him to enjoy a standard of living comparable to that of any other class of citizens.
There is another point which is of special interest to my riding, that of Chapleau, and that is the situation of farmers under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I would like for a moment to draw the attention of the minister on this matter. I know it will also interest the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen), but as we are considering the agriculture estimates, I hope the Minister of Agriculture will take due note of it.
In my constituency, farming is far from being a thriving business and, often, the owner of a farm or a plot of land has to find outside work for several months each year. During the period where our farmers work mainly as lumbermen, they have to contribute to the unemployment insurance fund. They often work five, six and even seven months a year away from the farm, but when work in the forest ends, some time in the spring, they are perhaps out of work for a few weeks before farm operations begin. Then, our farmers have to face many difficulties when they wish to draw unemployment benefits. I think it would be advisable to consider the situation more carefully and give the farmer who has a low income the privileges granted other classes of society.
I will not deal further with this matter this evening, in order to allow this first item to be passed. I will make other remarks as the various items are submitted to us.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall vote 1 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Resolution adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The
house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills and private bills.



TOBACCO


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-32, to restrain the use of tobacco.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the aim of this bill is to safeguard the public against misleading claims by manufacturers and distributors of tobacco products. The bill and the proposition contained therein is in line with similar legislation being advanced at this time in the United States by the federal trade commission. Part I of the bill sets forth that it is a finable offence to sell or furnish tobacco products to children under 16 years of age. However, that part of the bill is presently an act and was enacted as early as 1908. The only reason it is in the bill I am putting forward is to avoid having two acts on the same general subject. Part II of the bill, which is the new part, would empower the government to control, in the cause of public health, the labelling, exposing, advertising or promoting of tobacco products, much as we now control the same activities in regard to food and drug standards through the food and drug legislation.
Hon. members are, I am sure, well aware of the steps which have been taken in recent years by many other governments in this phase of public health protection. Such countries as Great Britain, France, the Scandinavian countries, the Soviet union and Italy have taken some action to curb the toll of cigarette disease. In connection with this, Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) for her action and the leadership she has given, she being the first minister in the federal field in Canada to encourage study and action toward curbing abuses connected with the excessive consumption of cigarettes. As we know, she called a national conference last year at which were represented, I think, all the provincial health departments in Canada, the tobacco industry and other organizations which are concerned with the toll taken by cigarettes.
Restraint of Use of Tobacco
In passing I would like to say that our provincial government in British Columbia, with which I certainly differ in many other respects, is nevertheless to be commended for having pioneered political action in this field. The minister of health of British Columbia, Hon. Eric Martin, as much as three years ago took an active part in getting provincial action to establish, first of all, funds for educational efforts directed to our younger people to acquaint them with the various tolls taken by excessive smoking of cigarettes. As a matter of fact this next week will mark the fourth annual non-smoking day in British Columbia, which is sponsored by the provincial government of that province.
I am sure hon. members will be aware of the pressing nature of the findings of such organizations as the Royal College of Physicians in Great Britain, the American cancer society, the Canadian Medical Association and several other organizations of that type in regard to exposing the dangers connected with the excessive use of tobacco products. The most recent expose has been by the United States medical authority, with which we are all familiar.
On this point, and in passing, I would like to call to the attention of hon. members that the only interest these impartial medical authorities have in bringing forward the reports they have brought forward, exposing the dangers of excessive cigarette consumption, is that of public health. They have nothing else to sell. They are not concerned with producing tobacco, advertising it, selling it or displaying it. They are only concerned with helping to maintain and improve the standards of public health. They are impartial in that respect.
Mr. Speaker, there have been many activities under way in the last year or two in line with this general program of combating disease from tobacco products, and I have a quotation or two which I would like to make from a pamphlet which is being circulated just now in Washington state by an organization called the "Governor's Conference on Smoking and Youth." There is to be a meeting next week at Seattle, Washington, a conference on smoking and youth, to be attended by 20 health and youth groups concerned in protecting young people from death and disease from the excessive use of tobacco, particularly cigarettes. I quote from the pamphlet as follows:
If one adds all of the deaths from auto accidents in the U.S.A., about 40,000 in 1963, all of the deaths from suicide, about 20,000, all of the deaths


Mr. Jack Roxburgh (Norfolk):: In speaking to this Bill No. C-32, an act to restrain the use of tobacco, may I say at once that I am entirely in accord with part I-the present act to restrain the use of tobacco by young persons. I should like to say, further, that the tobacco industry also believes that this
Restraint of Use of Tobacco part of the bill is a good one, and has for years believed it to be so. Records show that the tobacco industry is in full support of its intent and purposes and has always done its best to co-operate in any activity designed to promote its observance.
Part II of the bill is another matter. In plain words it will be applied to restrain the use of tobacco in Canada. Clause 13 in particular gives to the governor in council a terrific power-the power to make regulations respecting the labelling, the packaging, the selling, the distributing, the offering, the exposing-whatever that may mean; I do not know-the importing, the testing and the analysis of tobacco in addition to what other regulations may be considered fitting-if there are any other matters left to regulate. Certainly, the adoption of this bill would constitute an entirely unwarranted interference by the government in the affairs of an industry which has always been law abiding and, as I have stated on previous occasions, an industry to which the government owes much from the point of view of revenue and employment. Actually, many of the items which this bill seeks to regulate are already covered by laws having to do with customs and excise, and the regulations made thereunder.
Concerning advertising, section 306 of the Criminal Code already exists to deal with false, deceptive and misleading advertising. This does not relate to tobacco only; it covers all products. In the circumstances it would seem that additional and special regulations to govern tobacco advertising specifically would be discriminatory and inequitable. I should like at this time to correct a wrong impression which people have towards advertising relating to cigarettes or the promotion of cigarette sales. There are four companies manufacturing cigarettes in Canada and these four companies spend approximately between $15 million and $18 million annually on promoting and advertising. The first impression from these figures is to think they represent a tremendous amount of money and that the tobacco companies are really "going to town". However, cigarette advertising amounts, in fact, to less than 3 per cent of total sales value as compared with 9 per cent in the case of proprietary drugs, 8 per cent for soaps-the good old soap opera, and Dr. Kildare-and 7 per cent with regard to alcoholic beverages, the latter figure being about 2J times the amount spent on cigarette advertising. That is our dear old friend John Barleycorn. I am sure members

Restraint of Use of Tobacco will agree that these figures show that cigarette advertising volume is consistent with the competitive situation and is not disproportionate or overdone, as many have been led to believe.	.	.
To turn, now, to one of the points raised by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather), perhaps I could quote what was said by Mr. Keith, president of the Imperial Tobacco Company of Canada with respect to the voluntary self-regulating code recently announced by the cigarette manufacturers in the United States. He stated that the code appears to be a realistic move in terms of the situation in that country and is evidence of the desire of the industry to co-operate with the appropriate authorities. I should like to go into a little more detail and quote one or two excerpts from this code, because I have an idea which I wish to develop. They are as follows:
1.	Cigarette advertising shall not appear on T.V. and radio programs or in publications directed primarily to persons under 21 years of age;
2.	Cigarette advertising shall not represent that cigarette smoking is essential to social prominence, distinction, success or sexual attraction.
Incidentally, all models used must be over 25 years of age and this practice has been followed in Canada for some time.
3.	Cigarette advertising shall not depict as a smoker any person well known as being or having been an athlete.
I wonder if as much can be said with regard to the advertising of other products. The other night I watched a television show sponsored by a certain product that is doing more damage to the people of this country than the cigarette or smoking industry. This position regarding the prowess of athletes and problems of social distinction was taken in connection with this problem. I am not going to mention any names, but you can judge for yourselves. In Canada, we have already moved our television program to 9 p.m.
I should like to deal with labelling. The suggested labelling proposals in this bill appear to be based on the assumption that the hypotheses linking smoking and various human diseases have been proven. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather) has already stated that it has not yet been proven. He has given certain illustrations that he feels are O.K. However, I want to say that the ingredient or ingredients in tobacco or tobacco smoke said to be causing cancer have not yet been isolated or proven to be the cause. The labelling of tobacco products as indicated in the bill would not only be illogical but also very unrealistic,


unscientific and therefore misleading. The mere listing of the constituents of tobacco smoke would have no meaning to the consumer or purchaser of tobacco products. If they are not producing the cancer, why should they be put on the label? At the same time such labelling, meaningless as it may be, would unjustly be placing a sort of stigma on the tobacco products themselves.
We have read about the report of the advisory committee to the surgeon general of the public health service of the United States. Like my hon. friend, I can quote reams and reams of statistics. However, the attitude toward cigarette smoking has undergone a big change since this report first came out. I should like to say that we are now reading such headlines as "Cigarettes are safer now, say cancer scientists". Dr. Ernest L. Wynder and Dr. Dietrich Hoffman, of the Sloan Kettering Institute, New York city, say that the majority of filter tip cigarettes now contain less cancer inducing properties than cigarettes formerly did. Dr. Wynder was one of the members of the first research group to point to an association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Now, he has made the statement to which I have just referred.
It was pointed out also that different types of tobacco used in cigarettes have made a difference. This brings to the fore again the fact that more money and time should be devoted to research, as I mentioned in my motion two weeks ago.
Many statements that have been made, and are still being made, in this anti-cigarette smoking campaign have been proven to be erroneous. It seems too bad that a number of these statements have been made by men of good repute who are dealing with something outside their field of endeavour. When a person deals with something outside his own field of endeavour, he is generally running into trouble. For example, Dr. R. G. Williams is reported by the Calgary Herald as having stated:
The percentage of arsenic, a cancer causing agent, has been increasing year by year in tobacco as a result of insect spraying.
I am going to say that nothing could be further from the truth, and I will tell you why. This is something about which I happen to know a little bit. In Canada, little or no arsenic has been used as a spray or otherwise in the tobacco fields for the past 10 to 15 years. Proof of this is the fact that in Canadian cigarettes the arsenic level in tobacco smoke is one part per million, well below

the five parts per million allowed by the Canada Food and Drugs Act. I am not saying that such statements are made by one side only. Possibly they are made by both sides. However, when they are made by men with an M.D. after their names, the average person takes that statement as definite proof.
It may be all right for the federal authorities to sponsor a report on smoking, but it is quite another matter for them to try to control the habit. If they are sincere in trying to protect the people against themselves, then let us not forget that we are trying to protect people against themselves. They decide they want to smoke. They decide they want to take a drink. They decide they want to have ten cups of coffee per day. They decide they want to eat certain things, and this is their business. This is not the government's business. The government can advise them not to do it, but the government cannot force them to stop it.
Let us remember that most experts concede that urban air pollution, which is carbon monoxide, probably possesses much the same peril, and efforts to control it have not been noticeably successful. Because of this peril, are we going to say that the government should dismantle those industries which contribute to air pollution?
Then, there is that good old friend of ours that I should like to mention once more, old John Barleycorn. I have not anything against John-I mean John Barleycorn. However, it is estimated that there are some 250,000 alcoholics in Canada. If one includes their families, this means that there are perhaps a million persons affected by alcoholism. Then, there is cirrhosis of the liver, and other diseases that are brought on by alcoholism. If everybody is sincere in protecting people against themselves, why do they select one product in connection with which to take action? Most hon. members may have heard of North Carolina's most illustrious son, the late Joseph Daniels, who was a real fighter against alcohol and a real fighter against smoking. At one time he said that he never knew a man to beat his wife because he smoked.
There still remains that controversial subject of cholesterol. Are we going to put in legislation to stop people from eating butter, eggs or putting cream in their coffee? Every one of these products contribute to cholesterol. Here is something that is very interesting, and I know hon. members will be interested in it. Not only is the brain rich in cholesterol but cholesterol contains the same nucleus as sex hormones and, therefore,
20220-239J
Restraint of Use of Tobacco is not to be deprecated. My gosh, perish the thought. I can see an unproductive generation in the future if you give the government too much power.
Finally I want to ask hon. members, including the hon. member for New Westminster, if they realize what it will mean if this bill is passed? It will give the governor in council complete power and control over every individual connected directly or indirectly with the tobacco business. If you look at it closely, you will realize it is just about as bad as, if not worse than the recent police bill introduced by Hon. Frederick Cass in the Ontario legislature. If this bill is passed it will be the first step toward doing away with everything for which democracy stands, from freedom of speech to the freedom of free enterprise, with free enterprise competing as it should under laws that are equal for all. I feel sure that the governor in council would hate like the very old dickens to try to implement this bill.
In conclusion, I just want to say that this type of bill gives far too much power and control to the governor in council.


Barry Mather: One question before the hon. member sits down. He made reference to doctors making statements about cigarette consumption. I wonder whether he knows that in Britain over 60 per cent of the doctors have now given up cigarettes, and that 54 per cent are now non-smokers as compared with only 24 per cent of all British males?


John Maxwell Roxburgh: Well, possibly that is right if the hon. member has the figures. But there is a lot of smog in Britain and I do not know whether that has anything to do with it. I did not say anything about the doctors. I said that a doctor made a statement in a field he knew nothing about. I do not want to take away anything from the doctors, because I have the highest respect for the medical association. But if the hon. member or myself or anyone else goes out of his own field and makes a statement, he had better make sure it is correct. I did not say anything about the doctors otherwise, because I have the highest respect for them.


Mr. J. A. McBain (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. C-32, if passed, would endeavour to restrain the use of tobacco by young persons under the age of 16 years. It also provides certain penalties for offences under the act committed by those persons who sell or furnish cigarettes, cigarette papers, or tobacco in other forms. The penalty applies to those

Restraint of Use of Tobacco under 16 who may be found smoking or chewing tobacco in streets or public places.
The hon. member has long been interested in endeavouring to restrain the smoking of tobacco by juveniles and those not so juvenile, and this part of the bill I commend. I think we are all quite concerned at the use of tobacco among our young people, those between 12 and 17 years of age. I also think we are quite concerned why these young people are forming these smoking habits in their early teens.
I was interested in a clipping I picked up headed "Survey finds smoking habit increasing among teenagers". The article is written by a Mr. Jack Hutton and says in part:
The number of Canadian teenagers hooked for life on smoking is increasing every day, according to a survey by this column.
This phenomenon is happening every day in every city, town or village in Canada-despite the strongest warning campaign we've ever known.
A Vancouver 14-year-old girl summed it up. "If you don't accept a cigarette, you aren't counted as one of the group. And who wants to be out?"
Very few teenagers have what it takes to "be out", according to our correspondents. The same pattern showed up all across the country: Teenagers aren't listening to warnings about the dangers of smoking.
The question came up several months ago when I mentioned the fact that the Canadian cancer society and several other groups are worried that smoking seems to be a status symbol for teenagers.
A small pin for those who decided to bypass smoking was produced several months ago. But I personally have never noticed one on anyone. What happened to the pins I don't know.
I think the hon. member who introduced this bill this afternoon was one of those who was endeavouring to provide pins for non-smokers. The article continues:
The first letters answering the column were all from readers who scoffed at warnings about smoking. This didn't bother me-at first. What did alarm me was that no one spoke up for the other side.	.
Therefore, several friends have conducted private surveys during the last three months. Each kept a small notebook handy during August, September and October, quietly jotting down opinions of their friends.
Now, Mr. Speaker, these are some of the opinions:
What emerged were capsule comments from almost 500 teenagers, ranging in age from 13 to 19. Many said they were already smoking "a pack a day" by the age of 15. Some had developed the habit by 13.
Here's what a Winnipeg 16-year-old boy had to say. "The warnings we hear would be a lot more impressive if we didn't see adults disregarding their own advice every minute of the day."
"The Canadian Medical Association frowns on smoking but the heaviest smoker I know is a doctor who lives close to us. And I could never

place much stock in what my folks said because they'd die without a morning cigarette."
A Halifax 17-year-old girl was one person who didn't smoke. But she added: "I was in a restaurant the other day sitting next to a booth where a girl was taking a merciless kidding from friends because she didn't smoke.
"Every time they lit up a cigarette, someone would offer her one and act surprised when she refused. They were calling her 'Mama's girl,' and I even think her boy friend was embarrassed.
"Finally, just before I left, the poor girl took a cigarette. They all broke out in cheers and her date beamed from ear to ear. What a sad thing to see."
I asked my correspondents to ask whether advertising was the main factor in influencing their friends. Very few said that it was. The gang was a far more important factor in almost every case.
From that article it seems that the people to educate are the parents of young children. With both mother and father in many cases working today, it seems to me that there is very little surveillance given the children in the teenage class. They are left pretty well to roam as they please and they naturally fall under the influence of older persons and especially of cigarette smokers.
If this bill were passed, applying these penalties, especially to those under 16 smoking in the street or a public place, does not seem to me to be the answer. You will drive them underground. If these penalties are enforced these people will go into a secluded place, a cellar or backyard to carry on their smoking habits. That is not what we wish to accomplish. I was interested in a news report this morning to the effect that one of our prominent tobacco companies hoped that within an 18-month period they would be able to produce a cigarette on the market with all possible causes of lung cancer removed from it. I hope this can be accomplished within a lesser period of time than that. I know that all our tobacco companies are doing research work in an attempt to find what are the main possible causes of lung cancer in so far as cigarettes are concerned, and they have spent thousands and thousands of dollars in research programs of their own.
At the present time our agriculture committee is studying the production of tobacco, and I hope that when their report is brought in it will recommend that sufficient money be set aside to enable research to be carried out by the Department of Agriculture into possible causes of lung cancer. The tobacco growers will also welcome that research. The tobacco companies would wish to co-operate 100 per cent in that type of work, and I am sure that everyone across the country would appreciate such studies.

I was also interested in another article by a prominent writer, a person by the name of Scott Young of the Globe and Mail. Scott Young apparently has a couple of teenage boys and he has used various methods in an attempt to stop them smoking. I think hon. members might be interested in a few extracts from this article.
Mr. Young says:
I can't think of a better way to bring on an acute case of restiveness among taxpayers than Wednesday's report that we are going to spend $600,000 of public money to discourage cigarette smoking.
Incidentally, this article appeared in the Globe and Mail of November 29, 1963. He goes on to say:
This is going to be divided as follows: $400,000 to tell youngsters that smoking is bad for them and $200,000 for research into why people start smoking and don't stop.
Couldn't we possibly find some way to tell youngsters, equally uselessly, that smoking is bad for them without it costing $400,000? I have an impulse to suggest that this anti-cigarette message be worked into beer commercials, but I guess I'd better not.
Miss Judy LaMarsh, Minister of National Health and Welfare (or, on alternate days, of national health and hellfire) announced this effective new method of throwing money down the drain after the closing session of the Canadian conference on smoking and health.
She said the educational program would not try to scare the children. This seems reasonable. You tell them that if they don't give up the weed they'll be dead at 40. They look around at the world of atomic weapons, death rates on highways, and all the other ways they might wind up dead by 40 anyway and they say, "So what else is new?"
They don't pay any more attention to the lung cancer threat than boys and girls of my generation did to being told that cigarettes would stunt their growth.
Miss LaMarsh has suggested that one method of persuasion might be an advertising campaign in which noted athletes and other celebrities tell why they don't smoke. This would not be worth the powder to blow it up. The same advertising agencies who picked up the loose change on the anticigarette campaign would be busy in another part of the office churning out ads in which athletes and other celebrities endorsed certain brands of cigarettes. This they'll do just as rapidly as they'll endorse a breakfast food, if the price is right.
If it has any pertinence here, I smoke, but not cigarettes. My two sons do. I tried every parental gambit to discourage them. With one, at the age of 14 or 15, every time I saw him smoking I had him write out a $2 cheque and forward it to the society for retarded children, and made sure that the subtlety was not lost on him. He kept on smoking.
The fact is that children have been fed antismoking propaganda ever since cigarettes were invented. It has had no effect at all. Their heroes smoke. Their heroines smoke. Even their parents, who fall into neither category but have a certain influence in some households, usually smoke. So some young people of considerable common sense
Restraint of Use of Tobacco smoke, and so do some stupid ones. It's a habit they acquire from adults-
One encouraging piece of information indicating that maybe tobacco can be put to a better use than smoking is an article headed, "Don't Tell Judy, But Pigs Thrive on Nip of Nicotine". Possibly we have at. last found an agricultural use for tobacco in. providing nicotine in pig feed. The article reads as follows:
It makes them attractively leaner and saves on food, say the results of tests conducted at the Nappan, N.S., research station of the federal agriculture department. Net profit was $1.30 to $1.70 higher for each animal taking nicotine than for porkers who didn't.
Dr. Hugh M. Cunningham of the Nappan station began seven years ago to try and produce a leaner pig. Now, says a department report, he has found that nicotine stimulates the release of a hormone from the adrenal glands which trims fat and increases the growth of the lean tissue much desired for bacons and hams. Thus, simply by adding five parts per one million of nicotine sulfate, the test pigs showed these desirable changes.
In closing I wish to commend the hon. member for introducing the bill. As I said at the beginning, if the bill were passed it would not have the desired effects but would create the possibility of more than ever driving our young people underground to carry on their smoking habits.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, in the three or four minutes left to me I want to say that as far as the first part of the bill is concerned there is apparently unanimous agreement throughout the house that this is a good piece of legislation. If they do not agree with what is written in the legislation, at least all of those who have taken part in this debate agree that it is desirable to discourage our young people from starting to smoke and acquiring a habit that they cannot leave. The motive behind this part of the bill, of course, is to discourage young people from smoking when they are young so that they will not be habitual smokers when they grow up.
There are some contradictions in the actions that have been taken by the present and former federal governments with respect to tobacco. I think it is fair to say that all members of the house-I know the members of our party would-would unanimously support the providing of additional funds for research to find a way of producing what might be called safe cigarettes, if such a thing can be found. I am not suggesting that any good purpose is served so far as the human body is concerned in people smoking, but I think we must face up to the fact that people do

Business of the House
smoke and probably will continue to do so. Therefore, for the good of the nation additional funds should be provided for research along this line.
1 know that we have authorized something like $600,000 for the purpose of educating our young people to refrain from taking up the habit in the first instance, while on the other hand we are spending funds through the agricultural stabilization board for the production of tobacco and also on research to enhance the production of tobacco. This may seem inconsistent, but it is not if we consider other products. There are other products with regard to which we pay money out of the federal treasury in the form of subsidies to assist production and at the same time we also make payments out of the federal treasury to get rid of the surpluses that are produced.
I see it is very close to six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and I simply want to say that we are in favour of the first part of the bill, but so far as the second part is concerned I would say that while it may seem desirable, I think that from a practical point of view we would be far better to spend our money in trying to find some way that tobacco can be used safely, if such a way exists.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The hour for consideration of private members' business has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the house leader to let us know what the business will be for Monday and Tuesday.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, beginning on Monday we will proceed with the debate on the resolution preceding the measure to
amend the National Housing Act, which the Postmaster General is in the process of dealing with, after which we will proceed with the second reading of the measure to amend the Farm Credit Act, after which we will proceed with the debate on a measure seeking approval of the Columbia river treaty and protocol.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, can the
minister tell us when the two flag resolution will come up?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will announce either Monday or Tuesday the date when the debate on the resolutions concerning the flag and the national anthem will begin.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether I might ask the house leader a question. Can it be taken for granted that as soon as the provinces have agreed to the proposed amendment to the British North America Act respecting the Canada pension plan, that resolution will be presented to the house at that time?


Guy Favreau: That, Mr. Speaker, can be taken for granted.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following item was passed In committee of supply this day:]

[Stage Direction]
Administration-
1.	Departmental administration including the national co-ordinating committee on agricultural services. contributions to commonwealth agricultural bureaux and a contribution to the agricultural economics research council in an amount equal to the contributions of the provinces but not exceeding $50,000. $3,368,900.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 1, 1964