1964-03-31

Hon. Paul Marlin (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed I think the house will agree, particularly in view of the fact that the provinces are foregathered in Quebec, that today it would be appropriate in this house to mark the fifteenth anniversary of the entry of Newfoundland into confederation. I am sure our association with that province in the Canadian family will mark a period of national unity in which citizens in all parts of Canada will share in the prestige and achievements of our country.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house will agree with the sentiments expressed by the Acting Prime Minister. The entry of Newfoundland into confederation brought about the achievement of a dream which existed from the days prior to confederation and throughout the intervening years, and made possible the establishment of one Canada. Indeed, as one enters the House of Commons and sees those words "The wholesome sea is at her gates, her gates both east and west," one must conclude the writer forgot her gates to the north, but all those seas actually became part of our country on the entry of Newfoundland into confederation, to which it has given so notable a contribution.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, the members of the New Democratic party would like to associate themselves with the remarks which have been made by the Acting Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in commemorating the fifteenth anniversary of Newfoundland's entrance into Canadian confederation.
I think all of us believe that Newfoundland joining the Canadian family has been a good thing for Newfoundland and for Canada. We trust this newest member of the Canadian family will long enjoy its association, that the spirit of unity which brought Newfoundland into confederation will permeate all the provinces of Canada and that we shall continue to build in the spirit of unity, a great nation on this northern half of the North American continent.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, we in the Social Credit party join with the Acting Prime Minister and the leaders of the other opposition parties in expressing our own feeling of gratitude on this fifteenth anniversary of Newfoundland's entry into confederation, at the progress that has been made, and at the general attitude of Canadianism that has been displayed by these our youngest brethren.
I think there is a lesson to be learned from Newfoundland, a lesson that has been developing during the last fifteen years in which the people of Newfoundland have become thoroughly convinced of the benefits which are theirs in being part of Canada. You may recall, sir, that when the decision was made to come into Canada it was only a very small majority of the people of Newfoundland who thought that was the right thing to do, but today there is practically a unanimous feeling amongst those people, and they are happy and proud to be part of Canada. This is a lesson which we should be more conscious of than we are.


Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, when Newfoundland joined the great Canadian family, 15 years ago, I was a member of this house and we welcomed Newfoundland into our confederation with enthusiasm.
Since then the people of Newfoundland have sometimes wondered whether they had taken a good step forward and done the right thing in becoming part of Canada. Today I think Newfoundland is perfectly happy to be one of the Canadian provinces.
On this anniversary I wish Newfoundlanders a great deal of prosperity and an ever-increasing contribution to the emancipation of each of the Canadian provinces. We are very glad to extend to that province our wishes for many more years within the Canadian confederation.



On the orders of the day:


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: On this fifteenth anniversary of Newfoundland entering confederation perhaps I might be permitted to ask the Acting Prime Minister a question. Is it the intention of the government at the current federal-provincial conference to make good on its oft repeated pledge to restore

Inquiries of the Ministry term 29 of the terms of agreement under which Newfoundland joined confederation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend, who has been a very experienced minister of the crown and, I might say, a very agreeable member of parliament, will not mind me saying that you do not settle that kind of question at a conference. You do it by legislation in this house.


John Angus MacLean: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the Acting Prime Minister give us some hint as to the form this legislation would take, since I think the main point of term 29 was that a royal commission would be set up eight years after Newfoundland joined confederation, which was seven years ago, and which was done by the government of which he was a member.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure my hon. friend does not want to mar this anniversary event by inappropriate or embarrassing questions, which can, of course, be very easily answered in the proper context. He asked me for a hint, and I will be glad to give him a hint if we make some progress today.



BRIDGES


Paul Joseph James Martin: the first reading of Bill No. S-4, (from the Senate) respecting the international bridge over the St. Clair river known as the Blue Water bridge.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. It has to do with the news article which appeared in Le Devoir this morning to the effect that a number of individuals are in the custody of the police having been arrested in connection with thefts from the armouries. Is the minister in a position now to confirm that this is so, and also let the house know to what extent there has been a recovery of the arms which were removed?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: My attention was taken by a number of other matters during the course of this morning, and the first I heard about the news to
[Mr. MacLean (Queens) .1
which the question refers was around 12 o'clock. I asked that the facts be investigated and that a report be made to me, but I must tell the right hon. gentleman that at present I have no information which I could give to the house. If I should receive a report later on which in my view would enable me to make disclosures, and if doing so would prove useful, I might try to revert to this point of our proceedings in order to make a statement.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, possibly we could get an equally succinct answer from the minister of defence. Has he any information as to the arrest of any persons charged with having broken into the armouries? I ask him this because he mentioned earlier that there was the closest liaison between the mounted police and the local police forces, as well as the armed forces.
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence): That is true, Mr. Speaker, but at the moment I am waiting for a report from the Minister of Justice.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the answer is complete; it is that there is no liaison.



DISBANDMENT OF FIGHTER SQUADRON 410

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Does the disbandment today of that most famous of all the Canadian all-weather fighter squadrons the 410, Cougars, confirm the fact that this government has at long last recognized the passing of the bomber threat?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: If that is so, Mr. Speaker, why is the squadron with the greatest seniority and the most battle honours being disbanded at the present time?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will take the question as notice Mr. Speaker.



REQUEST THAT OFFICERS' COMMISSIONS BE IN BOTH LANGUAGES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence.
In view of the fact that commissions which are given to French speaking members of the armed forces are written in English only, is

it the department's intention to remedy the situation so that, in future, officers' commissions will be in French?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I shall make inquiries to ascertain whether the assertions of my hon. friend are accurate and well-founded.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: They are well-founded.



EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I believe the minister of northern affairs has been designated as the minister to give attention to the plight of those who have been adversely affected by the flood in the Alberni valley. I should like to ask the hon. gentleman if he could give the house any report as to what the government have done to help the victims of this disaster, and what plans they have to assist those who are in need.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I think yesterday the deputy provincial secretary in Victoria, Mr. Lawrence Wallace, asked for the intervention of the army, and within a very few hours there was a reconnaissance party in Alberni. Beginning, I think, at midnight last night the army started moving in a total of 240 men, and today at noon they began bringing in some heavy equipment designed, I believe, to repair municipal services in the general area.
I want to tell the hon. member that, thankfully, it would now appear that the over-all damage is much less than was at first anticipated. This does not in any way detract from the enormous loss to individuals. We are now informed, on a preliminary basis, that 45 houses have been totally destroyed, some 14 have been very severely damaged, and 375 more houses have more or less damage. This, of course, is a very severe loss, and is one reason why this morning I sent a wire to Hon. Wesley Black, minister of social welfare, asking him to supply us with a copy of the assessment of the damage to these private properties and to give us some indication of how they intended to compensate these people who otherwise are not covered by insurance at all. This is the nature of the severity in that area and, of course, to these individual persons it is extremely severe.
I understand that inquiries are being made concerning a disaster fund that I think still exists in the province of British Columbia.
Inquiries of the Ministry It is in charge of one or two trustees, and that fund may be released. In addition, a new disaster fund has been started. I think the hon. member himself is probably the only member present in the house who visited the scene last Saturday. He gave his commendation to that fund, and I understand that very worth-while contributions are being made. I think we should all assist this fund, because it is an excellent exercise in humanism in itself.
I was talking to Mayor Fred Bishop of Alberni this morning, and he advised me that the civic leaders there, and indeed the people, were most gratified at the action taken by all levels of government and by the various agencies that are contributing to overcome the difficulty in the area.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the most pressing need is for assistance to the people who have been rendered homeless-I understand there are 77 families with no roof over their heads and another 233 families who have been placed with their neighbours, and that these people need bedding, clothing, cooking utensils, dishes and furniture so they can be taken care of-has the government given any consideration to the possibility of making a substantial contribution to the Alberni valley disaster fund, which might be the most immediate way of helping those who are in need at the present time, pending looking into the question of rehabilitation?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has raised this matter I think I should read to the house the wire that I sent to Hon. Wesley Black this morning, which I think relates to any action we might take:
Am advised army unit now moved into Alberni area on request of Mr. L. Wallace. Thankfully over-all damage appears less than first anticipated. However individual losses of homes furnishings and businesses constitute grave misfortune to people without coverage. Please be good enough furnish me with copy of report assessment of damages to private property and your proposals for assistance in such cases. Am advised army moving in heavy equipment today to assist civic authorities restore municipal services.
I would expect to receive a wire in response from Hon. Wesley Black.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government will give consideration to calling fairly early the supplementary estimates of the Department of Finance so we can have some discussion of this matter which I think is of immediate interest.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman unfortunately could not be here all of yesterday. He

Inquiries of the Ministry knows some of the problems which I hope today we will be able to resolve.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is a related one directed to the Acting Prime Minister. I am sure all Canadians have been disturbed and concerned about the continuing reports of damage and loss of life that have taken place in the neighbouring state of Alaska. Has Canada offered, or does it intend to offer, any assistance to the tremendous rehabilitation program required in Alaska as a result of the earthquake there?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my hon. friend will recall that yesterday the Prime Minister mentioned that he had sent a communication to President Johnson expressing the sympathy of the Canadian people and the Canadian government over the tragic events in Alaska last week end. The Prime Minister indicated in his message that he had expressed Canada's willingness to assist in relieving those tragic events. There has been no response to the communication which the Prime Minister sent to the President.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of press reports this morning that active fighting has taken place in Cyprus involving troops under the United Nations command, I should like to ask the minister this. If fighting should break out today in Cyprus between Greek and Turkish Cypriots in the area controlled by Canadian troops under United Nations command, just what are Canadian troops under UN command instructed to do?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend, who has a long experience in international affairs, having been parliamentary secretary to my predecessor, will understand that Canada, as a contributing member of the international peace keeping force, will do all that it can, pursuant to the directives of the commander of that force to maintain peace and order, and the good name of the United Nations and that of Canada.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg Soulh Cenire):: I would ask the Minister of National Defence if he can now report to the

house on the hospital facilities available to Canadian troops serving in Cyprus under United Nations auspices.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The situation is as I outlined in response to a previous question by the hon. gentleman and there has been no change since then. I understand an offer has been made by the Austrian government to supply a hospital unit for the peace keeping force, but no decision has yet been taken by the secretary general in New York.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
"LE soleil"
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In a copy of the newspaper Le Soleil which has just arrived and more especially in the column of Mr. Amedee Gaudreault, the following report can be read:
Mr. Real Caouette has no further need for Mr. Robert Thompson's contradictions. On Monday March 16, he stated in the house: "It is understood that we are quite pleased with the decision taken by the government on Friday last (to send troops to Cyprus-
Mr. Speaker, following three or four speeches given in the house, I was only speaking in jest when I said:
It is understood that we are all quite pleased with the decision of the government.
while actually, I was not pleased at all. I never approved in any way of the sending of troops to Cyprus, and more especially of the manner in which it was done. Moreover, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) is aware of it.
Mr. Amedee Gaudreault, like most newspapermen of his ilk has lied barefacedly and utterly.



TRADE AND COMMERCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Maiher (New Weslminsier):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce, notice of which I have given, but in his absence I should now like to direct it to the Minister of Industry. My question is, in the light of the Canadian Consumers Association survey revealing short-filled cartons of fruit juice and milk products in Toronto, a survey which I understand was undertaken with the co-operation of the government, will the minister consider

initiating or co-operating in similar surveys in other Canadian cities on behalf of Canadian consumers?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Department of Trade and Commerce will be most willing to co-operate fully in similar surveys elsewhere in Canada.



CROWN ASSETS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. In view of the generally apparent interest in the house in obtaining information as to possible assistance to some of these unfortunate disaster areas, I wonder I could get an answer to a question a little nearer to home. In light of the fact that today is the day on which the closing of certain army establishments and the mid-Canada radar line in northern Manitoba takes place I should like to refer to the answer the minister gave me on March 16 in reply to several questions I asked concerning the plight of the people at Cranberry Portage, Manitoba. At that time the minister said:
A representative of the Department of Defence Production is going to Manitoba to ensure that the necessary arrangements for the interregnum are made.
Does the minister realize that as of today some of the essential services of this community are being cut off, particularly the water service to the new school and the heating service? I am wondering whether the minister can tell us now that the government will take some action to restore these services.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I would be very surprised indeed if the hon. member's information is correct that the water supply to the new school has been cut off.


Robert Simpson: I understand it is.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I will check on that right away. I understand that the heat has been cut off to a number of government buildings which will no longer be occupied. I do not think that will concern the hon. member particularly. However, I will check immediately on whether or not the water has been cut off to the school.
Inquiries of the Ministry



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. Can he tell the house why the government wants to sell three of Canadian Arsenals' main plants, two of which are located in Quebec and one in Ontario?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: For two reasons, in principle, Mr. Speaker.
First, there are not enough orders for those three plants. Therefore, it will be necessary to dismiss some employees. We also have to dispose of the plants so as to maintain employment.
Besides, the operation of those three plants is very expensive for the government in their present state, and the government wants to avoid those operating costs.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. When the government sells those plants to private enterprise will there be a clause in the contract providing that the employees working at present in those plants, may keep their jobs?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can rest assured that the government will do its best, in short anything that it must do, in order to protect the vested rights of the employees.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Lloyd (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister advise the house whether the Atlantic development board has been asked to make special studies of the future economic prospects of the ports of Halifax and Saint John?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was authorized about ten days or so ago by the government to ask the Atlantic development board to have special studies undertaken of the ports of Halifax and Saint John with a view to analysing the problems, particularly the economic problems, confronting those ports and to recommend steps that might be taken by the government of Canada to assure their

Inquiries of the Ministry economic future. I gave this direction to the board in a letter I addressed to the executive director on March 21 and which there is no reason to keep secret, so I would be glad to table it.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: May I ask a supplementary question. How will this tie in with the investigation being presently conducted into winter navigation, which has a tremendous effect on Halifax and Saint John?


John Whitney Pickersgill: As the hon. member will know, being well informed about these matters, there are two investigations. These investigations are virtually complete and the results, I understand, are being reported to a meeting of the board on April 20. It was because these investigations seemed to point in the direction of a more intensive study of the two ports of Halifax and Saint John that the government took the decision to have this particular study made.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask the minister if he has received a request from the Atlantic division of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association to have the Atlantic development board use its resources to find the main causes of the region's lagging economy. If so, what are the thoughts of the board in connection with these charges?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The secretary or director- I am not just sure from memory which title he has-of the Atlantic section of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association did me the courtesy of sending me a copy of a letter he addressed to the chairman of the board making a request along the lines the hon. gentleman has suggested. I am very hopeful the board will regard this request favourably.


Thomas Miller Bell: Will the minister assure the house that these charges about a lagging economy will be looked into? Because when the Conservative government went out of power the Atlantic provinces were in good shape.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman only needs to look at the comparative employment statistics of a year ago and the present time to see that they are much better now.


Thomas Miller Bell: What about Bell island and Cape Breton?



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and he may prefer to


answer this question when his supplementary estimates come before the house. Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs inform the house whether the important proposals made, I understand, by the United Kingdom government at the disarmament conference at Geneva for observation posts, some of which are to be in Canada, affect this country and how the government views them?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The question, as my hon. friend said, is one that would lend itself to fuller discussion on the estimates. However, I may say that the proposal is one that Canada supported at the last United Nations general assembly. This proposal is designed to establish observation posts on each side of the iron curtain to eliminate surprise attacks.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. P. Antoine Belanger (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Could he tell us whether it is true that the government is considering including the profession of school teacher in the list of eligible occupations under the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: As my hon. friend knows, the Gill committee made a number of recommendations to increase the coverage of the Unemployment Insurance Act. One group recommended for inclusion was the teachers. This and other matters are under consideration presently by the government.


David Réal Caouette: May I ask
a supplementary question of the Minister of Labour. Is the purpose of this recommendation to enlarge the coverage to include professors, or is it to enlarge the field of taxation so the minister can get more money for his unemployment insurance fund?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The reasons for the recommendation are set out in the report itself. Presumably the committee had in mind the need to maintain the financial position of the fund and to increase the responsibility of dealing with unemployment. This, as I said, is still under consideration and no decision has been reached.



AUTHORITY OF FINANCE MINISTER TO MAKE LOANS TO FUND

[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 Labour. In view of the fact that the present power of the Minister of Finance to make loans to the unemployment insurance fund runs out at midnight tonight, can the minister give us a report on the state of that fund; and is it in a position to meet the calls on it within the next week or two?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that we will be able to deal with the supplementary estimate providing for a loan to the fund within the next short period, so that the fund will be able to bear its responsibilities within the next week or so. At present the reserves are not adequate to finance the benefits beyond a very short time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a supplementary question, is the item in the estimates regarding this matter one of those that must be passed fairly soon?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: In that connection, Mr. Speaker, I noticed how careful the minister was when he answered that question, that the authority would be needed-


Mr. Byrne:: Question.


John George Diefenbaker: I was not speaking of the parliamentary secretary, who was never careful in anything. The question I ask is this. Is it not correct that the fund is in such a position that the government will be able to provide the necessary assistance even if action is delayed for ten days. Is that not correct?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not want to put this in a provocative way, but my information today is that unless the particular item is approved this week, the commission would be in difficulty to make benefit payments by the end of the week.


Mr. Fred F. Stenson (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour if he had the figures at his disposal when he spoke about a week ago in Peterborough and said there was not any unemployment?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, not even in Peterborough would I make such an exaggerated statement.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: May I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Are the small post office buildings which 20220-101
Inquiries of the Ministry have been constructed in the last few years under the winter works program all over Canada now being erected only in the so-called designated or depressed areas?


Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: I would ask the hon. member to put the question to the Postmaster General who is in charge of the program of building small post offices for this year.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, then I direct this question to the Acting Prime Minister, and wish to say I would have directed it to the Postmaster General except that unfortunately he is out of the country on business. I direct to the Acting Prime Minister the question which I just directed to the Minister of Public Works. Are the small post office buildings, which have'been constructed all over Canada in the last few years under the winter works program, now only being erected in the so-called designated or depressed areas and, if so, when did this policy change?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I shall see that this question is brought at once to the attention of the minister in charge.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: As a supplementary question, in view of the fact that I received a letter from the Postmaster General this morning stating this was government policy, and since the Postmaster General is not here, is there someone on the government front benches who can answer the question?


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, it seems apparent that my hon. friend is satisfied that he already has the reply. If that is the case, then he is out of order in asking for a reply which he has already received. However, I shall try to help my hon. friend, who I know is very interested in this question, and we shall give the answer as quickly as we can.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the question I asked was if the policy was changed, when was it changed; and since this has always come under the Minister of Public Works previously I directed my question to that minister.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I have a question for the Minister of Industry which relates to the formula set by statistical analysis that the government uses to determine designated areas. Has the government

Inquiries of the Ministry in hand at the moment a review of this formula? Is there any chance at all of it being changed or altered within the next month or two?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the question of the criteria has for some time been under consideration. When and if any changes might emerge I would not like to say now.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister tell us if it is worth while for any of the regions or areas that are bothered by the present analysis to come to Ottawa to make any formal presentation of arguments for a change in the designated areas? In other words, I know there are a number of parts of the country concerned over this, and I think they should have an indication as to whether briefs or formal presentations to the minister would do any good.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The Department of Industry welcomes advice from whatever quarter it may come. If there are those who are of the opinion that the present criteria are unsatisfactory we would be delighted to hear in what way they might be unsatisfactory and in what way they might be changed.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO SECURITY MEASURES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Mariineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice. Could he tell the house what extraordinary security measures have been taken in connection with the Quebec federal-provincial conference, and why?


Guy Favreau: do not think any extraordinary security measures have been taken. However, if measures had to be taken, I am sure that the R.C.M.P., knowing as it does what it has to do in such circumstances, took them.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Has the minister read press reports on this matter, such as the one published in today's Ottawa Journal which states:

Police shadow delegates-conference opens behind unusual security screen.

I should like the minister to let me know whether or not extraordinary steps have been taken in respect of that conference.


Mr. Speaker:: I must intervene to point out to the hon. member that I think the question is going beyond the limits.


Paul Raymond Martineau: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this second question arises from the statement the minister has just made. Apparently he does not know whether or not some extraordinary precautions were taken, and there are press reports to that effect.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not see the point of order.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinlhe-Ba-gol):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice?
Could the minister tell the house categorically whether or not unusual security measures have been taken regarding the federal-provincial conference being held at the present time in Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but this question is out of order.


Paul Raymond Martineau: On a point of order, I consider that this is a very important question: and if the minister does not know whether security measures have been taken by the R.C.M.P., which comes under his jurisdiction, then the least he could do, I submit, is to find out and give that information to the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggested that the question was out of order because in my opinion it was an argumentative question, and I think that has been demonstrated this afternoon.


Paul Raymond Martineau: May I say that in my opinion it is not an argumentative question but a question of fact. We want to know whether or not extraordinary measures were taken. Surely the minister can answer that question.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, while the question is out of order, I should like to point out that even if I answered it by yes or no, in either case the public interest would not be served, quite the contrary.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, does that answer of the minister mean that when he answered the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) a few moments ago, he did not know whether or not measures had been taken and that he has just received information in that regard?


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker. I rise on a question of privilege as a result of the answer given by the minister.
My question of privilege is this. Must we accept the minister's answer to the effect that it is not in the public interest that the house be given information in regard to a question of general interest? In my opinion his answer denotes arrogance towards the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The point at issue is a point of order, not a question of privilege. It seems to me that if the hon. member has any definite facts which should be brought to the attention of the Minister of Justice, it is his duty to do so. But if it is just a general inquiry I think we are right to assume that the local authorities are taking all precautions.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I am very glad to furnish definite facts, because definite facts have been published in the newspapers.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is against the rules to read newspapers-


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker himself has asked for definite facts and here is what is stated: "There are dozens of plainclothes police from the R.C.M.P.-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member-


Paul Raymond Martineau: I am speaking on a point of order, and I think on my point of order I should have the right to explain-


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the hon. member if he is prepared to take responsibility for the report as published in the newspaper?


Paul Raymond Martineau: You have yourself asked me if I had any definite facts, and there are reports of definite facts in the newspaper. I am asking the minister whether or not special precautions have been taken. Surely the minister can say whether that is so, and if it is so I think this house is entitled to know why. That is all I am asking of the hon. gentleman.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, about the point of order, I tbinir that the questions asked by the hon. members for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) and Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) are unbelievably stupid.
20220-101i
Inquiries of the Ministry
If measures have to be taken in Quebec at this time, I feel that the federal government as well as that of the province of Quebec should assume their responsibilities. Neither the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue nor the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot should worry about that now. They should stop wasting the time of the house with such stupid questions.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I feel that the hon. member for Villeneuve has not added anything to the point of order that I raised.
Unfortunately, the house still completely ignores how matters stand and the reason given by the minister is worthless, because it has already been published in the press that special measures had been taken. In my opinion, if in the public interest these measures should not be disclosed they should not have been published in the press.
Since these measures have already been publicly discussed, I feel that the house has the right to be advised of the nature of these measures.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: This is really developing into an argument. May I state the opinion of the Chair, that I refuse to believe that law and order has broken down in the province of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear. [Translation]


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege and ask your protection so that when we are speaking we will not be interrupted by the hon. members opposite who are trying to prevent us from expressing our opinions or raising objections.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: You see, Mr. Speaker. Consequently I am asking you to grant us the protection to which we are entitled. We only ask for bare justice, nothing more.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I interrupt to ask hon. members opposite to follow your orders and take the responsibility for what they say.


Mr. Speaker:: In the spirit of Easter I am going to call upon the hon. member for Brandon-Souris.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister

Inquiries of the Ministry of Finance or, in his absence, the acting minister. Is the government aware that the imposition of a sales tax on the retread tire industry is seriously threatening the financial solvency of this important small industrial activity?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Acting Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take that question as notice.



PREVENTION OF PROFITEERING FOLLOWING EXCISE TAX INCREASE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of National Revenue. With the imposition by the government tomorrow, April 1, of the 8 per cent tax on building materials and production machinery, what steps are being taken by the government to ensure that the increased tax is not charged to purchasers of materials stockpiled or in store prior to April 1?


Mr. Speaker:: I think this question was asked yesterday.


Paul Raymond Martineau: On a point of order, I think the minister was about to make a reply. The question was asked yesterday but no reply was given, because the minister was absent.


George James McIlraith: The minister was not absent yesterday, but this question was asked and dealt with at that time.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Will the minister postpone the collection of fees from the city of Edmonton for departmental services at Edmonton industrial airport, due to start tomorrow, in view of the request of the mayor of Edmonton for consultation on this problem?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I had not been aware there had been any such request. Of course if the mayor of Edmonton has made a request of that sort I will give it the most careful consideration.



NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd Francis (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker,
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can he inform the house what is the latest date on which the western section of the Queensway in Ottawa will be open for traffic, and is it the responsibility of the national capital commission?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, the westbound traffic lane was scheduled for opening last October and the eastbound section was to have been completed shortly afterward. Unfortunately these deadlines were not met because of the contractor's delay in completing his work. It is expected that the section will be completed some time in May.
May I add that there is a committee known as the Queensway committee, composed of representatives of the province of Ontario, the N.C.C., the city of Ottawa and the public works department. This, of course, is a cost sharing project, and this committee meets at least once a month. This is our only responsibility in this project, and I wish to emphasize that unless something unexpected happens this section will be opened around May 15.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: I had a
question for the Prime Minister, but in his absence perhaps the Acting Prime Minister will take it as notice. What plans, if any, has the government for preventing Uranium City from becoming a ghost town? Will the government consider extending its stockpiling program and use the uranium mines at Uranium City for this purpose as well as those at Elliot Lake?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will do as the hon. member suggests and take this question as notice.



PETERBOROUGH, ONT.-REPORTED REMOVAL OF PLANTS TO U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Fred Frise Stenson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry and ask whether he would go to Peterborough or send one of his deputies to meet the Fisher Gauge people and persuade them to stay in Peterborough rather than go to the state of New York-


An hon. Member:: Is that a question?


Fred Frise Stenson: Yes.


An hon. Member:: Are you a Speaker?


Fred Frise Stenson: -to which they are at the
present time negotiating to move part of their business because of the tax being imposed on production machinery.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I have already paid one visit to Peterborough. I will undertake, on behalf of the Department of Industry, to see that whatever persuasive efforts we can employ will be used to encourage the Fisher people to remain in Canada.


Mr. R. A. Webb (Haslings-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry and ask whether he is aware that Outboard Marine and Manufacturing Co. of Canada, located in Peterborough, Ontario, has stated that it will now be necessary to move the production of their snowmobiles to the United States because of the government-imposed tax on production machinery.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: I had a
question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs but in his absence perhaps the Acting Prime Minister would deal with it. Would the Acting Prime Minister give consideration to the possibility of making appropriate arrangements for payment under hospitalization schemes for those veterans who require to enter veterans hospitals and who do not qualify for admittance under the terms of the veterans charter?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think that question is one for the order paper. However, since it has been asked I will bring it to the attention of the appropriate minister.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds):: May I ask
the Secretary of State for External Affairs what protection is available for the esteemed hon. member for Qu'Appelle should war erupt between the Soviet union and red China?


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know to whom I should direct this question, but perhaps the Acting Prime Minister would be the appropriate person. I should like to ask him, or whichever other hon. gentleman might be able to supply the information, which of the members of the cabinet
Inquiries of the Ministry will be appointed as acting prime minister for tomorrow, in view of the significance of that date.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Minister of National Defence.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the character of the question I think it had better go unanswered.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I should like to direct a question to the former acting prime minister, the Minister of Transport; and perhaps in view of the fact that today is the fifteenth anniversary of Newfoundland's entry into confederation, it might have been more appropriate if the hon. gentleman had been acting prime minister today.
I should like to ask the hon. gentleman a question arising out of an answer he gave on March 26 with regard to regulations with respect to wharfage rates. At that time the minister indicated that there were, as he put it, certain administrative difficulties which had been encountered, and that clarification of these difficulties was being proceeded with. I wonder whether these administrative or other difficulties have now been resolved, and whether the minister can indicate what is the effect of the new wharfage rates as they apply to fishermen.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I apologize to the hon. gentleman for not having spoken to him about this matter yesterday, as I intended, but he will understand that in that never-never land of yesterday it was difficult to do so. Perhaps I could answer today that the administrative problem which I found it a little difficult to explain fully until I had had a rather detailed explanation was that there were certain of these wharves-I believe you call them floats in Prince Rupert-which were used not merely for loading and unloading fish but also for tying up fishing boats and were also being used for tying up pleasure boats, which congested them, and there were some quite serious administrative problems.
As for the particular case to which the hon. gentleman referred, I have a note here that the floats in which the co-operative was interested in Prince Rupert have been offered to the city of Prince Rupert on a nominal rental basis. I should not say this without being sure, but I believe it is a dollar a year. If the city takes them, any arrangement regarding use or charges would then be a matter between the city and the fishermen.

Inquiries of the Ministry I am told the city is interested. It the city is not interested, then the department is prepared to offer them to the co-operative on the same nominal fee basis, so the problem would not arise at all. I can assure the hon. member that any vessel which merely unloads is not charged any dues in accordance with the regulations.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. The hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Some hon. Members:: Orders of the day.


An hon. Member:: Carried.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member does not care to ask his question, I will call upon another hon. member.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm MacInnis: I intend to proceed with the question of privilege when order is restored in the house. If necessary I will stand here until that order is given to me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm MacInnis: My question of privilege in this case is that any time I rise, members on the opposite side of the house are quick to come to the assistance of the Chair and continue to make remarks from their seats, and I think as a member of this house I am as entitled to the floor as hon. members on the opposite side, who seem to get it without the recognition of the Chair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Malcolm MacInnis: The question I wish to ask the Minister of Labour is this. What progress has been made in providing alternative employment for the men to be laid off at the Point Edward naval base in Sydney?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have dealt with this question several times, and today I have nothing to add to what I have already said. When further information is available I will be glad to advise my hon. friend.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. Would the Minister of National Defence make the house aware of the meeting which took place with a delegation from Sydney which returned to that city quite optimistic about future developments at that base? Would he now reveal to

the house just what this delegation did get from the minister on that occasion.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I think this question has already been dealt with. We did receive a delegation, which was most understanding of our problem as we were of theirs. We indicated to them that every effort is being made to find an alternative use for the base and the facilities there, and to assist in finding job opportunities in the community. We also indicated that these matters are being pursued with diligence by the Department of Labour and other departments of government.


Malcolm MacInnis: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


Malcolm MacInnis: Both the Minister of Labour and the Minister of National Defence have, on every occasion this question has been asked-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member about to debate the question or does he want to ask a question?


Malcolm MacInnis: Given the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, I will draw to your attention that on the last three occasions this particular question was asked-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Malcolm MacInnis: -you yourself ruled it out of order because there was no national importance and no emergency in the question. I would, however, draw to your attention that this afternoon you have permitted questions on highways, and you have permitted a joker on the front bench of the Liberal party to make remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is quite right in saying that considerable leeway has been given this afternoon. It was given for the deliberate purpose of trying to create a new spirit in this house in order to get on with the business before the house.


Malcolm MacInnis: Then let us have it on both
sides of the house, instead of just one.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.

Is the selection of lawyers acting for certain crown corporations based on political considerations?


Guy Favreau: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.



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


The Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of supply; supplementary estimates (E) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1964.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
le. Departmental administration-to extend the purposes of vote 1 of the main estimates for 1963-64 to include the gift detailed in these estimates and to provide a further amount of $60,000.
Mr. Hays:: Mr. Chairman, when the house rose last evening I was dealing with a question from the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) in connection with butter exports. He had referred to the fact that the United Kingdom had made some increases in its butter import quota this year, and he wanted to know whether we would be participating in that trade.
The situation is that in April, 1962 when the United Kingdom butter market was seriously depressed under very heavy imports, the government of that country placed butter imports under quota and gave quotas to the regular supplying countries. Canada is not a regular commercial supplier of butter to the United Kingdom, and indeed the price of butter in this country does not permit Canadian exporters to engage in competitive world trade at world prices.
However, last fall when there was a temporary shortage of butter in the United Kingdom the government of that country issued a special open quota, and Canada was able to participate in this to the extent of some 5] million pounds, at of course considerably subsidized prices. There has, as the hon. member stated, been a minor increase in United Kingdom quotas this year to regular suppliers. If these countries are not able to meet their quotas, or if a shortage should develop in the United Kingdom, we would hope that Canada would again be able to participate in some business, as we did last fall.
In addition to butter, we have been able to dispose of some 18 million pounds of butter oil, including 4J million pounds to the United Kingdom. I can only add that we are actively endeavouring to secure additional outlets for the heavy accumulation of butter since 1957, and there are some encouraging prospects that more trade will develop.
Supply-Agriculture
Yesterday, in dealing with milk prices, which was a matter raised by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, I quoted some milk prices which I had secured by telephone from plants in his area for 1963 and 1964. There is a variety of sources from which milk prices might be secured and a variety of bases on which these might be quoted. So far as I am aware the only official record is that issued by the dominion bureau of statistics, which quotes average prices for each month basis f.o.b. farm. These d.b.s. monthly figures for the province of Quebec in 1962 show a range of from $2.60 per cwt. to $2.84 per cwt. for manufactured milk. The same statistics for 1963 show a range of prices from a low $2.63 per cwt. to a high of $2.92 per cwt. In every case from the month of May 1963, when the new support program was instituted, to the month of December 1963 the d.b.s. figures show a higher price in 1963 than in the equivalent month of 1962.


Mr. Vincent:: May I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture?


Harry William Hays: After I am through I will be glad to answer any questions. The hon. member wanted me to answer these questions the other day, and if he will give me time I will be glad to answer all the questions which were asked. This difference ranges from a low of 2 cents per cwt. to a high of 11 cents per cwt. Without taking the time of the house to read these figures I will place them on the record. I should add that these figures include all the subsidies paid by the government, and I should like to table these figures issued by the dominion bureau of statistics covering January to December in years 1962 and 1963.


Clément Vincent: There is no provision for that.


Harry William Hays: These figures include all the subsidies.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it the wish of the committee that the figures now supplied by the minister be printed as an appendix to Hansard,'!


John George Diefenbaker: Might I ask whose figures these are?


Harry William Hays: These are all dominion bureau of statistics figures.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it agreed?


Clément Vincent: Mr. Chairman, yesterday I made exactly the same request; I asked for some documents to be printed in appendix to Hansard, but my request was rejected.

Supply-Agriculture


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member knows it is not customary for Hansard to publish copies of letters and documents of the type the hon. member wanted to table. What he suggested at the time was that the documents to which he was referring be tabled, and I advised the hon. member that there was no provision under our rules to table that type of document. They could be tabled in the sense that they could be put at the disposition of other hon. members, but what the minister is now asking is that these figures be printed in Hansard as an appendix, and that can be done with consent of hon. members.


Harry William Hays: As part of my speech.


Lucien Lamoureux: Yes, of course, as part of his speech. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The figures referred to above are as follows:]
Milk Prices for Ice Cream Mix and Concentration f.o.b. farm-Quebec
1962	1963	1964January	2.80	2.81	NotFebruary	2.80	2.75	availableMarch	2.73	2.80	April	2.63	2.67	May	2.64	2.66	June	2.63	2.65	July	2.60	2.63	August	2.63	2.72	September	2.73	2.74	October	2.80	2.83	November	2.84	2.92	December	2.70	2.81	
Dominion bureau of statistics figures.
Includes all subsidies.


Harry William Hays: While official d.b.s. figures are not available for 1964, the record which the department has from certain individual plants indicates that prices so far this year have been higher than at the same time a year ago.
There were some questions about ARDA. The member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue suggested that I had taken credit for ARDA. I am not aware that I have ever done this, either in the house or elsewhere. Indeed, both here and outside the house I have given credit to the previous government for several pieces of agricultural legislation including ARDA, the Farm Credit Act, the Agricultural Stabilization Act. What I have said is that any impression that this government has been dragging its feet on ARDA is not correct, and to illustrate that I gave figures in the house on March 26 on the value of ARDA contracts entered into before and after May 1, 1963.
Here again I have these figures and I should like to place them on record for hon.
[Mr. Vincent.}
members. Up to May 1, 1963 the value of ARDA contracts amounted to $2,185,000. Since May 1, 1963 to the present they amount to $11,094,456. This is the amount of contracts under ARDA since May 1, 1963.
The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm requested that we take steps to encourage agronomists from Quebec to come to Ottawa. I can assure him that I share his hope in this respect and I am very pleased, as I know he will be, that in a recent civil service competition for the position of director of the department's plant products division the successful applicant was a very valued and highly respected officer of the department who for some years occupied the position of district supervisor of the plant products division in the province of Quebec.
The hon. member also urged that attention be given to the matter of agricultural research in Quebec. He will recall that in my statement on the department's main estimates last year I indicated that it was our intention to establish a new agricultural research lab-ratory in association with the agricultural faculty of Laval University in Quebec. This is being done in close association with the Quebec department of agriculture and with Laval University, and I am pleased to be able to inform him that the arrangements are going forward. I am also pleased to inform the hon. member that we are now at the point of securing title to additional land for the horticultural research station which the department is developing at St. Jean, Quebec.
The right hon. Leader of the Opposition suggested that employees of the animal diseases research institute in Hull had had to wait five weeks for their pay cheques, and inquired whether this was because of any uncertainty as to which department they came under. I am sure the right hon. gentleman will appreciate that there has never been any suggestion that the department's health of animals branch would not remain in the Department of Agriculture. The delay to which he refers has nothing to do with regular pay cheques. Recently salary increases were authorized for certain prevailing rate classes, retroactive to October 17 last. Because of recent changes in pay office procedures with regard to this group of people there has been some delay in issuing the cheques to them covering the increased salaries for the retroactive period. However, I am informed that these cheques either have now gone out or will be going out very shortly.
On Thursday last I made reference to the recent approval by the government of certain construction grants administered by my department, and on reading Hansard I note

that there is some possibility of misunderstanding in connection with my remarks. I should not like to mislead anyone and therefore I should like to make it clear that I was referring not solely to cold storage construction grants but rather to the group of construction grants which includes those for cheese factory amalgamation, curing room construction and potato warehouse construction. You may remember that I said it seems to me we should take a whole new look at cold storage facilities so that they will better serve those who require these facilities.
Within the last few months about 12 grants have been approved and another six are being processed. Up until the time the government authorized these grants the three programs had been largely suspended since June of 1962.
Some members asked about farm credit and crop insurance legislation. I think the house has been informed of the intention of the government to bring in amending legislation to these two statutes, and I referred to this in my statement in the debate on the main estimates of the Department of Agriculture for 1963-64. I think hon. members will appreciate that I am not at liberty at the moment to disclose the precise nature of the amendments which will be proposed to the house but these, of course, will be made known when the legislation is introduced. 1 think it will be found, however, that the amendments to be introduced will strengthen these two very important statutes.
The hon. member for Villeneuve raised the matter of assistance to young farmers to become established in farming, and assistance in the consolidation of old farms. Loans made under part III of the Farm Credit Act are designed primarily to assist young farmers to become established in farming. During the past two fiscal years the corporation has approved 431 loans-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the minister but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: We are so happy to see you in the house, so go on.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Fane:: He has a lot of time to make up.


Harry William Hays: I will repeat what I was saying. Loans made under part III of the Farm Credit Act are designed primarily to assist young farmers to become established in farming. During the past two fiscal years the corporation has approved 431 loans under part III in the province of Quebec for a total amount of $8,475,500. In Canada as a whole 20220-102
Supply-Agriculture
the number of loans under part III has been 1,083 for a total of $21,290,200 during the same period. In other words, about 40 per cent of the loans made by the corporation under this section of the act to establish young farmers have been made in the province of Quebec.
In addition, the Quebec farm credit bureau makes loans to establish young farmers. During the same two-year period they have approved over 2,100 loans for this purpose, for a total amount in excess of $19 million. It is worth noting also that, of the total funds advanced by the Farm Credit Corporation under its total lending program, about 52 per cent is used for the purchase of land, either in the establishment of new farming enterprises or in the consolidation of farm units.
The hon. member for Kent commented on the support program for two crops in which his area specializes, namely soybeans and sugar beets. The support program for the forthcoming year for both of these commodities is under study by the agricultural stabilization board and it is expected that their recommendations will be made shortly. In the meantime it should be pointed out that the current support price for soybeans is the highest that has ever been in effect and is set at 100 per cent of the base price.
While sugar beets produced during 1963 were supported at the highest percentage ever in effect, namely 109 per cent of the base price, it is not anticipated that returns to producers will fall to the support level. I am sure that hon. members will be interested to know that in Ontario the growers last year received an average of $15.58 per ton for their sugar beets, all of which was paid to them by the processors, compared with a total of $11.58 in the previous year, of which $3.08 consisted of government payments, both federal and provincial. In this connection it should be noted that the payments received in any one year refer to the return on beets harvested in the fall of the previous year.
Reference has been made by the hon. member for Lethbridge to the sheep industry and to the effect that the importation of lamb has had on the price of the Canadian product. In this connection it should be noted that of the total imports of lamb and mutton into this country during the first two months of this year approximately 74 per cent was in the form of boneless mutton which is used for manufacturing purposes, and thus does not compete with lamb on the domestic market.
I might say in this connection that I am sure some of our government reports are a

Supply-Agriculture
little misleading. To avoid this we are now designating the amount of mutton that is coming in in the form of boneless meat, and also lambs, so there will be a truer picture in so far as the producers are concerned.
Government assistance to the sheep industry at present takes three forms: A quality premium on sheep and good lambs which in 1963 totalled just under $579,000; a wool deficiency payment based on a support price of 60 cents per pound for certain grades, with the payment on the 1962 crop being just over $704,000; in addition, lambs are supported by a deficiency program based on a national average support price of $18.80 per 100 pounds for good lambs.
The hon. member also made reference to investigations into promotional programs and investigation into marketing procedures. I understand that the sheep industry has recently formed a national sheep council. One of the principal objectives of this organization will be, I believe, the promotion of sheep and wool, and I can assure hon. members that my department will be pleased to co-operate with this organization in any way possible.
The hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska referred to hide prices and requested the reason for the difference between the prices quoted for hides by the dominion bureau of statistics and the prices received by farmers in his area. I regret that I have not yet been able to get information to clarify this matter entirely. I will however have the inquiry pursued. In the meantime I am informed that the dominion bureau of statistics quoted price is based on what are called salted hides, which are hides that have gone through certain stages of preparation prior to tanning and are of a certain standard of quality. While without further information it is impossible to account completely for the differences quoted by the hon. member, it is entirely possible that differences in quality, methods of preparation and distance from markets may account for much of the price difference.
Several hon. members inquired as to cattle and hog prices in Canada over the past several years, and also exports of live cattle. I have the material here, along with certain additional information concerning imports and comparable prices in the United States. Since this is rather voluminous, and in order to save the time of the house I would suggest that it might be better to have the table included in Hansard with my statement.
Basically it shows that, while prices for cattle are at present somewhat lower than they have been since 1961, they are strengthening and at present are above the figure for the comparable period in 1960. In both Canada

and the United States cattle prices have dropped from the high levels of 1962 and prices in the United States of course have an impact on values in Canada.
Hog prices show much the same picture, with the differences in general being smaller and with the present accumulated price being considerably higher than the price in effect in 1960. I have all the figures as to the prices in 1960, 1961, 1962 and 1963 and up to this time in 1964 for two grades of cattle, choice steers and good steers, for Canada and the United States, and the hog prices as well. I should like these figures to go along with my statement. They might be included in Hansard which would save me having to go over them. Otherwise I should like to read them.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is it agreed?


John George Diefenbaker: In so far as the figures are concerned there is no objection. However, the minister also said that he has included in these tables his observations thereon. Any observations he should read.


Harry William Hays: There are no observations, Mr. Chairman.
[Editor's note: The tables above referred to are as follows:]
Cattle and Hog Prices
Cattle 1. Prices
(A) Choice	steers	Toronto	CalgaryAverage price	1960	$23.75	$21.85Average price	1961	24.20	21.75Average price	1962	27.20	25.60Average price	1963	25.00	23.25Average price	Jan.	1964	22.91	20.96Average price	Feb.	1964	23.54	21.19Average price	Jan.	1960	23.73	21.62Average price	Jan.	1961	24.76	22.42Average price	Jan.	1962	26.62	24.20Average price	Jan.	1963	26.02	23.63Average price	Jan.	1964	22.91	20.96Average price	Feb.	1960	22.84	20.83Average price	Feb.	1961	24.32	21.95Average price	Feb.	1962	25.18	22.86Average price	Feb.	1963	24.26	22.28Average price	Feb.	1964	23.54	21.19(B) Good steers	Average price	1960	22.65	20.65Average price	1961	22.75	20.80Average price	1962	25.75	24.15Average price	1963	23.65	22.10Average price	Jan.	1964	21.83	19.91Average price	Feb.	1964	22.11	20.30Average price	Jan.	1960	22.77	20.48Average price	Jan.	1961	23.50	21.51Average price	Jan.	1962	25.17	23.15Average price	Jan.	1963	24.55	22.88(B) Good steers	Toronto	CalgaryAverage price Jan.	1964	21.83	19.91Average price Feb.	1960	21.73	19.65Average price Feb.	1961	23.00	21.16
Supply-A griculture (B) Good steers Toronto
Average price Feb. 1962 Average price Feb. 1963 Average price Feb. 1964
23.83
22.96
22.11
Calgary
21.75
21.53
20.30
2. Exports of live cattle; calves; dressed beef and veal
(A) To U.S.A.	1963
Live cattle (head)	236,877
Live calves (head)	35,194
Beef and veal (lbs.)	17,228,300
448,471
36,451
19,726,000
466,591
28,699
29,033,800
238,451
30,529
17,987,000
(B) To all Countries	1963	1962	1961	1960Live cattle	243,261	455,686	474,319	242,142Live calves	35,308	36,550	28,820	30,712Beef and veal	19,920,000	21,757,000	31,239,700	19,971,0003. Imports of fresh	and	pickled beef and	3. Imports of pork products	veal	From allPounds2	From U.S.A.	Countries19631	37,409,400	1960	17,012,573	17,060,7911962	35,469,567	1961	40,630,362	40,653,1701961	28,896,240	1962	34,399,034	34,463,4971960	29,075,626	19631	78,436,000	78,437,8001 Preliminary	1 Preliminary	2 About 50% from	U.S.;	about 28% from	Those are about all the questions that were	New Zealand; about	15%	from Australia;	asked, I believe, Mr. Chairman. I should like	balance from various.	to summarize	what I have	been saying for
Annual average price choice steers, Chicago
1960	$26.24
1961	24.65
1962	27.67
1963	23.95
Monthly average price choice steers, Chicago 1960 1961	1962 1963 1964
January $26.42 $27.42 $26.39 $27.27 $22.61 February 26.69 26.17 26.76 24.93 22.10
Hogs
1. Prices
Annual weighted average price of grade "A" (for Canada)
1961
1963
1964	(to Mar.
14)
$23.91 percwt. 27.20	"	"28.29	"	"27.30	"	"26.10	"	"
2. Export of pork products-pounds
To U.S.A. To all countries
1960	40,475,000	64,307,7001961	38,661,400	49,432,8001962	40,693,400	44,547,0001963	40,534,800	43,687,000
20220-102-1
just a moment. It seems to me that someone asked about policy in so far as agriculture is concerned. I should like to assure hon. members that any policies that are good for the farmer will not be torn down. We are going to improve them if it is at all possible.
Shortly after the war, in 1946, I met a group of agriculturists in the city of Buenos Aires. They asked me, what do you think Argentina is famous for? I think probably every person in the world would have no problem in saying Argentina is famous for the production of beef. I asked them, in turn, if Argentina is famous for the production of beef, for what is Canada famous? They said paper and pulp, wheat and dairy cattle. This rather impressed me because you can ask the same question of anyone today in about 30 countries and you will receive the same answer.
It seems to me that any agricultural policy we formulate should have due regard for our geographical position. We have 482,000 farmers in Canada who are vigorous, who have a lot of get up and go. I think they could be producing a good many lines of seed stock that are required around the world, not only for livestock but for grains and vegetables. I believe this is the sort of thing that should be considered in any policy we establish. What has happened to our hog production in Canada in the last seven to ten years? We know the job that the Danes have done with their hog

Supply-Agriculture
production and their famous bacon. We know that with the same amount of feed they have a return of $4 more per hog, and when you multiply this by approximately 140,000 hogs produced in Canada each week and then multiply that by the number for the year you will realize that our farmers are losing between $30 million and $40 million a year.
I could go on to deal with other products. I believe that we, in Canada, have a job to do in so far as efficiency is concerned. We should remember that a yield of two more bushels per acre gives our farmers $100 million more. In so far as swine are concerned we have a job to do, the same as we have done in connection with dairy cattle, which are in demand all over the world. I believe that it should be our policy to harness these 56 experimental stations we have in the research department that are doing an excellent job. We should also harness all these exhibitions, so that we can tie up every group and perhaps direct them into producing seed stock for the rest of the world. I look forward to the year 1964. We know that 1963 was a record year for agriculture, and we face 1964 with hope. We know that climatic conditions may change the results for any year, but we are looking forward to having the biggest year we have ever had in 1964.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There was one question which I thought perhaps I might answer because I think it was more properly directed to the statement I made the other day than to the statement made by my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture. Perhaps I might dispose of that particular question if the hon. member for Provencher would not mind.
Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition said, as will be found in Hansard at page 1572:
-as yet we have had no information as to what actually took place during those 17 days.
This was from February 3 to February 20.
In particular, we want to be furnished with a record of all the directives and orders made by the Minister of Agriculture between those two dates in connection with the branches which were transferred to the Minister of Forestry.
The right hon. gentleman, on Thursday, as recorded on page 1520 of Hansard, made a reference to this matter in these terms:
I think they will have to pass an order in council to ratify what was done.
This was at the very conclusion of what he had to say.
Indeed, when they have done that they will have to come before the house and ask, and they will receive-ask and ye shall receive-forgiveness for what they did and legalization for what they ought not to have done.
Now, sir, I did in the observations I made last Thursday give all the information that

the officials had been able to gather for me or that I had been able to gather for myself on this particular point. Up to that time research had indicated that the only thing the minister had done personally, in his personal capacity in respect of those things under the order of February 3 that had been transferred to the Minister of Forestry, was to sign those eight ARDA agreements. Of course, the officials had proceeded under the authority given to them by the minister to do the things that are normally done in the department. I indicated also that happens in every case of the transfer of duties. It also happens in every case of the transfer of ministers. I have a good many examples I could give. I do not believe anyone has ever maintained there is anything illegal about that. Government would be paralysed if the authority given by one minister was not valid until a new authority had been signed by another minister. I think everyone with any experience in government knows that.


John George Diefenbaker: That is quite different from the situation here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In the case of the transfer of duties of the travel bureau, which I think was the last case under the government of the right hon. gentleman, 77 days elapsed between the passing of the order and the completion of all these authorizations. There
is,	therefore, nothing unusual in these matters at all.
However I believe the government owes a most complete explanation to the house about this matter. I have no hesitation in saying that the government is responsible to the House of Commons. I have always maintained this doctrine from both sides of the house, and have done my utmost to uphold
it.	I am going, right here and now, to ask my colleague the Minister of Justice if he will have the officers of his department look at the whole record of this period very carefully. It will not be completed within a day or two, but I doubt if it will take very long. I am going to ask him if he will have them do this with the utmost diligence. If the house will allow us, we would then do what the right hon. gentleman has said, and that, is if anything needs to be rectified, we would do our best to rectify it. We would come here frankly and explain what had been done. I hope the minister will feel that he is able to give the undertaking I have suggested.


John George Diefenbaker: The observations made by the Minister of Transport are of such a nature that naturally the house will accept his undertaking to do what I believe should have been done earlier. However, that is all past now. I would point out that the suggestion that what has taken place here had any

relationship whatever to the transfer of duties for the tourist bureau is a preposterous statement. In this case there was an entire vesting of the powers over a particular department, or sectors of a department, on February 3. Was there anything done by the Minister of Agriculture during that period of time, until February 20, which would not be legal? If the Minister of Justice will have this looked into in the manner suggested by the Minister of Transport and a report given to the house, that will clarify the situation.
Then there should be legalization of whatever is found to require further action in order to ratify and approve what has been done. I am sure, in the spirit in which the minister has placed the matter before the committee, namely that if wrong has been done and serious error committed the government will ask for forgiveness, then in the spirit not only of Easter, to which reference was made today, but as always in the spirit of this house, we will do our part to assure that what ought not to have been done and was done will be corrected.


Guy Favreau: In view of the disposition of the committee I shall not ask my colleague, the Minister of Transport, to put his question on the order paper. Rather, I will be glad to give the undertaking immediately to the committee.


John George Diefenbaker: It is one of those emergencies.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Mr. Chairman, we witnessed today one of those very rare occasions when the Minister of Transport comes before us in sack cloth and ashes and seeks repentance for those things he ought not to have done. The confession made by the minister will considerably shorten my remarks this afternoon, as I was going to make the plea that he give consideration to the government's reviewing of the events of those fateful 17 days and to introducing a remedial measure to take care of the mistakes and errors committed during that period.
We on this side are very pleased to see the Minister of Agriculture in his place today and to hear him make a statement that covered a wide range of subjects. I do not intend to go over all those subjects, but we on this side would like to discuss agricultural policy a little more fully with him, and particularly to discuss those aspects of the department which have a bearing on what can be done to relieve pockets of distress in agriculture, the low income farmers in distressed areas, and those parts of agriculture which are not enjoying the degree of prosperity that agriculture in general is enjoying.
Supply-Agriculture
Despite all the statistics quoted to show the agricultural situation is improving, there are always pockets of distress, and most of the branches of the minister's department which could have been helpful in those areas are now transferred out of his jurisdiction. Last night he suggested he still had some 30 odd branches to take care of. He gave the impression that he was tremendously overworked, and that it was going to be difficult for him to keep track of all the problems he would be faced with in administering the branches that remain under his jurisdiction.
He certainly did not take that attitude when he first assumed the portfolio. He was running about the country auctioning bulls all over the place, and never seemed to worry whether the Department of Agriculture had any administrative leadership. But now when he has lost part of his department he suggests there is too much for him to do, and that therefore he was quite agreeable to the transfer of some of his responsibilities.
During the course of this and the preceding session of parliament we have posed a good many questions to the government and have received a variety of answers, but I am beginning to wonder how much we can depend upon the word of ministers when they reply to questions asked by members of the opposition. As recorded at page 3632 of Hansard for October 16, 1963 the hon. member for Kootenay West wanted to know where the Minister of Agriculture was on the previous day, when there was a debate in the house on agricultural matters. The Prime Minister replied that the minister and his associate at that time were away in the west, looking after the grass roots, but it turned out that the minister was in Kingston selling bulls. I wonder, are we going to have a continuation of this type of misleading statements and answers to our questions.
Again, as recorded at page 2608 of Hansard for July 25, 1963, the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle asked the minister whether he could report to the house on the resignation of his acting assistant deputy minister, Dr. Krist-jansson, and in reply the minister said:
Mr. Speaker, I know of no intention on the part of anyone to resign. Everyone seems very, very happy.
I ask, why did Dr. Kristjansson leave the department? I think the answer was given the other day by the hon. member for Port Arthur when he referred to the events taking place within the department in regard to ARDA. Dr. Kristjansson was one of those men who pushed the ARDA program, who believed in it and what it could do. The fact that he left the department is an indication that the

Supply-A griculture
minister cared little what transpired, or what direction was given to the department in regard to ARDA.
I have just been advised, and I wish to put this on the record, also, that Dr. Krist-jansson had resigned the day before the question was asked, and the minister did not know anything about it. This gives some indication of how much he knows about what is going on within his department.
Just the other day the hon. member for Skeena asked a question regarding cold storage, to which the minister replied that he had been taking a very close look at the problem. This is something the minister is doing all the time. He is the closest looking person I have ever known. No matter what question is asked, he says he is going to take a close look at it. Members of the government have been examining problems minutely for the past year, but we have not seen any results of this examination.
The minister said, as recorded at page 1525 of Hansard for March 26:
In so far as cold storage is concerned, we have taken a very close look at every application we have received and most of them have been approved. Hon. members will remember that the previous government had an austerity program and cold storage grants were frozen.
A little later the hon. member referred back to this particular point and said:
I wonder whether I could pose one question to the minister about cold storage activities. I think the minister said that in the last few weeks they have approved more applications under the Cold Storage Act than were approved in the previous 18 months.
The minister replied:
This figure may not be too accurate-
I wholly agree with that statement. The figures and information given to us on many matters concerning agriculture are certainly not too accurate.
On the same day the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska posed a question to the minister concerning hides, and the minister replied:
I do not know. I cannot answer this question, and I am sure no one else can answer it. The law of supply and demand enters into these
things__ This is the first time I have heard of
it.
Well, he left the impression that this was news to him. Then on Monday, in his statement, he refers to the same subject again and says: "As a matter of fact, several people who have thousands of hides in store have come to see me and they have been to see the Minister of Trade and Commerce". So this was not such a new matter, after all, two days later. So, on the strength of these statements which have been made in the house constantly by members of the government I do

not think members of this house will wonder at all why we are constantly putting questions to this government in an effort to get answers in which we can place some faith.
I have dealt with the question of misleading statements. The minister said last night that he was overworked. I wonder just how much work there is left for him to do when most of his department has disappeared from under him. What has he got left? Is there such a great effort involved in the administration of the act concerning race track betting? I wonder how many hours a day he spends on that. He must be overworked providing leadership in connection with the pest control act. Perhaps he could broaden its scope a little so as to include some of his colleagues in the cabinet, and bring them under control. I am sure great qualities of leadership are needed to take care of the administration under the Live Stock Pedigree Act. I give the minister credit for putting up a valiant struggle to retain some portion of his department.
We all know that some of these duties are administrative in nature but there are several important facets to the department, branches which will play a very important part in the development of agriculture. The farm credit program is one of them; PFRA is another. The price stabilization board and the crop insurance program are also important parts of the department which require leadership and administration. I hope the minister will be left to provide this administration. I should like to believe him when he says he has the interest of the farmers at heart and that he is anxious to pursue policies which are beneficial to agriculture. I think perhaps he will do that, if he is left alone to do it. But I am a little suspicious about that group which was there in 1957 and prior to that time-that bunch which ignored and completely forgot the western farmers, and farmers in general in this country, and we are a little concerned that the minister may be pressured from all sides to do little and to do less. I can assure him he has the wholehearted support of members on this side of the house, if he has any battles to fight with other members of the cabinet.
The minister told us there was to be a liaison committee consisting of three members, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Forestry. After reading some of the statements which have been made by those ministers I am seriously in doubt as to what type of co-operation one can expect from three men who have such varied views on matters having to do with agriculture. The Minister of Forestry takes one view, the Minister of Agriculture takes another and

the Minister of Trade and Commerce, whose statements we have heard much about in western Canada, seems to hold a third view. We sincerely hope there will be some co-ordination of effort between these three ministers, because having regard to the way in which responsibilities have been taken away from the Minister of Agriculture, the closest co-operation will certainly be required if there is to be any co-ordination of agricultural policy. We certainly hope to see evidence that this troika, as someone has called it, can work and produce effective legislation.
The minister takes great pleasure these days in referring to the progress made by agriculture when he visits the constituencies. I think he can do this with some justifiable pride because the income from agriculture is improving. But I challenge him to give us one instance of any action taken either by the government or by himself which has resulted in the improvement of the agricultural situation in this country, other than the continuation of those policies which were instituted by the previous government.
In conclusion, let me say this: We should like to assist the minister in every way possible. We should like to make sure that he appears before the house occasionally to give us a review of his activities. We are looking forward to the debate on the estimates of his department during which we can discuss policy in general. I should include, at this point, a reference to the Minister of Forestry who now holds an important portfolio-the administration of the ARDA program and its related branches. This is a most important program as far as agriculture is concerned. We should like to know what the government's proposals are, what its hopes are and what its plans are. We hope there will be co-ordination, though I am sometimes doubtful how those hopes will materialize.
I have here a copy of an article which appeared in Time magazine last fall. This is required reading. Discussing the new Liberal government, it says:
The new Pearson government is, by common consent, better staffed with cabinet talent-
We look across the floor and wonder where the writer of this article got that idea.
-and has a clearer view of the direction it intends to take-
"All directions" is about the answer to that.
-than any previous incoming Canadian administration. It has thought out its position on defence-
We have had some examples of how clearly they thought out that position. The article goes on:
Supply-Agriculture
-on foreign affairs, on biculturalism, and it has done its homework in economics.
We shall ask the Minister of Finance about that. I prefer to say that as far as I am concerned this government, like Christopher Columbus, did not know where they were going, did not know where they were when they got there, did not know where they had been when they got back, and they did it on borrowed money.


Mr. Laiulippe:: Mr. Chairman, we are now discussing supplementary estimates for the Department of Agriculture amounting to $127,343,681, and this amount raises the estimates of this department for the fiscal year ending March 31 to $300,564,831. These figures leave us thoughtful, considering the minor importance given by the government to Canadian agriculture, especially to the farmers of eastern Canada.
The main estimates for 1962-63 merely allotted $161 million to agriculture, while in the main estimates for 1963-64, the amount was $172 million.
We are now being asked to approve supplementary estimates in the amount of $127 million, thus raising the total to more than $300 million. However, if we consider the 1963-64 estimates, we find that the total estimated expenditures are of $140,124,860. It is therefore obvious that we shall be asked again during the next session to pass another series of supplementary estimates.
On the other hand, if we consider the total estimated expenditures in the main estimates, we find that in 1963-64, agriculture accounted for only 2.7 per cent of the expenditures and that for 1964-65, it accounts for only 2.1 per cent, or a decrease of .6 per cent.
Who will support this decrease which comes at a time when expenditures are increasing? Certainly not the western farmers who had the good fortune to have a bumper crop and to see their income increase. No, once more the eastern farmers will bear that burden, even though they are already in a precarious situation. The government shows but indifference to their condition, it shows complete disregard for their problems and if, from time to time, it brings in an appearance of solution, they are just half measures, temporary piecemeal solutions.
If you look at page 477 of the Canada Year Book, 1963-64, you will see that the Quebec farmers net income has been continuously decreasing since 1959, while that income shows an almost continued increase for the Saskatchewan and Alberta farmers.
Here are some figures bearing out those findings: in Quebec, in 1959, net income was

Supply-Agriculture
$191,848,000; in 1960, $185,686,000; in 1961, $179,073,000; and, in 1962, $179,668,000. They show a steady decrease, except in 1962 when the situation remained almost the same as the previous year. In Saskatchewan, for instance, in 1959, net income was $240,862,000; in 1960, $372,981,000, that is an increase of over $130 million; in 1961, there was a decrease of $137,792,000, and in 1962 the income was three times as high as the previous year, amounting to $503,795,000.
Everybody is aware of last year's harvests; they will keep up this high level.
We are happy that the western farmers enjoy a good income. But we urge the government to give special attention to the eastern farmers who remain in a state of economic and financial stagnation which is a disgrace. The farmers of Quebec as well as of New Brunswick see their situation getting worse and worse because of problems requiring urgent action by the government.
Proper means have to be taken to make agriculture a paying proposition.
To that end, it must be recognized, or at least recalled that the farmers are the basis of our society and its various structures, and that without them, it would become impossible to hold in position those who are at the higher levels.
Neither would our armed forces go very far if the farmers refused to yield their production. Therefore, in order to be logical, we should admit frankly that we owe our very existence to them.
The farmers, besides being the support of each and everyone, are the largest consumers. They are the ones who largely contribute to our trade, transport, industry and every other sector of our economy.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to list their needs as consumers.
They must have a decent home, as every other citizen does, a heating system and all sorts of equipment and furniture as we all do.
Moreover, the farmer must have huge buildings for his farm, and all the required equipment connected with it.
Farmers need various structures, according to their production.
Moreover, our farmers need various other things, like farm implements and machinery, separators, milking machines, milk coolers, and water pipes, all things which are very expensive.
In addition, they must have a wide range of mechanical equipment, such as tractors, trucks, sowers, fertilizer spreaders, harvesters or combines, hay presses, threshing and binding machines, and many other items which it would take too long to list.
[Mr. Latullppe.l
They must have a great many other things like chain saws, wood-cutting and working equipment, repair workshops, because they cannot constantly go to the garage or call upon the services of mechanics.
I think that my list is long enough to prove that the farmers are great producers, but also great consumers, and rank first in our economic structure.
Of course, the farmer has to incur many expenses, and it is inconceivable that the government may think that in Quebec, for instance, with an average income lower than $1,500, he can manage to meet his responsibilities. It is a mathematical as well as an economic impossibility, which has consequences in other fields.
The farmer, whoever he may be, needs machines and tools. The government should without delay study means to allow grants to farmers, in order to help them pay for the machinery without which, today, it is impossible to farm on a profitable basis.
Likewise, grants should be allowed for fertilizers, in order to help the farmer increase his production potential and improve the quality of his products.
Indeed, money can be found to make war machinery, machinery designed to destroy. I believe the government and the Canadians are clever enough to make production machinery intended to assist agriculture and maintain life in a country where citizens wish only to live.
Our economists and our ministers of finance often speak of economic cycles. By way of simplification of great theories, I may say it is undeniable that when agriculture is prosperous at home, all other sectors of our economic life benefit.
We all know that farmers can produce. I have given proof that they are also great consumers. The basic law of economy, the law of supply and demand, proves that by improving the lot of farmers, we would give our economy a shot in the arm which is badly needed at the present time.
Mr. Chairman, it is unthinkable and intolerable that the government does not give greater attention to agriculture. Instead of a reduction in the budget in relation to the balance of expenses, a tremendous increase in the estimates of this department would have been necessary to face the alarming situation which prevails now.
Previous governments always thought that the farm credit board, through farm loans, would save farmers from their precarious financial situation. On the contrary, in the majority of cases, this board served only to put farmers into debt, and the loans that

were made helped only in crippling farmers who did not have the means to repay the loan.
Our farmers, who have long operated on a submarginal basis, had to obtain loans, to go into debt. However, their products have consistently sold at a price lower than the current price. The farmer does not want all kinds of loans, new financing systems, but rather to be able to sell his products at a reasonable profit, in order to meet his obligations.
In my opinion, the best way to help farmers would be to set up market prices that would enable farmers to sell their products at a profit, because more than 80 per cent of farmers in the province of Quebec operate on a submarginal basis. In the circumstances, how is it possible to be prosperous in a province or in a country? So it is the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture to take under consideration the suggestions I am making.
Since the farmer does not have the required income to pay his debts, he cannot make the necessary improvements to modernize his operations, so that his expansion will keep pace with industrial and technical developments, and be competitive with any commercial product that can be put on the market.
A farmer should be exempted from that shameful 11 per cent tax because he is one of the largest consumers of building materials of all kinds since he is always building something. He needs all types of constructions. Why should he pay that 11 per cent tax?
What happens is that the farmer can no longer hope to compete on an equal footing with other areas of the economy. People are leaving the farm to live in the city, thus adding to the number of unemployed. There is nothing in farming to encourage young people to try and make a future of it. We cannot blame the young generation for showing little interest in agriculture because it is not a paying proposition.
In some counties over 50 per cent of our farms have been abandoned. The farmers are not the first ones who should be blamed; but rather, the government should be blamed for its inaction and its lack of interest because it is mainly responsible for the present predicament in which farmers find themselves.
I know that the government does not want to do much to organize or increase farm production because there are already surpluses and governments are afraid of them. In a civilized country, it would be logic to be practical and we should recognize that surpluses are not a misfortune for the people, but rather a windfall. The officials of the department are clever enough to find new markets for such surpluses. Why not organize farming on an economic basis?
Supply-Agriculture
I know there are surpluses, but that should be a blessing for the whole population instead of a penalty as our economists try to point out at the present time. Farmers have to pay heavy interest on loans made to them by the farm credit board, that is 5 per cent although the provincial government reimburses 2j per cent. Now, if there is an authority in the field of agriculture, why force a government to take funds out of the general revenue of a province or of the country to pay interest to lending institutions?
The Liberal party has enough clever men to ask those vested interests to make sacrifices and lend that money at a rate of 3 per cent to prevent a province from levying taxes on the tax revenue from all taxpayers.
Everyone must take his responsibilities and I am asking you, hon. members of the government, to take yours and to ask high finance in Canada to take its responsibilities also.
Farmers living on average farms have to pay, out of a meagre income, municipal and school taxes which are getting higher and higher. In my riding, the owner of an average farm pays more than $500 for school and municipal taxes. That is preposterous. Farmers are in a frightful economic situation. You should see them and realize their position before it is too late.
I have here a letter, or rather a request, that people from my riding and from the neighbouring constituencies have sent me. It says:
Hon. Harry Hays,
Minister of Agriculture,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Mr. Hays:
Enclosed you will find a petition, signed by a group of farmers in the counties of Compton, Stanstead and Sherbrooke, asking that subsidies now being granted for the transportation of grain by railways also apply in the case of transportation by trucks.
I feel their request is legitimate and that granting it would help substantially to raise the income of farmers in eastern Canada and especially in Quebec.
I hope therefore, Sir, that you will give serious consideration to this letter and that you will be kind enough to set forth the views of both the government and your department on the matter.
Yours truly
I think the hon. gentleman could surely do something about that, because eastern farmers have to import 60 per cent of the feed grain they need. For those reasons, I feel it would be appropriate to subsidize transportation by trucks and that this would be of great assistance to the farmers.

Supply-Agriculture
I also take it upon myself to make a suggestion to the government and especially to the Minister of Agriculture. We know that, during the seeding season, farmers lack farm help while a great many unemployed in our cities do not know what to do and have to be content with unemployment benefits.
Consequently, farmers are wondering whether it would not be possible to extend the winter work period in order that they may hire the help they need, that is unemployed people, to do the bulk of the work. Would it not be possible for the government to pass a special bill in favour of farmers, perhaps under the winter works program, so that salaries could be paid to city people going out to help the farmers?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, we have been dealing with the subject of agriculture, particularly the administration item, for some time and I want to conclude on behalf of Her Majesty's loyal opposition by saying that we are very happy that the minister was able to spend two days with us between his peripatetic pilgrimages. While he did not cover the entire field, as one can understand, he did answer a variety of questions that were asked. Therefore may I say on behalf of those for whom I speak that under all the circumstances we feel that this item might now be passed.
There is one matter on which I should have liked to hear him but I do not want to hold up his estimates. That matter is one to which he made reference in the course of his remarks last evening. He said, as I understood him, that he is now in charge of railway branch line rationalization. There is a great deal of interest in this matter, particularly on the prairies, and a general statement by him at a very early date is most necessary and would be most acceptable. Certainly so far as the people of western Canada are concerned they feel strongly that the plans for railway abandonment should be proceeded with very slowly and that rather than piecemeal abandonment there should be railway line consolidation. I do not intend to deal with that at any length, except that I should like to hear the views of the Minister of Agriculture because this is a tremendous field of responsibility which he has assumed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The right hon. gentleman does not seem to realize that this responsibility has not yet been stripped from me but will be shortly.


John George Diefenbaker: As usual the Minister of Transport has interrupted. With a provincial election about to take place in the province of Saskatchewan I have read and heard that he is about to make a visitation there to place
[Mr. Latulippe.l
before the people the true facts in connection with this matter. I would not let him do that. I say to the Minister of Agriculture: You look after your own department and do not let them bite off anything more; do not let them interfere with you. I read the other day that the Minister of Agriculture had said that some of the eastern ministers were very difficult to deal with, and they were exerting pressure on him because they thought he was doing too much for western Canada. All I can say is that anything that can be done to assist agriculture in all sections of the country will receive the support of the opposition at all times. He stated a moment ago that his purpose is to maintain those things that are good, and to make improvements in order to assure an ever-increasing opportunity for farmers, as indeed for all sectors of the community, and in those aims he will receive the fullest support of the opposition.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, first of all I am afraid I cannot agree with the right hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. I believe this is about the third or possibly the fourth time he has spoken on these estimates and there are certain hon. members who have not yet had a chance to speak.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not mind.


Murdo William Martin: He gave his vinegar speech yesterday and his honey speech today, and if another occasion arises we may have some other variety of speech from him. I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture a problem that is hanging over the heads of some of the farmers in my constituency and which has arisen for two or three reasons. One has to do with the unusually heavy snowfall this winter, together with the fact that the snow is still there. This is very unusual. We have not had a single thaw so far and the result is that as one drives along the highway it is not unusual to see snowbanks 12, 14 or 16 feet high.
Hon. members may recall that some four years ago there were very serious floods in that area. There was a lot of publicity at the time in the national newspapers and on television and a great amount of attention was paid to the situation. Funds were raised to assist the flood victims and the people of the area responded very generously. I believe they raised in excess of $50,000 locally which amount was met by funds from various government departments.
However, at that time one particular group was completely ignored. I refer to the farmers of Mount Joy township. The funds that were raised were all directed toward the assistance of householders who had suffered extensive damage to their homes, furniture

and property. The result was that in the allocation of the funds a farmer could only receive assistance if his home had been damaged. It is well known that farmers show a little more foresight than city dwellers and erect their homes on the highest part of their land. The result was that the farm had to be totally inundated before the farmer's home would be damaged.
Extensive damage was done to the farms. Many of them were strewn with logs, stumps and other debris and there was considerable expense involved in clearing the debris off the land. In addition, the fields were waterlogged, which in many cases resulted in total crop failures. However in spite of this damage these farmers were unable to qualify for the assistance that was provided to the flood victims.
I believe I can understand the reason for that, Mr. Chairman. I do not think that the Department of Agriculture had made any preparations beforehand to meet such a situation, one which could well arise again from time to time in various regions of the country. What I should like to know today is whether the minister or the department has any plans to meet such an emergency, should it be repeated. There is a distinct danger of such a situation arising again in the same area this year because of the unusual circumstances I have outlined. Many of the farmers have not been able to recoup the losses they suffered four years ago and if such a situation should recur many of these farmers, who have had a rather tough time over the last three or four years, in all likelihood would be wiped out. May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


Lucien Lamoureux: It being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the house has been proceeding at a good and useful pace in the study of these estimates during the course of the afternoon. I am quite sure we will all find it very useful to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Timmins as soon as possible and I wonder whether there could be general agreement to waive the private members' hour for today?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, it seems that we get into a great amount of difficulty when we start to juggle the rules, so I suggest that we stick to them.


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



BANKRUPTCY ACT


Stanley Howard Knowles: On behalf of the hon. member for Winnipeg North, I should like to move second reading of this bill so that the Solicitor General can move an amendment to have the subject matter referred to the special committee that has been set up for this purpose. I believe it has been understood that on some occasion, and I believe today is the occasion, a number of bills on the order paper are to be given this treatment. Therefore, I move second reading of this bill for that purpose.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre been authorized by the hon. member for Winnipeg North to move this bill on his behalf?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: the second reading of Bill No. C-3, to amend the Bankruptcy Act.


Hon. J. Watson MacNaught (Solicitor General):: I move that the said bill be not now read the second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the special joint committee on consumer credit for further study.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: the second reading of Bill No. C-13, to amend the Small Loans Act (advertising).


John Watson MacNaught: I move that the said bill be not now read the second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the special joint committee on consumer credit for further study.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Watson MacNaught: If we could have unanimous consent, I suggest that you call order No. 11, Bill No. C-20.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

Private Bills



AMENDMENT TO REDUCE MAXIMUM INTEREST RATE

Stanley Howard Knowles: the second reading of Bill No. C-20, to amend the Small Loans Act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I assume that in connection with this bill the hon. member also has authorization of the hon. member for Winnipeg North?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Quite.


John Watson MacNaught: I move that the said bill be not now read the second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the special joint committee on consumer credit for further study.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, if we could have unanimous consent I suggest you call order No. 14, Bill No. C-23.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



FINANCE


Stanley Howard Knowles: the second reading of Bill No. C-23, to provide for the control of consumer credit.


John Watson MacNaught: I move that the said bill be not now read the second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the special joint committee on consumer credit for further study.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Maurice Rinfret (for Mr. Ryan) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-63, to provide for control of the use of collateral bills and notes in consumer credit transactions.


John Watson MacNaught: I move that the said bill be not now read the second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the special joint committee on consumer credit for further study.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Watson MacNaught: If we could have unanimous consent, I suggest we call order No. 42, Bill No. C-51.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the minister not forgotten one, namely Bill No. C-44?


John Watson MacNaught: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT


Stanley Howard Knowles: the second reading of Bill No. C-44, to amend the Bills of Exchange Act and the Interest Act (off-store instalment sales).


John Watson MacNaught: I move that the said bill be not now read the second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the special joint committee on consumer credit for further study.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-51, to amend the Bills of Exchange Act (instalment purchases).


John Watson MacNaught: I move that the said bill be not now read the second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the special joint committee on consumer credit for further study.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: the second reading of Bill No. C-52, to amend the Interest Act.


John Watson MacNaught: I move that the said bill be not now read the second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the special joint committee on consumer credit for further study.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.

Murdo William Martin: the second reading of Bill No. C-53, to amend the Interest Act (application of Small Loans Act).


John Watson MacNaught: I move that the said bill be not now read the second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the special joint committee on consumer credit for further study.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.


Francis Andrew Brewin: the second reading of Bill No. C-14, to amend the Criminal Code (insanity).
He said: I had not expected I would have an opportunity of introducing this bill during this week. I think perhaps it is a very appropriate week in which to introduce a bill dealing with the subject of insanity. The purpose of the bill which I am introducing is to amend the Criminal Code so as to abolish what is known as the M'Naghten rules in respect to criminal insanity and substitute an up to date modern rule in its place.
One man is responsible for this bill being presented before the house. He is a young man by the name of Ronald Markle, who is a constituent of mine, now serving a sentence at Kingston penitentiary. He is 33 years of age, married, with seven children.
Markle suffered from a strange malady. In the course of two or three years he set fire to schools, churches and apartment houses. He was undetected by the police, and there was no rational purpose in his actions. Some time in 1962 he gave himself up to the police and asked for treatment. He pleaded guilty to nine charges of arson in a magistrate's court. He was not represented by counsel, and was convicted and sentenced to a total of 24 years in the penitentiary.
On appeal, the court of appeal saw nothing wrong with this sentence. However the public were more sensitive and a committee of citizens was formed to aid Markle. The press became interested and eventually the former minister of justice, the Hon. Mr. Fleming, directed a new hearing, and on this new hearing the sentence was reduced to 12 years.
Under the laws of Canada in regard to criminal insanity as they presently stand, there is no doubt that Markle was not insane. He appreciated the nature and quality of his actions; he knew that they were wrong. Indeed that was the very reason he gave himself up to the police and asked for treatment. He was, therefore, under our law criminally responsible for his actions. But it is equally clear that his acts were irrational and were the product of mental illness. What Markle needed, and needs, was not punishment but treatment.
The purpose of the bill before the house is designed to amend the inadequate provisions of the Criminal Code in regard to criminal insanity, and bring them up to date and in line with enlightened, modern medical opinion. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that where acts are committed by reason of
Criminal Code
mental illness, the persons involved are considered as sick persons requiring treatment, and not as criminals requiring punishment.
To use the language of a famous American judge, Judge Jerome Frank:
A society that punishes the sick is not wholly civilized; a society that does not restrain the dangerous madman, lacks common sense.
The present bill is designed to abolish the M'Naghten rule of criminal insanity and substitute for it a modern test adopted by the United States court of appeals in 1954.
The M'Naghten rule was framed by English judges in 1843, more than 120 years ago. M'Naghten fatally shot Edward Drummond, secretary to the prime minister, Sir Robert Peel, in an attempt to kill the latter. M'Naghten explained that he had made a mistake; that he desired to kill the prime minister. He gave this further explanation:
The Tories in my native city have compelled me to do this; they follow and persecute me wherever I go and have entirely destroyed my peace of mind.
There is no doubt that M'Naghten suffered from insane delusions. Nine physicians and surgeons called to the witness stand testified that he was insane, and the presiding lord chief justice directed a verdict of not guilty. M'Naghten spent the rest of his life in a mental institution.
The public, however, were indignant at the crime, ascribing it to a political plot. The House of Lords put questions to the 15 English judges who laid down what has since been known as the M'Naghten rules. The basic rule is that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be proved that the accused was labouring under such a defect of reason from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or, if he did know it, that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong. This test, slightly altered, remains the law of Canada today. It is contained in section 16 of the Criminal Code, part of which is sought to be repealed by the bill before the house.
The Criminal Code provides that no person shall be convicted of a criminal offence in respect of an act or omission on his part while he was insane, and it goes on to define insanity as follows, in subsection 2:
For the purposes of this section, a person is insane when he is in a state of natural imbecility or has disease of the mind to an extent that renders him incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of an act or omission, or of knowing that an act or omission is wrong.
Subsection 3, which I need not read, goes on to deal with specific delusions. It will be noted that the key phrase is the word "appreciated" and this is used rather than the word "know" in the original M'Naghten

Criminal Code
rules, but since 1843 a very great deal has been learned in the fields of medical and psychiatric knowledge.
In the Durham case in the United States in 1954, an American court of appeals in Washington, D.C., substituted a new rule, which is the basis of the amendment I propose. The provision which that court adopted was that the accused is not criminally responsible if his act was the product of mental disease or mental defect.
Judge Bazelon, who wrote the judgment of the American court of appeals, has made the following statement:
In this century the chorus of protest (against M'Naghten's rules) has become deafening. In a poll taken a few years ago 80 per cent of 300 American psychiatrists pronounced those rules unsatisfactory.
One of the greatest of American judges, Mr. Justice Cardozo stated flatly:
Everyone concedes that the present definition of insanity has little relation to the truths of mental life.
Judge Bazelon tells us that the main criticisms of the right-wrong test are fourfold:
First, it misses the point entirely because whatever ''insanity" means, the term refers to abnormal conditions of mind that cannot all be gathered together under the rubrics, "know" and "wrong." Second, the test is based on an outmoded theory of faculty psychology derived from phrenology.
-a rather ancient science-
-that dividend the topography of the mind into separate compartments. Modern psychology views a man as an integrated personality and reason is only one element of that personality, and not the sole determinant of conduct. Third, the test poses to the expert an ultimate question involving legal and moral, as well as medical issues. Fourth, the test has so strait-jacketed psychiatric testimony that insanity is defined exclusively in terms of extreme psychosis and patent organic deterioration.
From the judicial point of view, Judge Bazelon says:
What all this controversy adds up to, practically, is whether we are to have more and freer psychiatric testimony. I myself have no hesitance in taking the position solidly in favour of freer and fuller expert testimony.
He goes on to state:
This is exactly what we did in the District of Columbia five years ago when the United States court of appeals adopted the Durham rule. Under this new, more liberal rule-
-which description I hope will commend it to the hon. members opposite-
-a modem and comprehensive body of law governing the administration of the insanity defence is being slowly built up on the basis of continuing experience. At the same time, the community's fears that great numbers of dangerous persons would be freed to attack again, are being put to rest. Nothing of this sort has happened. Defendants acquitted under the Durham rule have been sent to mental hospitals, many of them
[Mr. Brewin.l
for longer periods than they would have sewed in prison, and they appear to get into less trouble after release, than prison convicts.
Therefore the fear that is sometimes expressed that if this rule is changed people will be let out and will more readily commit other crimes has no basis in fact.
In 1955 the American law institute, composed of a leading body of distinguished lawyers, judges and scholars, urged the liberalization of the M'Naghten rules. In a recent study sponsored by the American bar foundation in 1962 under the title "The Mentally Disabled and the Law", the following conclusions are reached:
It is desirable to broaden the class of the mentally disabled who are held criminally irresponsible without removing the issue from the jury. The M'Naghten and irresistible impulse tests defined too narrowly the class of persons who should be hospitalized rather than imprisoned. These tests also prevent psychiatric witnesses from presenting an adequate word picture of the defendant's mental condition because they are phrased in terms having little relevance to current learning in the field of psychology. The product test remedies both of these defects.
I am aware, along with other hon. members who are familiar with this subject, that this matter was dealt with in 1957 when a royal commission presided over by Chief Justice McRuer made recommendations contrary to those of the bill I am now placing before the house. It so happens that Chief Justice McRuer was a former partner of mine and of the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cameron). I worked closely with him as junior counsel and I have the greatest respect for Chief Justice McRuer, a respect which was deepened by my personal knowledge and experience. I know he is held in great respect by members of the legal profession. Nevertheless, I find the dissenting report of that commission, prepared by Her Honour Judge Kinnear and Dr. Jones, professor of psychiatry at Dalhousie University, far more persuasive and compelling. Indeed, with great respect, it seems to me that the chief justice in this report has erred by adopting a too legalistic approach to the problem. He rejected the proposal to amend the Criminal Code upon the basis of the contention that the word "appreciate" in the code substantially differentiates the Canadian law from M'Naghten's rules.
This is a refinement which, as the dissenting report indicates, not even judges and lawyers are able to appreciate.
The preferable view seems to me to be that adopted by the so-called Gowers commission in Britain, which quotes statements of doctors with experience in mental diseases appearing before it, as follows:
The M'Naghten test is based on an entirely obsolete and misleading conception of insanity, since

Insanity does not only or primarily affect the cognitive or intellectual faculties, but affects the whole personality of the patient, including both the will and the emotions.
One or two misconceptions should be cleared up. This change in the law is not proposed because of any softness of outlook toward those who commit criminal offences. Indeed there are many cases in which persons who are mentally ill, but criminally responsible under the M'Naghten rule, receive sentences, serve their terms in jails or penitentiaries and are released while still suffering from mental illness. These people time and again commit further serious crimes.
The real question, after all the theoretical discussion, is whether the proper remedy is punishment or treatment. I know that many people, feeling indignant at the horrible antisocial acts which are sometimes committed, believe the answer is punishment. Unfortunately, punishment works no cure and indeed may intensify the criminal impulses of the person punished. An inmate of a mental hospital, however, should not be released from the hospital until it is certified that he is cured or at least not dangerous to himself or others. Psychiatrists can make mistakes but there is no reason why the law should not direct attention to the right question, which is: Has the person involved been cured of the mental defects which, if he is released, will make him a danger to society? The prison warden at the expiration of a criminal sentence has no right to ask such a question before he lets the prisoner out, possibly to endanger the public.
In the Durham case, the court said:
The legal and moral traditions of the western world require that those who of their own free will and with evil intent commit acts which violate the law, shall be criminally responsible for those acts. Our traditions also require that where such acts stem from and are the product of mental disease or defect, moral blame shall not attach and hence there will not be criminal responsibility.
In our society the essential aim of the criminal law should not be to induce mass fear of punishment but to reaffirm the value of each individual by due process in his conviction and purposeful treatment thereafter.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that this bill which I have introduced will probably suffer the fate of many other private members' bills. It is however my earnest hope that the government will give serious consideration to this matter which I have brought forward.
There are many other fields in which we reject the impact of modern thought and science, but is there any reason why we should insist in our criminal law in asking a question framed 120 years ago, when
Criminal Code
psychiatric knowledge was in its infancy? Is there any reason why this parliament in 1964 should not gain a reputation throughout the civilized world for a modern and enlightened attitude to the question of criminal responsibility? I urge the government to give the most careful attention to the amendment of the criminal law in this respect.
I would like to conclude by quoting the words of Winston Churchill, who in the midst of the darkest days of the world war made the following statement:
The mood and temper of the public with regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilization of any country. A calm, dispassionate recognition of the rights of the accused, and even of
the convicted criminal against the state_ Those
are the symbols which, in the treatment of crime and criminals, make and measure the stored-up strength of a nation and are sign and proof of the living virtue in it.
Mr. Speaker, the maintenance of an obsolete and antiquated law of criminal responsibility would show that we in this house in Canada were failing in this test. I suggest it is in this spirit that the members of this house should consider that the time has come to make sure that there are no more cases in Canada like the case of Ronald Markle, now being punished for a crime for which according to our modern knowledge and judgment he was not responsible mentally or morally. If we in this parliament do something about this type of problem we will be measuring up, in Mr. Churchill's words, to one of the "tests of civilization".


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Branl-Haldimand):: I am
sure the house is grateful to the honourable and learned member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) for bringing to our attention this most important aspect of the criminal law. I trust that if I indicate some difference of opinion between myself and the author of Bill C-14 he would not think I am treating his enlightened efforts in too summary a fashion.
It is true, as the hon. member stated, that we are still administering the law as it was laid down and applied in the trial of Daniel M'Naghten almost a century and a quarter ago. The main criticism of section 16 of our criminal law is, as I understand it, that the law has not kept pace with medical science and knowledge. It is contended that as medical science threw back the frontiers the law has not been modified. That, of course, is the object of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Greenwood.
I am sure the hon. member would agree that his proposition is not a novel one. I do not say that in any desire to detract from the worthiness of his efforts. My purpose and

Criminal Code
my justification are simple. It is my submission that the M'Naghten rules have stood the test of time. While it is true that on one hand the M'Naghten rules have their strong critics, on the other hand there may be found their strong supporters.
I propose, with deliberate economy of language, to outline the historical background of the M'Naghten rules and their progress. Forty years ago-in 1924, to be precise-Lord Justice Atkin headed a 27-man committee, a committee of eminent and outstanding men both in the law and in medicine, who were reinforced by an opinion from the British medical association. They brought forth a recommendation that the M'Naghten rules should be modified. That recommendation died on second reading in the British parliament. In 1953 a royal commission was again established in Great Britain and the question was given searching and careful inquiry. Once more the British medical association came forward, and the committee, armed with their report, went a step further than the Atkin committee and recommended to parliament that the M'Naghten rules be abrogated. Once more that recommendation died in the British House of Commons.
The hon. and learned member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) has stated that in 1957 Chief Justice McRuer headed a commission to examine the same question. I share the hon. member's respect for the chief justice of Ontario and I should like to put on the record the conclusions of the majority report, which may be found at page 46 of the report and which reads in part as follows:
There should he no change in subsection 1, 2 and 4 of section 16 of the Criminal Code.
Then the majority report goes on to deal with the law suggested by the hon. member for Greenwood, sometimes known as the laws of the state of New Hampshire. This is what the report said:
The repeal of section 16 and the substitution of the laws of the state of New Hampshire or those of the district of Columbia would not make for a better administration of justice in Canada.
How is it that the M'Naghten rules, subjected to the severest criticism, have withstood the onslaughts of medical associations, of legal committees and royal commissions? An appropriate consideration in answering that question, I suggest, is to determine the purpose for which the M'Naghten rules were formulated. The object of the criminal law, as I understand it, is to protect society, and while there should be other considerations than deterrence, nonetheless the prime purpose of the law is to protect society from the depredations of dangerous and vicious people.

It should be borne in mind that the M'Naghten rules are not set forth as an all-embracing definition of insanity. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that they do not define insanity at all. They set forth a standard of criminal responsibility.
In that regard I wish to point out-and I cannot emphasize this too strongly-that even in 1843 when the judges brought forth the M'Naghten rules, they were aware of the fact that the medical association had a much broader view as to the definition of insanity. But the judges who brought forth the M'Naghten rules started from the fundamental proposition that every person is presumed to be sane and responsible in law for his acts. Then they went a step further and said that if the person desired to escape criminal responsibility it must be proved that either he did not know the nature and quality of his act, or if he did know it, he did not know that it was wrong. The hon. and learned member for Greenwood pointed out in his lucid statement that this is putting the question in the strait-jacket of the right or wrong test. He calls to our attention that modern medical science shows that you cannot, in determining insanity, put the human mind into separate compartments and determine this question solely on the principles of reason, and it must be determined by looking at the whole human function. I concede that, judged solely by medical standards, it is difficult to defend the M'Naghten rules, but I respectfully suggest that in practice they have worked and I am not aware of any substantial miscarriage of justice because they have been maintained in the Criminal Code.
I would, in this great conflict between the M'Naghten rules and the medical association, borrow the words of Mr. John Robinette, the treasurer of the Law Society of Upper Canada and one of the leaders of the bar in this country. This is what he said in giving his opinion before the royal commission:
It seems to me that it might be worthy of consideration to exclude from the code entirely the word insanity, and what is now section 16 should merely provide that under certain circumstances a person shall not be criminally responsible for his acts or omissions, leaving out any reference to insanity because I think that is probably what causes some of the controversy between the medical profession and the legal profession.
There is a general maxim that if the law satisfies the public conscience, then it is doing its duty. It is my humble and respectful submission that over the years the M'Naghten rules have satisfied the conscience of the majority of the people in this country and no one can place his finger on any substantial miscarriage of justice because the rules are still in the Criminal Code. I do not, Mr. MARCH 31, 1964
Speaker, pose as any authority in this matter although I have had occasion to defend people charged with capital murder and have argued this subject matter in the court of appeal with divided success. But I respectfully submit that no matter what it is you put to a jury, whether it be the M'Naghten rules or the watered down and broader rules suggested in Bill No. C-14, invariably the jury will ask themselves this question, "Did the man know that what he was doing was wrong?" In this connection I would bring to the attention of the house that even under Bill No. C-14 psychiatrists would concede that a man, even by their standards, could be insane and would yet know that what he was doing was wrong. I do not propose to weary the house with a long list of legal citations; suffice it to say that several cover my point. In the leading case in Australia, Sodeman v. The King, the defence were able to bring forth three medical experts who all testified, without reservation, that the accused man did not know the nature and quality of his act and did not know that it was wrong. The prosecution brought forth no evidence in rebuttal. The jury convicted, and subsequent appeals failed.
I have had occasion to make a study of five cases reported in the British Notable Trials series, all involving a defence on the grounds of insanity. On each occasion medical evidence was brought forth to show that the accused man did not know the nature and quality of his act, and on each occasion a verdict of guilty was recorded. That brings me back to my original proposition, that while in theory the M'Naghten rules are open to great criticism, in practice they have worked and any other rule that might be substituted would also be subjected by the jury to the searching question, "Did the man know it was wrong when he committed the act?"


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? Does he think that because a man like Markle knew that what he was doing was wrong, but nevertheless acted as a result of mental illness, it is appropriate that he should be treated as a criminal and should not receive treatment as a sane person?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, may I say to the hon. member that if this man knew it was wrong, he could be held criminally responsible, bearing in mind that the law is merciful and takes into consideration these mitigating factors and will give such a man treatment. So we have to weigh the one danger against the other-whether he should be set free into society or be kept incarcerated for a definite period receiving the treatment.
Criminal Code
I come back to the proposition I was making earlier. I believe the M'Naghten rules have, generally speaking, worked well.
In conclusion, may I say that I hope the government will not close the door to the bill proposed by the hon. member. I will be the first to acknowledge that some of the submissions that I have put forth are subject to objection, and many may be easily rebutted. My purpose in asking the government to keep the bill alive and later on to send it to a special committee is twofold. In the first place I believe discussion of this bill during private members hour is not sufficient for an important measure of this nature. Second, I would ask the government to consider that "no man's land" where a person falls between one who is clearly sane and one who is clearly insane. At the present time there is not sufficient legislation, in my humble opinion, to assist such a person.
The principle of diminished responsibility, which is in existence in India, Pakistan and Scotland, has worked in practice. It would provide some mitigation for those who, while they are not insane within the meaning of the rule, yet because of some mental infirmity or illness are not fully accountable for their actions. Therefore, in closing I would again commend the hon. member, though I may differ with him on many points, and I urge the government to give earnest consideration at a later date to convening a committee to consider this very important problem.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all commend the hon. member for bringing to the attention of the house this important matter, which is one which has been discussed at bar meetings and by medical groups for a good many years. I am sure that nearly every lawyer remembers discussions which started off with the words: "When will we get rid of the M'Naghten rules?" I confess that personally my own sympathies would have been very much in the direction of Bill No. C-14 were it not for the fact that on Friday, November 22, 1962 I happened to have the privilege of sitting down in Toronto with the distinguished and learned member who brought this bill to the attention of the house to hear Lord Devlin, a privy councillor and a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary of London, speak on mental abnormality and the criminal law in a series which was published under the style "Changing legal objectives". I might add that my hon. friend's bill in present form had actually been introduced to the house prior to that lecture.
Lord Devlin, who spoke from a very wide and deep knowledge of criminal jurisprudence in the United Kingdom, certainly gave new insight to the implications and significance

Criminal Code
of the rules in M'Naghten's case. In the first place, he asked his listeners clearly to distinguish considerations of punishment and sentence in the evaluation of this rule respecting liability. One of the matters which is in our minds with respect to the Mc'Naghten rule is that this is the rule which on certain occasions would convict a man to death who perhaps, if modern psychiatric standards were applied, should be deemed insane. Lord Devlin asked us, first of all, to bear in mind that everything which is sought to be accomplished in the hon. member for Greenwood's bill would be better accomplished by amending the Criminal Code respecting penalty. That is to say, with respect to capital murder there would be no compulsory sentence of death; the maximum penalty would be death or such other penalty as the trial judge in his discretion deemed proper. For my own part I should like to see capital punishment eventually abolished, and I think we are moving in this direction. With regard to noncapital murder there would be no longer a compulsory life sentence, but a maximum penalty of a life sentence or such other lesser penalty as the trial judge in his discretion might deem proper.
Supposing it were possible, Mr. Speaker, by amendment to the code, for a judge to be free with regard to applying an appropriate penalty. This is the general direction which is being taken in all our criminal legislation under the new concept that punishment is now giving place to treatment, that many criminals are better rehabilitated by treatment than by punishment. Suppose a judge were free in any particular case to determine, perhaps even by way of appeal or with the assistance of the parole board, whether or not the appropriate sentence for a crime should be treatment or punishment. If it were possible to distinguish and to separate punishment for a person suffering from mental disability of some kind from the fact of his conviction, then what is the real fault with the M'Naghten rule?
It is true that in the early days the rules in M'Naghten's case were stringent. In the case of The King v. Jessamine, which is reported in 1912 Ontario Court of Appeal Reports, the court was considering section 19 of the code, which reads as follows:
No person shall be convicted of an offence by reason of an act done or omitted by him when labouring under natural imbecility, or disease of the mind, to such an extent as to render him incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission, and of knowledge that such an act or omission was wrong.
This case was authority for the proposition that the burden of proof of insanity is upon the defence. That proposition was not actually spelled out in the comments of the learned

proponent of the bill, but I think it was inferred. Without evidence to go to the jury the prisoner cannot be acquitted on the plea of insanity.
Since this case of the King v. Jessamine criminal jurisprudence has shown progress and development. On October 25, 1956 the McRuer royal commission brought down its report. They considered the case of Rex v. Cracknell, reported in 1931 Ontario reports at page 634, which dealt with section 16 of the Criminal Code. That section says;
(1)	No person shall be convicted of an offence in respect of an act or omission on his part while he was insane.
(2)	For the purposes of this section a person is insane when he is in a state of natural imbecility or has disease of the mind to an extent that renders him incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of an act or omission or of knowing that an act or omission is wrong.
The insertion of the word "or" is of considerable importance. Because if the accused did not know that in killing his wife he was doing what was wrong he had no guilty intention and therefore was not guilty of murder, even though he might have appreciated the physical, not the moral, nature and quality of his act.
So really in layman's language it boils down to this, that the true meaning of the M'Naghten rule according to modern jurisprudence is to ensure that without proof of mens rea-that is, without proof that a man is capable of knowing, and in fact knows, that what he is doing is wrong-he shall not be convicted, whether he is sane or insane.
Mr. Justice Holmes has said that laws exist not for the scientific satisfaction of the legal mind but for the convenience of the lay people. One of the real problems-and surely this is spelled out very clearly in the report of the McRuer royal commission to which I have referred-is the problem of what we can provide by way of substitution for the test set out in the M'Naghten rules. Proposed in this bill is a new text-that a person is insane if the act or omission is the product of mental disease or defect. But what does that mean?
It is conceivable that such words could produce great difficulty, Mr. Speaker. Certainly this language "the product of mental disease or defect" is fraught with all kinds of difficulties. We could then have a most learned argument among psychiatrists. What the M'Naghten rules have assuredly done, both in English jurisprudence and Canadian jurisprudence, is to provide some standard of certainty. Lord Devlin suggested that there really is not much of a problem any more about the test of knowing the nature or quality of the act because obviously if a man does not know the nature or quality of the

act he will be certifiable and he will never come up for trial. The real question is whether or not he also knows the act was wrong. Lord Devlin poses the rather important question of why we should seek to have one standard for a person of normal mind and another standard with respect to morality for a person who has something less than a normal mind. I quite appreciate the liberal sentiments and the humanitarianism of my hon. friend-


Francis Andrew Brewin: It is just common sense.


John Ross Matheson: -in presenting this bill to the house, but why should a man of a somewhat diseased mind be free to do what he knows is wrong any more than any other person? If we are prepared to effect reform by way of penalty, if we are able in a particular case to allow psychiatric evidence and advice to come into the picture, whether it is a matter involving sexual assault or murder or other crimes that may be attributable in some way to mental abnormality, if we are able to consider these factors, in what way is the convicted person hurt?
Lord Devlin has indicated to us this proposition, that one of the important things from the standpoint of treatment is that the person who has control over the individual with the diseased mind will have some kind of certainty with respect to controlling treatment. I am sure there is not a member in the house interested in penology who is satisfied that we are doing what we should in our penitentiaries or jails with respect to psychiatric care. Quite frankly, we do not have enough people to do this important work.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Why do you not spend a lot more money on it?


John Ross Matheson: I think we should. I hold the view that such treatment is of critical importance. At this time we are rapidly moving toward a figure of 10,000 people in our federal penitentiaries. It is obvious we are not providing nearly enough treatment services. I am addressing myself however to the argument placed before us by Lord Devlin with regard to a person who is convicted, for instance, of the crime of arson as suggested by the distinguished proponent of the bill, namely that if the individual is confined for a certain length of time it is possible for the psychiatrist to work with him and if the man makes notable progress the psychiatrist will be the first to make a recommendation through the proper channels that the man be allowed out on parole or ticket of leave or something of that kind which, while allowing the man his liberty, will at the same time ensure the continued treatment that is so necessary in this type of case.
Criminal Code
Does it help simply to throw out this proven test, which is ultimately the old test of mens real When we boil down the rule in M'Naghten's case what we really find is that only a man who in fact knows that what he is doing is wrong shall be convicted, whether he be sane or insane. If the Criminal Code were to be changed in the manner suggested in the bill we could have a situation where a guilty minded person could walk out of a court room free. It is true there are other provisions now under the Criminal Code whereby the court could actually order that a man be placed under mental observation. I think this is the kind of thing we may be compelled to do in a good many cases where there is not actually a conviction but where a person comes clearly within the terms defined in Bill C-14.
What harm is there if such a person is actually convicted of the criminal offence charged when he comes before an intelligent court that is prepared to listen to psychiatric evidence and to be guided by it on the question of whether or not the man should go to a penitentiary or to jail or to a hospital, or should even be kept under psychiatric observation in his own home for some time? I am sure that the contribution made by the hon. member in bringing this bill to the attention of the house is worth while. I do not think it is fair to overemphasize the fact that there was a minority report by the royal commission. Chief Justice McRuer has a high reputation, as the hon. member himself said, among those who are interested in criminal jurisprudence.


Francis Andrew Brewin: The minority report makes very good sense, if you read it.


John Ross Matheson: I have read the minority report and I have very high respect for Her Honour, Judge Kinnear. However, I would point out that the chief justice of the high court of Ontario, who has conducted many capital cases and has had a long and wide training in criminal law, obviously has benefited from much broader experience, much closer, I submit, to the experience of Lord Devlin, than can possibly have been had by such a distinguished and scholarly person as Her Honour Judge Helen Kinnear.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make some very brief observations. I agree with what the hon. member who proposed the bill has said. His argument was reasoned, eloquent and very intelligent and I accept it in its entirety. I do want to point out to the house that I understand that last year a committee on criminal law reform was established in the United Kingdom and in its third or fourth report it dealt with this

Supply-Agriculture
matter among other things. Although I do not have the material here, it is my recollection that as a result of the committee's report the principle of diminishing responsibility was introduced in the United Kingdom.
Finally, I want to put forward the proposition that if at the time the M'Naghten rules were laid down there had been medical people with the knowledge and learning that exists today in the field of psychiatry the M'Naghten rules would not have been laid down as they were then. We would have had rules far more humane, far more intelligent and far more in line with what we should have in this country today.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Carried.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour appointed for consideration of private members' business having expired the house will revert to the consideration of the business interrupted at five o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. La-moureux in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, before five o'clock I had been dealing with the problems faced by the farmers in my constituency over the past four years as well as the danger that is hanging over their heads at the moment as a result of the very unusual conditions occurring this winter. These conditions result from a combination of a heavy snowfall without a thaw, and also the fact that there has been very little frost in the ground. As any good Canadian, particularly from the northern part of Canada, will realize this is a very dangerous combination.
I was wondering, Mr. Chairman, if the minister had given any thought to this matter, if he has any plans to meet a situation of this kind or if this situation had come to his attention. The farmers of northern Ontario have always been in a very unfortunate situation. When anyone in Canada, or possibly any place else in the world, thinks about northern Ontario he generally thinks of gold mines, copper, zinc, asbestos, silver and so on. Few people realize the farming potential of this part of the country. I believe that as time goes on and as we see what is developing in southern Ontario where some of the choice farmland in Canada is being gobbled

up by sprawling factories and so forth, we will come to realize very quickly that this great farm country of the north is capable of great things. I do not think there is any question about that at all.
The question I am raising tonight is this: When this country comes into its own, will the farmers who have struggled for so long to develop these farms still be there to benefit, or will they be forced by circumstances such as I have outlined here tonight to leave those farms? One farmer told me that the vegetable farmers of Ontario are in a very tough situation. At about the time the crops down in the Niagara peninsula come on the market, they meet competition from the tail end of the United States production. Then when the production from the Holland marshes come on the market, it meets competition from the tail end of the production in the Niagara peninsula. When the agricultural production of northern Ontario comes along, it meets competition from the tail end of the production from the Holland marshes. The result is that the vegetable farmers are faced with a depressed market all the way along the line. I believe this problem has been sadly neglected in the past. I believe more attention should be paid to it, and I would be interested in hearing from the minister whether or not he has any plans or if these farmers are really as forgotten as some of them seem to believe they are.


William Arnold Peters: I had expected the minister would like to answer some of these questions that have been raised. However he may intend to do this later, because I think we are going to have some time during which he will be able to answer these questions. We have heard a great deal about how important this item in the estimates is. While I know that the amount of money is not large compared with the over-all cost of the department, it is an administrative item and therefore there is a great deal of interest in it beyond what would be warranted by the amount of money it covers.
I was interested this afternoon in the statement made by the minister as well as the one he made on March 26. In my opinion, these statements were long overdue. I have always been one of those who felt that the minister, if he were as good an auctioneer as people say, and keeping in mind the Hays farms in Ontario, might be one with whom it would be unwise to tangle. I am quite sure he has capabilities which have not been apparent to date. However as I say I was pleased to hear the statement he made today. I should like to congratulate both the minister and Mr. Phillips who, I believe, probably had something to do with writing his speech. I have met Mr. Phillips a number of times. He

is a very smart gentleman from the Department of Agriculture who acted as public relations man for the agriculture committee. While I do not know his functions, I do know that he has many of the answers to the problems of agriculture. I think this is what we want in parliament-some answers.
The problems of agriculture are pretty well known to anyone who is interested in reading any of the farm publications. These problems have been faced by farmers for many years. It is true that many of these problems cannot be solved by the farmers themselves. They are going to have to be assisted through government agencies, through research and marketing schemes. I believe the role of the Department of Agriculture will be found in the field of redevelopment. I have been concerned by some of the statements that have been made in relation to ARDA. I believe it is true that ARDA was not born overnight. It was not a program developed to solve any particular problem at a specific time, but was a program for rural redevelopment and was aimed at solving some of the problems of agriculture over a long period of time.
I am surprised when I hear the minister say how much better it has been in the last few months than it has been for several years. I wonder how much better. I do not think it is good enough to say there have been so many loans advanced or so much money spent under the ARDA program. I feel we want to know the direction in which the program is heading. We should like to know how much progress has been made in this program for the redevelopment of agriculture. This is a long term program and the amount of money that is being spent is not of particular interest. What is of interest is what is being accomplished with whatever money is being spent. We know that agricultural matters will no doubt receive a great deal of attention during the latter part of this week at the dominion-provincial conference taking place in Quebec, because there is a similarity in the problem as between one province and another. Of course the similarity in that respect is not as marked in what is being done under ARDA.
We used to listen with rapt attention to the former minister of agriculture when he was telling us his dream that all the problems of agriculture would be solved by the ARDA program. But at one time we saw ARDA being used as one of the political planks in an election campaign, and it was something we were no happier about then than we are now, when we hear the present minister talking about endorsing more ARDA projects over the last few months than were endorsed in the preceding number of years.
Supply-Agriculture
This is not too important. What is important is the result of the projects being developed, in what field they are being developed, and how they fit in with the over-all picture. If ARDA is to solve the problems of the farmer we should know in what field ARDA development is taking place.
Many years ago in eastern Ontario a farmer could make a good living off 20 acres of arable land. He might have had a 160 acre farm, although many of the farms in the Ottawa valley were just 80 acres; but the farmers' living was made off 15 or 20 acres of cultivated land. Many of the farms had, and still have, up to 40 acres of substandard land which does not produce a reasonable crop.
It is interesting to know how much agriculture produces in earned income. Just the other day we were talking to a farmer who had a specialized crop and who estimated he was getting $5,000 an acre from his farm. In western Canada an acre produces about 17 bushels of wheat, which nets about $35 an acre. There are many farmers in eastern Canada who earn less than that per acre. In fact there are some who do not get more than several hundred dollars net income from their entire farms.
It was with this in mind that I personally endorsed the ARDA program and felt it had a role to play in the future of agriculture. This meant we would do some of the things which the former minister of agriculture advocated, although we disagreed with some of the things he said because they were too visionary. It may not have been possible to put one farmer in charge of a block of 20 or 30 farms and have him handle the reforestation, working for the government as a tree farmer and supplementing his income up until the time the trees were of harvest-able size, although this is something that is being done by many municipalities in the United States which have small wood lots from which they raise enough money to pay the total taxes of the townships.
I believe we should receive a detailed report from the minister with regard to what is happening. I can tell him what is happening with one ARDA project in my area. It is a project I welcome, where the provincial government has taken in an area of about 640 acres, about half of which is cleared. It is very good land, and in my opinion will provide grazing for quite a large number of cattle. In fact it is safe to say its productivity will be equal, in grazing terms, to a plot five times that size in western Canada. But without waiting to see what development the ARDA people would do, some

Supply-Agriculture
businessmen in the area have made application to run beef cattle on that land. They wish to rent it themselves and put up the money to raise cattle.
I am sure the government would not be willing to provide those businessmen with a feeding lot to fatten their cattle, but there are some businessmen under the impression that this is going to happen. If it did develop this way, then it would be a very poor method of helping to solve agricultural problems.
I have before me the figures which the minister gave in relation to the number of projects developed under ARDA, but it is important that he tell us what the intention of the government is in relation to ARDA as it affects rural development today. If the government intends to reforest many of the substandard agricultural lands I believe that is worthwhile, but it is not a project suitable to my area. Community pasture is something which will work in some areas but it is completely unsuitable in others. The need for pasture is being met on a commercial basis by companies set up for that purpose in many areas, and this is something which should be considered.
There has been a very bad approach to water conservation in many parts of the country, particularly in Ontario where there is such a great abundance of water but where nothing is being done to conserve it. The little clay belt in northern Ontario at one time had an abundance of water, but in Timiskaming over the last five or six years farmers have had to deepen their wells because the table level has been continuously dropping.
This is one area in which the federal government is responsible because it provides the moneys for the construction of reservoirs on small streams and rivers.
I next wish to deal with the problem of farm credit. Those of us who had anything to do with the Veterans Land Act were very pleased with the amount of credit given under V.L.A. for the benefit of veterans. Most of the veterans had a very happy record of repayment and, more important, the number of veterans who settled on the land and who could make a living off it was very sizeable. Everyone agreed when the old farm loan board gave way to credits arrangements made through the Farm Credit Corporation that this was a step in the right direction. There were weaknesses, of course, and one of the weaknesses was that seldom, if ever, was the land given a proper valuation where it was to be used solely for the purposes of agriculture.

It is easy to value land at reasonable rates in the Toronto area where the industrial community is vying with the agricultural purchaser for land. Land values become substantially increased and probably bear a fair relationship to the agricultural potential of that land. In many cases the agricultural potential is far below the actual value of the land. But in other areas, in my own area in particular, the cost of clearing the land is greater than the value which the department allows for a loan in respect of that land. I am not talking about land cleared a hundred years ago. This is land which was cleared within my own lifetime. I believe it is not too difficult to ascertain its true value because one has at least to take into account the total cost of clearing the land and the work done on it. It seems to me that the value placed on such land is often far too low.
There is another problem to which I should like to direct attention. How can young people be encouraged to become farmers? Unless their fathers are willing to mortgage the home farm it is impossible today for young lads to go out and buy enough land to set themselves up as farmers. I know of no young farmer who was able, on his own, to buy a farm which was an economic unit. Yet is this not exactly what we have to make possible in order to get young people on the farms? I say this in the light of the fact that the average age of our farmers today is well over 50. It seems to me this is one of the fields in which the Minister of Agriculture should engage his efforts, and that he should give the committee the benefit of any studies he has conducted with regard to this problem. It may be that the federal government will have to make available to more young farmers the type of education which is given at the Ontario Agricultural College, Kemptville, and some of the other junior colleges. This would make it possible for a department to evaluate the knowledge of students attending the courses who are likely to need to borrow comparatively large sums of money to purchase the agricultural land they will require.
The minister knows that many people who have been farming for a long time are only now able to pay off mortgages they raised many years ago. So agriculture is not in the happy state in which some other industries find themselves. The future does not look good and this is because we have not yet given to agriculture the over-all consideration it deserves. The other day the minister read out a list of acts affecting agriculture. He said the administration of these acts formed part of his responsibilities and that the taking away of one or two of these measures did not make a very big difference. I disagree. I think the minister must be well aware that the

establishment of these various agencies within his administration has only been an excuse for not developing an over-all policy which would concern itself with agriculture in general. On many occasions farm organizations come to Ottawa and ask for a handout, or perhaps I should say for specific pieces of legislation to help in a particular field. Even the stabilization act, from which farmers derive so much benefit, concerns itself with a specific field. Its benefits are felt in specific areas and it is difficult to relate them to any over-all agricultural policy. I think the time has arrived when we should make up our minds what we intend to do about agriculture, what the potential is, how it relates to the industrial potential of this country and what its future is likely to be.
Earlier this afternoon the minister mentioned that when he was in Argentina the people there told him that Canada was known for three things-pulp, that is, paper; dairy cattle and wheat. I was asked the other day if I would be willing to help in the purchase of a large number of cattle for the export market. I do not consider that I am qualified to do this job. I was asked because I do have some knowledge of the dairy field and I suppose if it were a question of buying black and white cows I could have been of some assistance.


An hon. Member:: From Kirkland Lake?


William Arnold Peters: No, we do not buy cows from Kirkland Lake, but in New Liskeard we export cattle all over the area, even to Rouyn and the ridings of other hon. members from Quebec who are here this evening. We are always happy to export them there, because the provincial government grants a subsidy on purebred cattle which are exported and this means we get a much better price, particularly in Abitibi and Timiskaming, for cattle exported to Quebec than to many other areas. However, a problem has arisen with regard to the export of cattle. Everyone is aware that when we ship wheat from Canada the Canadian government guarantees the grade and condition of that commodity. Yet this does not apply in the case of cattle exports.
A year ago we allowed the shipment of a large number of cattle to Cuba which gave the industry in Canada a very bad name. As I understand it, when he hired a buyer to buy cattle, Castro specified a maximum price to be paid. This meant that the buyer was not necessarily buying the best cattle available; he was buying in a limited market. I think the result did a great deal to hurt the market we had established in central and south America where our standard, for a number of years, has been very good. We are
Supply-Agriculture
selling now, to countries like British Guiana, and the government of that country is interested in supporting the registry which has been established in Canada. I think this is a field in which the government should be taking a much more active interest in order that the best possible commodity may be supplied from Canada, leading in turn to the establishment of a better reputation and of a higher volume of sales abroad. I think the government should supervise these operations and give assistance to private enterprise in this field.
The minister will be happy to know that when I had been consulted in this connection I had expressed the opinion that the Hays farms were able to give the best service. The Hays farms is the one place to go because they have the facilities to look after a large quantity of stock. While this is a private enterprise I think it is impossible to guarantee classification and a grade that will be maintained. This must be done in a way which will maintain the standard. I think this is more important at the present time than the money that is being paid for those commodities.
The minister of course is aware that in agriculture there are many other fields which need some assistance now. One of those fields is going to involve the assistance that he has from the branches with which he is now connected, but it is also going to need the assistance of other departments, one of which is the Department of Trade and Commerce. I refer of course to sugar beets. If you ask the housewife in Canada today what is the greatest problem in this country, she will tell you it is the price of sugar. If you travel over every part of Canada this is probably the problem that she will say rates highest on the list of Canadian problems-that is, the price of sugar. If this is so, why do we not decide to grow sugar beets, and why does not the government decide right now that they will guarantee and underwrite the price of sugar and will govern the import of cane sugar, so we can provide a restrictive market for sugar in this country and the means of supplying a large section of the sugar industry with home produced sugar beets. As everyone knows, the sugar beet industry can be expanded rapidly in Canada. We could plan this spring to provide, probably, enough sugar beets to supply the needs of Canada without a great deal of effort. But to do this we would have to guarantee the producers of the sugar beets a reasonable return for their money. Many farmers who produced tobacco last year would find it advantageous to go out of tobacco this year, and they would find their land to be quite capable of producing an immense tonnage of sugar beets.

Supply-A griculture
This does not apply only to my area. In the province of Manitoba there are areas which are producing almost half the requirements of that province. I can remember as a young lad that in northern Ontario we were producing mangolds and sugar beets, and it seemed there were miles and miles of rows that had to be hoed by hand. These were large sugar beets, as I remember, and I am sure that most parts of Ontario and Quebec are suitable for the production of this commodity. It is a very simple matter. This is not something for which you have to plan, like beef cattle, where it takes three or four years to get into the field and costs a very large amount of money. All you would have to do in this connection is be assured of a market. Every farmer could plant sugar beet seed and be in production almost overnight. I am also informed that the facilities necessary to convert this commodity for the raw sugar industry do not constitute an expensive proposition. What does the minister say about it? So far he has been silent. Here he has an opportunity to do something in this connection with a very simple subsidy and a guaranteed floor price for sugar beets. He can provide a set price for sugar for every housewife in Canada. He would be the darling of every Canadian housewife and every Canadian mother. When the housewife went to the store, she would find that sugar was the same price this month as it was last month, and it would be the same price in the months to come. The minister can provide this guaranteed price for sugar with the very simple expedient of determining now a policy in this connection. I think this is all the country asks in agriculture namely that we provide leadership.
I was approached not long ago by the cheese producers.


An hon. Member:: How wonderful.


William Arnold Peters: Well, Mr. Chairman, there is a backbencher over there who does not say much when standing up, but sometimes makes an odd comment-and they are always odd. I had a very interesting talk with the officials of the Ontario cheese producers association. I am not going to outline the mechanics of the plan they proposed, but they are of the opinion that a 1 cent subsidy this year will solve many of the problems in both the domestic and export cheese markets. Hon. members may be aware that the Ontario cheese producers were able to sell last year almost 10 million pounds more cheese than they did the year before; and they were able to absorb this through their marketing agency. They expect this to be increased this year, if they are lucky and other aspects of the dairy

industry remain the same. If this is the case, they will have an increase in their sales volume.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. Shall the resolution carry?


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, would you mind a member from an area that is highly dependant upon fish and fisheries products making a comment or two about agricultural matters? While the city of Prince Rupert is perhaps considered to be the salmon and halibut capital of the world, it is also vitally interested in grain and in the shipment of grain for export, because we have there one of the terminal elevators of the Canadian government. I should like to make a comment or two about this matter and hope that before this item passes the minister will indicate to the committee what the government intends to do and will give us information which is a little more expansive than he has given to the house so far with regard to this grain elevator. I have asked the minister on a number of occasions about this. I have asked questions on the orders of the day about it, and the answer I get on each occasion is that the matter is under consideration. This has been going on for some weeks now-in fact, ever since the house reconvened. We would like to know at least whether the minister is getting near the end of his period of consideration and whether he is in a position to make some announcement on this question.
This is a question not only of vital importance to the economy and the people of Prince Rupert but to Canadian National Railways, who would ship the grain by boxcar into Rupert and to the farmers on the prairies who produce and store that grain, particularly barley, for which the Prince Rupert elevator has been used for some time. I will not go into the economic reasons, the statistical analysis and other arguments for the increase of the capacity of the grain elevator in Prince Rupert, which incidentally have been presented to the minister on a number of occasions, and latterly in a very well documented and prepared brief by the Prince Rupert chamber of commerce of last November, of which I have additional copies which I hope to distribute to the members of the agricultural committee when and if it ever gets mobile.
I wonder whether, to give what I think is an interpretation which is favourable with regard to the consideration the minister is giving to this matter, I could quote briefly from some correspondence dating back to January of last year. I wish to quote just a sentence or two. One of the letters is dated

January 15, 1963 from Hon. Alvin Hamilton, the then minister of agriculture, and is addressed to Mr. Edward T. Applewhaite, who was then the secretary of the Prince Rupert chamber of commerce. I might say that Mr. Applewhaite was a former member of this house and occupied the esteemed position that you hold, Mr. Chairman. He was well respected by everyone in the house on that occasion, and I have the privilege of succeeding him in office. In this letter to Mr. Applewhaite of January a year ago Mr. Hamilton winds up by saying this:
The conclusion we came to after very careful consideration is that we cannot at this time recommend an increase in the capacity of the Prince Rupert elevator. I have requested the board to keep the matter under constant review, bearing in mind the current pattern of grain movement.
I think he would be referring there to the board of grain commissioners who had authorized a study of and an inquiry into this question, and incidentally they reported and recommended favourably on an increase in the facilities at Prince Rupert.
Then on May 23, 1963 there was a further exchange of correspondence between the Prince Rupert chamber of commerce and the minister. On that day the present minister wrote a letter-at least, I have a photocopy of a letter which bears a rubber stamp indicating it had originally been signed by H. W. Hays-the last sentence of which is as follows:
However, the situation is that the government is planning no present extension of its elevator facilities on the Pacific coast.
It will be recalled that this was at the time, or just prior to the time, of the last immense sale of grain.
In the fall of last year when that announcement was made the premier of British Columbia, Hon. W. A. C. Bennett, sent a telegram to the Minister of Trade and Commerce congratulating him and the government on arranging the largest ever sale of Canadian grain. The premier's telegram is in part, as follows:
The shipments will tax the handling capacity of Canadian ports and I would ask you to give special consideration to the port of Prince Rupert. If there is any way our government can be of assistance to you in this matter please call on us.
So in September of last year there was an offer of assistance from the premier and the government of the province of British Columbia.
The reply to that telegram of the Minister of Trade and Commerce on September 27 was, in part, as follows:
You may rest assured that the port of Prince Rupert will be used to its utmost capacity right up to the end of next July.
Supply-Agriculture
So there is an indication of a more favourable attitude toward the use of the grain elevator at Prince Rupert as at September of last year.
Then His Worship Mayor Lester of the city of Prince Rupert sent a telegram to the Minister of Agriculture about this matter on October 3 last. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, in replying to that telegram-and this is a most significant statement and far more important than any of the others which had been made prior to it-said this:
The Prince Rupert elevator is one of the most efficiently operated in all Canadawhich is what everyone who has any knowledge of its operations has always said-[DOT]
-and I can assure you that fuller use will be made of its facilities.
You will have noticed earlier, Mr. Chairman, that in writing to the premier of British Columbia in September of last year the Minister of Trade and Commerce had said that "the port of Prince Rupert will be used to its utmost capacity". Then later on in October of last year, in writing to the mayor of the city of Prince Rupert, he said "and I can assure you that fuller use will be made of its facilities". All of that indicates that there is a growing need to increase the capacity of the grain elevator in Prince Rupert.
I also have before me, Mr. Chairman, a memorandum to the board of grain commissioners which recommends favourably in this regard. I should like to quote part of this memorandum.
It is our considered opinion that even with additional storage capacity of one million bushels, the maximum volume of grain which could efficiently be handled through the Prince Rupert terminal annually would amount to no more than 12 million bushels. This amount was, in fact, handled at Prince Rupert in the year 1952-53, but it must be stated that it was not an efficient operation because of the limited capacity of the elevator. For most of the years since the elevator was reopened in 1951, we have handled approximately 10 million bushels through the terminal each year and in each of these years the operation could not be considered efficient for the same reason mentioned above.
To support our contention that an additional one million bushels storage space is required at Prince Rupert to have an efficient operation with the same annual volume as is presently being handled, we wish to make the following observations which we feel would justify the necessary expenditure for the additional storage.
I do not want to read the memorandum in its entirety, because it is a document of three pages, but facts and statistics are given in detail as to why the grain elevator in Prince Rupert should be expanded. The memorandum, which incidentally is dated April 12, 1962, almost two years ago now, concludes in the last two paragraphs as follows:

Supply-Agriculture
Certain other advantages would accrue from the additional storage, such as much easier planning for the Canadian wheat board and the ability to handle more than one grain.
The present workhouse is capable of handling a volume of 12 million bushels annually. We feel that the additional one million bushels storage space, which we feel is necessary, would be justified by the savings in overtime and casual payrolls which can be effected over a period of years.
This memorandum was respectfully submitted by Mr. A. H. Wilson, general manager of the Canadian government elevators.
Without going further into all the reasons and arguments, apart from the necessity, for increasing the facilities in Prince Rupert I would merely ask the minister once more whether he has come to any conclusion about this particular grain elevator and the need for expansion. There is no real argument against the expansion of the facilities there. Surely if we are going to proceed year after year working that elevator-and it is one that we own- almost to its full capacity, which is in the neighbourhood of 10 or 11 million bushels, in an inefficient way when the expenditure of perhaps $1,250,000 or $1,500,000 at the outside, from what I have been told, would make its operation more efficient, then surely we should go ahead with that expenditure. I cannot say anything else, except to ask the minister please to finish his considerations and tell us what he is going to do. I ask him to be efficient in his own considerations and to expand the most efficient grain elevator in all Canada, namely the elevator at Prince Rupert, and make it even doubly efficient. How about it?


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the item carry?


Frank Howard: No; we have at least one unanswered question, Mr. Chairman.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the terminal elevator at Prince Rupert, this elevator is designed to carry 1,250,000 bushels and it handles a turnover of 850,000 bushels. This year it was to be used for No. 5 wheat, but we had a very small amount of No. 5 wheat owing to climatic conditions. The grades were much higher than anyone anticipated, I think. I am quite sympathetic to what the hon. member has said, and I am sorry that I cannot say tonight some of the things I should like to say. But I can say this, that all of the storage facilities which are controlled by the Canadian government in one way or another have been carefully discussed, and I hope in the not too distant future that we will be able to present something to the hon. member which will be satisfactory in so far as the Prince Rupert terminal is concerned.


Mr. Rapp:: How about the Tisdale terminal?


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the minister's answer although I am sorry it was not more definite, because this matter has been on the fire for some years now. In fact, two years ago the previous government ordered an inquiry to be made into the matter and that inquiry reported favourably. It is true that the government of that day did not do anything, but this was typical of them and I was hoping we would have a different approach and that the present government would move with speed and alacrity, if for no other reason than by way of contrast to the lack of action which existed before.
I should like to make these comments with respect to what the minister has said. It is true that the elevator's capacity is reputed to be 1,250,000 bushels. However, it is well known that for one reason or another the rated capacity is very seldom reached because the elevator just does not handle that amount of grain. Taking into account the cleaning process, the different grades handled, the fact that some of the bins may not be full and things of that sort, I think that the proper figure for its working capacity is in the neighbourhood, as the minister said I believe, of 850,000 bushels. I gather this is what the board of grain commissioners says is the figure, although the people in Prince Rupert put the figure closer to 900,000. I have also heard the figure of 800,000 used for the working capacity of the elevator; but the fact is that the figure we should look at for the working capacity is between 800,000 and 900,000 bushels. This is the basis on which the elevator operates-not what it will hold if every bin is filled right to the top, a situation that I would say would never develop.
I think I should also point out that with a working capacity of 800,000 to 900,000 bushels the elevator is never in a position of having sufficient storage space to load two ships at the same time. After the elevator has loaded one ship the next ship has to wait until the storage capacity is filled up again and the grain goes through the cleaning process and so on.
I have a letter here from the Minister of Trade and Commerce pointing up the matter of the size of the ships, which is an additional factor in considering the expansion of the facilities there. On October 31 last the Minister of Trade and Commerce wrote me in reply to a letter of mine complaining about the small amount of grain moving through the port. Apart from other information in the letter he had this to say:
In early October a vessel left Prince Rupert with an all-time, record-high volume of grain, viz. 786,000 bushels of No. 5 wheat, destined for

China. On October 23, the vessel AmstelstacL was loading over half a million bushels of No. 5 wheat at Prince Rupert, also destined for China.
We have an elevator here with a working capacity of 800,000 to 900,000 bushels and if one ship comes along, as happened, and takes 786,000 bushels of grain there is not very much left for another ship that might be in port or might be coming into the port. The result is that this second ship has to wait until sufficient grain has been moved into the port by the C.N.R., and the grain has been cleaned and so on. I merely point this out for the benefit of those who may not be familiar with the situation. While the rated capacity of the elevator is a million and a quarter bushels, as the minister says, that is not the figure we should concern ourselves with but rather the operating capacity which is such that one ship can take a sufficient amount out of the elevator to leave the elevator in the position of not being able to be used to load grain after the ship has left.
As I say, we appreciate the statement of the minister and I intend to communicate immediately with the people in Prince Rupert. Every day that I and the minister are here on orders of the day I intend to ask him further questions with respect to whether he has finished his consideration of this matter.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the vote carry?


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, while the minister is in such a genial mood and before we leave this item perhaps he could answer the questions I raised about the farmers of the Timmins area, the problem they are faced with and whether the government is better prepared to meet the situation than was the case four years ago.


Harry William Hays: I think the hon. member asked two questions. One had to do with the climatic conditions existing this year with 12-foot snow drifts. The government co-operates of course with the governments of the provinces if help is needed in such areas. If flood conditions arise or other disasters take place and the province declares that they cannot cope with the problem then the federal government comes into the picture and helps. This has been done in Nova Scotia and Alberta I think we also helped the government of British Columbia this year in moving feed into such areas.
In connection with the vegetables that the hon. member mentioned, may I say that we do have a seasonal duty. I do not recall just how much it is. Sometimes it is in effect for seven or eight weeks and applies to peaches, for instance, or any of these seasonal crops. I would be glad to get this information for the hon. member so he will be familiar with the situation and I would be interested in 20220-1031
Supply-Agriculture
knowing what crops are involved in the problem. Certainly we would be glad to take a look at the matter.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, with relation to the crop problem I wonder whether it has come to the minister's attention that in Ontario difficulty has developed in small areas and the problem has been solved in many ways over a period of time. I should like to draw on only one example. The hon. member for Timmins has the same problem but it is fairly specific. In my constituency we had limited area damage by hail last fall, but the damage in that limited area involving about two townships was almost complete, so far as feed grain is concerned to meet the farmers' requirements for the year.
The situation is such that crop insurance as we know it federally, or as it has been developed provincially and municipally, is of no value to the farmers in my area because of the fact that they are engaged in mixed farming. If they had a guaranteed revenue from their feed grain this would only represent one tenth of their cash crop and, in fact, the feed grain is used in the production of their cash crop generally. However, the damage was sufficient to eliminate all their income because they had to go out and purchase feed grain. The result is that they are now in the position where it will be almost impossible for them to get seed grain this spring. They feel, and I think justifiably so, that they should be able to look to the provincial or federal governments for assistance in the purchase of certified seed grain to meet, their requirements and that this should not be done as it has been in many years with relation to other seed grain programs of an emergency nature, whereby repayment was taken care of by making it a charge on the land itself.
A petition has been forwarded to the provincial department of agriculture from my area in this regard and I am sure that the minister will be asked for some assistance. It should be borne in mind that this only highlights the problem that we have had with crop insurance and the ability of the farmers in many areas of Canada to take advantage of crop insurance. In this particular case the major part of the income of the farmers is derived either from beef or dairy products, and crop insurance would have very little effect because the farmer would have to insure grass, hay and feed grains.
The possibilities of insurance against hail damage were very small. The fact that such damage does not occur too often in some localities has meant that it has been a very expensive proposition for the farmer to carry hail insurance.

Supply-Agriculture
I believe that the problem raised by the hon. member for Timmins calls into question the whole crop insurance program. I am not asking the minister for an answer tonight, but I would suggest that the crop insurance program instituted by the former government has been in effect long enough for us to see that there are many weaknesses in the program. The majority of fanners can take no advantage of it whatever. I hope the minister will keep this fact in mind because it is one of the major problems of farmers, in so far as crop damage is concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
25e. Institutes, stations, farms, laboratories and services-operation and maintenance-to extend the purposes of vote 25 of the main estimates for 1963-64 to include a grant of $3,635 to assist in publishing a scientific treatise, $1.
Mr. Thomas:: May we have an explanation of this vote? It is stated that the grant amounts to $3,635, and yet there is only one dollar listed in the estimates.


George James McIlraith: The significance of the one dollar item is that the vote authorizing the publication contains enough money, and this was in the main estimates, but the wording of the item is not wide enough to permit the grant to be used for this publication.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether it is his intention to increase subsidies granted for research work carried out at the experimental farm of L'Assomption concerning tobacco of different varieties, as well as fruits and vegetables?


Harry William Hays: We do a great deal of research at both Harrow and Delhi in so far as tobacco is concerned. We do a great deal of research at Summerland, British Columbia and also in Vineland in so far as food is concerned. I believe that in the estimates this year we have pretty well covered this area but I would be glad to take the hon. member's question into consideration and see whether these stations are receiving ample amounts in so far as tobacco research is concerned.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say one more word. I am in favour of continuing research at Delhi and Harrow, but we must not forget that the temperature and the soil are quite different from what they are in the province of Quebec, and it is imperative for certain varieties of tobacco, such as cigar tobacco, that experimental research be carried out at L'Assomption, and not in another province.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
30e. Institutes, stations, farms, laboratories and services-construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $220,000.
William Howell Arthur Thomas: Could we have an explanation of where these buildings are being placed? Is it one building or several?


Harry William Hays: You mean an explanation of item 30e?


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Right.


Harry William Hays: The main estimates amount to $3,525,000 and the supplementary estimate is for $220,000. This money is required for expenditures in connection with a steam converter, Fredericton, New Brunswick, $11,000; acquisition of land at St. Jean, Quebec, $62,000; acquisition of land at Lennoxville, Quebec, $125,000; construction of a research laboratory and administration building in Swift Current, $169,000; installation of a water main at Lethbridge, Alberta, $46,000. We lost our dairy barn by fire last fall and part of the amount contained in this item was used to rebuild it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
50e. Dairy products division-grants and other assistance in accordance with cheese and cheese factory improvement act, $97,500.
J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: According to what the minister was saying this afternoon, his new policy with regard to cheese has been a whale of a success. I should like to ask him now how many new factories were built as a result of this new approach to this dairy product?


Harry William Hays: These cheese factories are privately owned and controlled, but the government did participate in storage facilities for cheese. We did have a large increase in the production of cheese which I think was the result of our dairy policy introduced in May, 1963. As the hon. member for Timiskaming mentioned, we did have a market. The cheese board was successful in selling a great deal more cheese in Great Britain. I think the cheese business is in a very healthy state, These people who have been manufacturing cheese are quite capable of looking after their business, and they make a good product.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I have no quarrel with the minister's statement that our cheese is a very good product. We know that, and we have known that for a long time. However, I should like him to tell me how many new cheese factories have been built as a result of this changed dairy policy?


Harry William Hays: I could not tell the hon. member about the expansion of the factories, but I would be glad to look into it and give him this information later.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I would say there were none.


William Arnold Peters: I should like to continue the few remarks I was making about cheese earlier this evening. I did not complete my remarks on the first item because I knew this item would be coming up. I find, from speaking to the cheese producers, that they have been very diligent in obtaining markets. They have been able to develop an excellent market in Great Britain. This is one fact hon. members should remember because this is one agricultural commodity that has been sold at good prices in Great Britain. Last year there was a premium of 17 cents a pound on Canadian cheese sold in Great Britain and there was almost an assured market for that commodity.
I think the Ontario cheese producers should be complimented on the way they have run their agency. Hon. members may be aware of the fact this agency held large quantities of cheese last year to maintain the price and maintain a market. The market in Britain cannot be expanded rapidly, although by very good management the board was able to obtain a market for an extra 10 million pounds of cheese in Great Britain last year. Production had increased by more than that amount, so there was some cheese held in storage. They held it themselves in order to maintain the market. The producers believe that the subsidy on butter made a difference in the price of cheese.
The cheese producers have asked the government to increase the subsidy on the export of premium cheese by 1 cent a pound. They expect this year that they will have to increase their share of the market in Great Britain by 7 million pounds, and they believe production of cheese this year will be 10 million pounds over that of last year, and 20 million pounds over that of two years ago.
The cheese producers work out long term sale contracts with their buyers, with delivery guaranteed at a specified date, something in the way that the wheat board has been able to sell grain on a guaranteed forward price, but they have only been able to do this because they have been able to guarantee that an additional quantity of cheese will not be put on the British market, which would lower the price agreed upon with those buyers who have made advance orders. They are to be commended on doing this, and the minister should be very interested in cooperating with them.
Supply-Agriculture
The British market is the type of market upon which our cheese producers should concentrate. It is one that is very stable and warrants the expectation of more exports from Canada. We should look at this amount of $97,000, not in terms of the subsidy we are paying, but in terms of the terrific surplus we had a few years ago and the problem of disposing of surplus dairy products in other ways.
The government is to be commended on the fact that we have been able to increase the amount of the product that can be sold and at the same time not interfere with other dairy commodities. I was always very surprised to find that when the government said it had solved the problem of skimmed milk this was doing nothing to solve the butter problem, and when it was solving the butter problem it was at the same time creating a terrific problem for the cheese industry.
Unless I am very badly misinformed this is a field in which the government has done a good job in assisting the cheese producers. I am pleased the minister has told us we are getting rid of large surpluses we had in the butter field, particularly of butter oil, but I would like him to tell us whether the cheese producers have contacted him about their problem and requested a 1 cent subsidy increase for premium cheese on the export market.


Harry William Hays: In reply to the hon. member's query, as a matter of fact we were paying a premium of 4 cents, and after May 1 we reduced it to 3 cents. We feel that 3 cents is ample, and the cheese board has been able to send quite a bit more cheese to Great Britain. However we feel that an increase of something like 2 million to 4 million pounds of cheese a year is all that can be expected or else the British market may be flooded.
Our cheese is a raw milk cheese. It is produced at the time when the cows are out on grass, and the minute they return to the barn this is the end of the production of cheese that is acceptable for export to Great Britain. We feel that probably the producers of milk for conversion to cheese should take into account this geographical factor, that when the cows are out on grass they produce this cheese which is acceptable for export, and I think the producers are realizing this much more each year.
I do not know how many times I have met with the cheese people, the soft cheese people and the people interested in manufactured milk, and I think we are on top of the problem. At present we have about 50 million pounds of cheese in storage, but we do not want to overproduce because it is much more difficult to store than butter.

Supply-Agriculture
We were pleased to level off the consumption of butter and put more milk into the production of cheese. Coupled with this, the world price of powdered milk has increased. All in all, I think the dairy farmers are pretty happy about the way the dairy problems have been resolved, and they have resolved many of them themselves. It has not been entirely due to the government. The dairy farmers have been doing a great deal themselves and we appreciate this.


William Arnold Peters: It is this 1 cent in which we are interested. I am quite sure Hector Arnold, the president of the cheese board, has been to see the minister on a number of occasions, and it is this differential between the 4 cents previously paid and the 3 cents now paid that they are interested in. Exports this year will be another V million pounds on top of the increase made last year, and the producers believe the additional 1 cent subsidy would allow the board to handle the storage of more cheese without cost to the farmers themselves.
The minister was correct in mentioning that there has been an easing of the problems of the dairy industry and that this has not been entirely due to the government, but I would urge him not to be too confident as there can be an explosion at any moment in the dairy industry because of the new developments taking place in sterile milk products and other aspects of the dairy industry, including the vegetable oil aspect.
In my humble opinion the minister should be prepared to give assistance to the various commodity groups in the dairy industry because before long, whether it is through the system of premiums for grade milk or not, there will have to be an equalization of the price paid to the producer for basic milk as a commodity. I suggest that the minister be sympathetic to the cheese producers, because if cheese production increases greatly there will be an explosion in the problem of storage.
I think it should be clear that the reason why Canadians lost their market in Britain was because the Canadian government was willing to buy that surplus and dump it on British markets to the embarrassment of marketing boards in that country. I think the minister should give more consideration to this board than to some of the other agencies because this board was spending its own money, the money of its own producers, to develop this market, and we should do all we can to see that its activities are maintained and expanded.


Mr. McBain:: I think this is the proper item under which to bring up the question I have in mind. I feel the minister himself will be interested in this. I know that years ago he

was a producer of Holstein cattle and I must say that some of the top production cows of Canada came from that herd. The other day a handbook came to my desk called "Farming in Canada". It contained 32 pictures and I am wondering what image would be given of agriculture in Canada if these pictures are published abroad. The first has to do with Holstein cows and the words below the picture read: "The Holstein will give eight quarts of milk a day". Well, we know that a quart of milk is two and a half pounds and if a cow milks 300 days a year this amounts to 6,000 pounds. If my memory serves me correctly our annual yield per cow is something like 9,500 pounds. I am wondering whether this booklet was produced under the authority of the Department of Agriculture and whether the minister has had a chance to scrutinize it, in which case I think it should be withdrawn.
In the same publication is a picture showing beef cattle in Ontario. Underneath, is the caption "Aberdeen Angus". These cattle have long horns on them.


An hon. Member:: Texas Aberdeens.


James Alexander McBain: I hear someone saying "Texas Aberdeens". Well, we know that for years Aberdeen Angus in Canada have been polled. I would say they are definitely shorthorn cattle.
Another picture shows a sow and piglets in Alberta. Well, we did produce one of the outstanding breeds. We had the Lacombe hog a number of years ago. This picture shows a sow with eight piglets. Unfortunately, she only has three faucets on one side of her feeding station; I hope she has three on the other side. No wonder these piglets look thin and undernourished. One is definitely a runt. The sow is not a big hog. I hope the minister will scrutinize these pictures and withdraw them because they will give a poor image of Canadian agriculture abroad.


Clément Vincent: I have a short question to ask with relation to the Cheese and Cheese Factory Improvement Act. Is the minister in a position to tell the committee if there have been any requests rejected by the government under this act during the fiscal year 1963-64? I have in mind requests for the homologation of factories. Were any requests rejected by the government?


Harry William Hays: I do not know, but I would be pleased to look into this matter and let the hon. member know.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Having just returned to this chamber from my office I do not know for sure whether this subject has been discussed or not, but I think it is important that

it should be brought up before we pass along to another item. In connection with grants and other assistance under the Cheese and Cheese Factory Improvement Act we have found in the past in our part of the country that these small cheese factories play a most important function in our agricultural economy. Many of these factories were founded not to make large profits to divide among shareholders at the year's end, but to supply a means whereby farmers could have a market for their milk. A number of them barely managed to keep going from one year to another, and I am afraid that is still the situation. Amalgamation has been a great thing. We have found it good in our part of the country. But in many areas amalgamations have run their course and if this government really wishes to help farmers in the cheese producing districts it should turn its attention toward helping to provide the funds needed by these small factories for capital investment.
I beg the minister to pay close attention to the following resolution which was passed recently by the Ontario cheese producers association at a meeting here in Ottawa:
Whereas it is desirable to encourage the diversion of milk to the manufacture of raw milk Cheddar cheese
And whereas many of the cheese factories are filled to capacity during the flush season
And whereas it is almost impossible for factories to purchase another plant to form an amalgamation
And whereas the cost of amalgamations are almost prohibitive except with large companies
And whereas the Cheese and Cheese Factory Improvement Act was enacted over 20 years ago
And whereas some of the smaller and medium size plants will require additional plant and equipment facilities to handle the proposed diversion of milk
Therefore be it resolved that the federal government review the Cheese and Cheese Factory Improvement Act and allow subsidization to cheese factories without amalgamation where the need for additional facilities can be proven.
I would underline the importance of action in this regard and suggest to the minister that if he wishes to do something for the cheese industry he should lend his energies along these lines. The country co-operative cheese factories of the type I have mentioned have very little money behind them. If a boiler is condemned by inspectors on the ground that it is unsafe, a real hardship is created because the cost of a new boiler to these small factories is almost prohibitive. In some cases they have been obliged to quit business altogether in situations such as this and I recommend, therefore, that subsidies be allowed to factories of this type with respect to capital investment, excluding trucks.
I do not recommend that any subsidy be given for trucks on the road, but for such things as vats, pumps, pasteurizers, curing room equipment, boilers and the stainless
Supply-Agriculture
steel, high priced equipment that it is necessary for these cheese factories to buy, in order to compete in the modern methods of production. I think that now is the time, because of the great importance of our raw Canadian Cheddar cheese, which is in such great demand in Great Britain and other parts of the world. Here is the chance to help a great industry, a basic industry, a primary industry and an industry, incidentally, that is celebrating its 100th anniversary in the coming year, an industry that throughout a century has helped make Canada great.


Mr. Danforth:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister whether any progress has been made in negotiations with the United States with regard to increasing their import quota of specialized cheeses from Canada.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, we have a quota with the United States of 500,000 pounds. I believe that last year we imported something like one million pounds of soft cheeses. I am personally quite hopeful that we will be able to resolve some part of this problem. Certainly over the last few years we have lost a great deal of the United States market in agricultural foods. In 1963 we exported something like $214 million worth; in turn we imported something like $514 million worth. I think we have a very strong case in this regard. They have surplus problems in the United States. I have discussed this matter with the secretary of agriculture and I think if the hon. member will leave this to us-and the U.S. election is not too far off-we are hopeful of getting something done.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a question. Because of the proposed action of the governments of Australia and New Zealand to raise their prices to Britain with respect to cheese products, for the first time in four years, and also because of the results of the milk shortage in Britain last year, which resulted in a decline of some 30 per cent in the production of butter and 7 per cent in the production of cheese, would the minister consider offering every incentive to the producers of cheese in order to obtain more of this lucrative business in Britain this year? Last year they were helped to overcome this shortage by the giant surpluses of cheese that they had in stock. I would ask the minister if he would give this matter every consideration.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, is the Cheese and Cheese Factory Improvement Act, and the grants and subventions under it, one of those things that was subjected to the austerity freeze following the 1962 election?


Harry William Hays: I think this is so, Mr. Chairman.

Supply-Agriculture


Frank Howard: I take it the freeze has been completely thawed out in this item.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: We are selling soft cheese now.


Harry William Hays: I think we indicated today that with regard to the three combined grants, warehouses, cheese and cold storage, we had approved 13. I think there are six applications that are being looked at now.


Frank Howard: Are those applications under the Cold Storage Act, or the Cheese and Cheese Factory Improvement Act?


Harry William Hays: I am not sure of the separation of these; but this combines all three.


Frank Howard: What I wanted to know primarily was this. We have complained about this situation time and time again, and the Minister of Transport used to do the same thing when he was in opposition. I refer to the operation of the Cold Storage Act and the fact that because it is primarily in the hands of the Department of Agriculture, and because the great bulk of grants and subventions under the Cold Storage Act are for agricultural products, fisheries products applications and cold storage warehouses for fisheries products generally have gotten short shrift from the Department of Agriculture. All I am trying to do is see if we cannot bring some spring thaw to bear on the freeze that applies under the Cold Storage Act.
The other day the minister said there was a partial lifting of this austerity program. He did not go any further than that. I wonder if he could tell us just how his department is operating in connection with the Cold Storage Act. Is the minister agreeing to applications? Has he partially lifted the freeze? What is the criteria; what is the reason? How does one application qualify, when another does not? It would be very helpful to us if we could obtain this information.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, I may say to the hon. member that the Minister of Transport is doing his very best to thaw us out every day.


Frank Howard: The Minister of Transport is dealing with a variety of other things. If he spends too much time applying heat to you, then other things in his department are liable to go a little awry; and we have some problems for him also. How about acting on your own initiative, and never mind the prodding of the Minister of Transport?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is going to be flowing shortly.


Frank Howard: The minister says it is going to be flowing shortly. One could easily expand upon that word "flowing"; it could apply to all sorts of things.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, if we could unfreeze some of these estimates the minister would have a little time to give to unfreezing this matter.


Frank Howard: That is quite true, but the minister has had all sorts of spare time at his disposal on 'plane and car trips, and so on, recently. It is a wonder he did not do it then, rather than waiting until the last minute and saying that if we unfreeze the estimates, he can do it. I take it, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has agreed that he is going to lift the freeze under the Cold Storage Act, that the Minister of Transport is going to help him lift it and the friends of the Minister of Transport in the cabinet-if he has any-are going to help him to this.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Production and marketing branch-
60e. Fruit and vegetable division-Assistance in construction of potato warehouses under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, $117,000.
William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Chairman, could the minister tell us where these potato warehouses are located?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, they are located at Joliette, Mont Laurier and Isle Verte.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, before I ask my question, I should like to say how thrilled we would be, while the house is in committee, to hear the eloquent Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) talk to us about agriculture, for he loved to dwell on that subject when he was in opposition and he proved he could talk about agriculture. We are surprised at his diplomatic silence. Now, here is the question I should like to put to the Minister of Agriculture: Was he officially asked by the department of agriculture of the province of Quebec to amend the legislation concerning the construction of potato warehouses? Did he receive a request from the Quebec department of agriculture about that?


Harry William Hays: If it has been received by the department, it has not arrived at my desk.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
76e. Health of animals division-Payment of compensation to owners of animals affected with diseases coming under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, which have died or have been slaughtered in circumstances not covered by the above act and regulations made thereunder, all as detailed in the estimates, $7,946.
J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister if there are any districts in

the province of Quebec where dairy cattle have not yet passed the brucellosis test?


Harry William Hays: I do not think I can give an accurate answer. There are many, many areas which are now brucellosis free. I will be glad to look into this matter and let the hon. member know the position.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, while the minister is looking into this question perhaps he will also look at the last listed item under vote No. 76e. I see that this indemnity is payable to one Evert-John Vandenburg and Preferred Finance Corporation Ltd. My question to the minister is, does he not think that this is stretching the law far beyond its original purpose? Surely this finance company is not in the cattle raising business now, and I think there should be some check made on this particular item.


Harry William Hays: I would be glad to look at the conditions under which they raised these cattle.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Is it the intention of the department, in view of the mounting prices of dairy cattle, to increase indemnity payments in cases of slaughtering?


Harry William Hays: Yes, we are looking into this at the moment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
91e.-Livestock division-Special grant to royal agricultural winter fair, Toronto, $98,242.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, last fall I asked the minister what consideration was being given to making grants to other agricultural fairs. The royal is, of course, the largest agricultural fair in the country and has been of great assistance in providing a show window for Canadian produce, but I have received a number of inquiries as to the intention of the government with regard to the support of class B and class C fairs. In my opinion these fairs probably do more for agriculture than many of the big fairs. I do not wish to take anything away from fairs such as the western Ontario fair, or the eastern Ontario fair which is held in Ottawa, or any of the western fairs; but to a certain extent these class A fairs have become, as I am sure the minister will agree, industrialized, and a visitor is likely to see more products of industry at these fairs than at industrial fairs themselves. I have attended the fair in Ottawa on several occasions and have seen demonstrations of all types of industrial machinery. The booths are usually rented, not by agriculturalists or those in related fields but by those in home building fields, automobile manufacturing, and so on.
Supply-Agriculture
On the other hand, grade B and grade C fairs, particularly the little ones, produce the results. I have referred before to a family in my area which showed potatoes at a class C fair. After many years this family went on to win the world championship for potatoes. They have gone from the little class C fairs to the royal fair and the Chicago fair and have been exhibitors in all the major agricultural shows of the country. But they got their start to show their produce in a little rural community, how to package it and handle it. They obviously learned how to produce it as well.
A large share of the credit for livestock production goes to the contribution made by some of the kids in the 4-H clubs who have exhibited at class C fairs the cattle they have raised. In many cases they have gone on to become some of the largest breeders in the country. I remember my father telling us about the days when he showed cattle at the Ontario Agricultural College and at the royal, and of the thrill it was. He had exhibited at class B and C fairs and after years of hard work had raised championship cattle. Personally I believe the training I received in judging and showmanship at agricultural fairs in my community has stood me in good stead, although I have had little connection with agricultural productivity in recent years.
I believe that if the federal government wants to contribute to the future they should not overlook these class B and C fairs. If the minister visits some of them-for example it is not too far from Ottawa to Vankleek Hill or some other areas-he will find that real agricultural fairs are held there. The people who go to them are the real farmers, and they bring with them the cattle on their farms, not showcase cattle. They bring the cattle which are going to make a necessary contribution to their community.
I would ask the minister to look into this question and to tell us whether he is prepared to take an added interest in these class B and class C fairs. I do not object to this contribution of $98,242 being made to the royal agricultural winter fair at Toronto; I think this is an international show and a credit to Canada. It is the ultimate of our agricutural shows. But I think that some contribution will have to be made by the federal government if we are to maintain our small fairs. We all know what is required by way of establishment of permanent quarters for these fairs, but I think that most of the fair boards agree that it is more and more difficult to resist the erosion which is taking place as a result of industrial enterprises wanting to subsidize the operation of the fairs. It will not be long before these fairs are classed as industrial rather than agricultural fairs, which

Supply-Agriculture
is something which I do not want to see and which Canadian agriculture cannot afford at the present. Therefore I hope the minister will say that he has considered the matter and is orepared to do something in this field.


Harry William Hays: May I just point out that we are considering supplementary estimates, and during the main estimates we will have quite a bit to say about our exhibition policies.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
95e-Livestock division-Grants to agricultural organizations as detailed in the estimates, $25,000.
Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a brief comment with regard to the contribution to the 4-H clubs, which I think is a very worthy one. In fact, I am surprised at such a small amount, and I presume that this item, like the other estimates, will be thoroughly discussed later. These 4-H clubs play an extremely important part in the encouragement of our young people to enter agriculture, and I hope they will not be lacking funds in this regard.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
I20e-Plant protection division-To extend the purposes of vote 120 of the main estimates for 1963-64 to include compensation for hydrangeas destroyed pursuant to the Destructive Insect and Pest Act, $14,000.
Mr. McCulcheon:: Mr. Chairman, I am a little concerned about this item, which includes compensation for hydrangeas which have been destroyed. I am not a horticulturist; my wife does the flower growing at our place, but I am wondering if the minister could explain the item.


Harry William Hays: The problem here is the incidence of nematode, which is a disease which grows on tubers like potatoes and so on. This was being carried. We import a great deal of our hydrangeas from Belgium and such places and those that were coming with dirt were not allowed in because of fear that they might be bringing in nematode and hurting the potato fields of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and so on.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
165e. Agriculture Rehabilitation and Development Act-administration, operation and maintenance, $10,000.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, quite a number of questions have been asked in this field and I am particularly interested in obtaining from the minister a breakdown of what are the projects he has O.K.'d in the province of Ontario so that I may see what they are and how they fit into the program.


Harry William Hays: This particular amount has to do with travel. I am sure the minister in charge will be very glad to deal with all the

expenditures on the main estimates, but this particular amount is for travel alone.


William Arnold Peters: What travel and removal expenses are involved? What did these people do?


Harry William Hays: Perhaps I can explain it in this way. In the first instance these ARDA programs are investigated by the federal government and after that has taken place our officials get together with the province and decide on the sharing of the program as between the province and the federal government. As I indicated, since the first of May we have had a great deal of this activity and there was simply not enough money in the original estimates to take care of all the travel involved with regard to all the ARDA projects across Canada.


William Arnold Peters: The minister mentioned before that he had eight or ten people in this department. I presume this amount is not just for their travelling expenses. Do we pay the travel expenses of the provincial government officials who are involved in matters concerning ARDA?


Harry William Hays: I would not want to mislead the hon. member. It is my understanding that we only pay the federal expenses but I remember that in May of last year shortly after I became minister we sent people to Newfoundland. We also did a lot of work in British Columbia and Saskatchewan and these men were on the move all the time investigating something like 136 different applications, with the result that we just ran out of money for travelling expenses.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
171e. Payment of the balance of contributions to Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan for expenses incurred in respect of crop insurance in the amounts that would otherwise have been paid to those provinces if the agreements entered into by Canada pursuant to the Crop Insurance Act on the 31st day of May, 1962 with Prince Edward Island and on the 1st day of June. 1962 with Saskatchewan had been entered into on the 18th day of July, 1959, $9,342.
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister if he has communicated with the authorities of the province of Quebec with a view to entering into an agreement, under the Crop Insurance Act, whereby this act would apply in the province of Quebec?
Farmers in general, and more particularly those engaged in the production of special crops, such as the tobacco growers, wish to be protected. I think the Quebec government should definitely take a stand in this regard, especially in order to ensure the protection of farmers engaged in the production of special crops.

Practically every year tobacco growers sustain heavy losses due to draught or hail, especially hail.
Could the minister tell the house whether he has communicated with the Quebec authorities with a view to extending the application of the Crop Insurance Act to Quebec?


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: No, Mr. Chairman. I addressed a direct question to the minister and I want an answer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It has nothing to do with this item.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I asked the Minister of Agriculture a specific question and I should like to have an answer.


Guy Favreau: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The item now before us applies only to Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island-


Clément Vincent: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would remind the Minister of Justice that crop insurance applies to all Canadian provinces.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not this vote.


Clément Vincent: We are discussing crop insurance which may apply to all the provinces of Canada, provided they enter into an agreement with the federal government. We know that at the present time the federal government is in consultation with the province of Quebec with regard to crop insurance, and the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm has asked the minister-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I should advise the hon. member that this particular vote, 171e, applies to Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan only.


David Réal Caouette: If I am not mistaken, Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with an amount of $9,342 that has already been paid to the provinces of Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island. Then, the other provinces have nothing to do with that item.
Therefore, since the money has already been spent, I cannot see why we should not approve that item in favour of those two provinces and wait until the regular estimates are brought before us to claim the rights of the province of Quebec.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
20220-104J
Supply-Agriculture
172e. Estimated amount required to recoup the agricultural commodities stabilization account to cover the net operating loss of the agricultural stabilization board, including loss resulting from revaluation of inventory, as at March 31, 1964, $122,235,000.
Mr. Cardiff:: This is the largest amount we have come to yet. I wonder whether the minister would mind explaining this item to the committee.


George James McIlraith: The item is to provide more accurate information for the House of Commons and it is comprised really of two different amounts, the actual losses on sales of commodities purchased and sold at a lower price, and on the inventory held over, with the valuation taken as of the time the estimates were prepared, which in this case was January 31, 1964. Therefore the item as shown should be an accurate reflection of what the situation was.


Mr. Nowlan:: It does not involve a payment of any kind.


George James McIlraith: No.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Does this involve the consumer butter subsidy?


George James McIlraith: No.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that this item is such a large amount and in view of the fact that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition pointed out so very well to the house that we should examine these matters carefully, I think we should call it ten o'clock.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, may I remind the house, without wanting to press any issue, that we have been dealing with these supplementary estimates for seven days already, and while we are not pressing to increase the number of hours of sitting, I am quite sure that most of us would be pleased to sit one additional hour tonight so that the minister may answer more of the questions of the hon. members.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We are quite prepared to sit an additional hour, but I regret very much that the minister should say that we have taken seven days on these estimates because, as he knows, this is quite incorrect. We had 30 minutes on one day and one hour on another day. Let us not get into that argument. If the minister really wants co-operation, that is not the way to get it. However, we are content to sit for another hour.


Murdo William Martin: Irrespective of
whether it is seven days or whatever it is, it has taken us three days to get down to the consideration of the estimates before the committee. I still say we should call it ten o'clock.

Supply-Items Passed [Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. members of the New Democratic party want to co-operate a little, they should understand that they cannot change anything in the estimates since the money was spent in 1963-64. Most members would very much like to take a few days' rest and I feel that members of the New Democratic party are helping neither the house nor the Canadian people by insisting on our sitting tomorrow, possibly even the day after, and refusing to agree to our sitting an extra hour.
We are in favour of sitting two additional hours, if necessary, to consider the estimates concerning those expenditures which have been made and cannot be altered.


Frank Howard: Apropos of what the hon. member for Villeneuve has said, if I may be permitted to comment even though it is ten o'clock, I thought we came here to conduct the business of the country and not to have holidays.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall I call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No, take a vote.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the item carry?


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, it is ten o'clock.
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest to the house that unanimous consent be given for this house to commence its sitting tomorrow at ten o'clock and to continue, as was suggested, in order to get on with the business of the country?


William Arnold Peters: No, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply this day]:

[Stage Direction]
Research branch-
30e. Institutes, stations, farms, laboratories and services-Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $220,000.
25e. Institutes, stations, farms, laboratories and services-operation and maintenance-To extend the purposes of vote 25 of the main estimates for 1963-64 to include a grant of $3,635 to assist in publishing a scientific treatise, $1.
Administration branchle. Departmental administration-To extend the purposes of vote 1 of the main estimates for 1963-64 to include the gift detailed in these estimates and to provide a further amount of, $60,000.
15e. Economics division-To increase to $85,000 the amount of the contribution to the agricultural economics research council; additional amount required, $62,250.
97e. Livestock division-Special grant to the Canadian plowing council to assist in defraying the costs of the XI world plowing contest, 1963, $5,000.
95e. Livestock division-Grants to agricultural organizations as detailed in the estimates, $25,000.
91e. Livestock division-Special grant to royal agricultural winter fair, Toronto, $98,242.
77e. Contributions to the provinces, in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, of amounts not exceeding two-fifths of the amounts paid by the provinces to owners of animals that have died as a result of rabies since the first day of July, 1960, $7,000.
76e. Health of animals division-Payment of compensation to owners of animals affected with diseases coming under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, which have died or have been slaughtered in circumstances not covered by the above act and regulations made thereunder, all as detailed in the estimates, $7,946.
Board of grain commissioners-
135e. Inspection and weighing of grain and related services, $40,000.
Production and marketing branch-
120e. Plant protection division-To extend the purposes of vote 120 of the main estimates for 1963-64 to include compensation for hydrangeas destroyed pursuant to the Destructive Insect and Pest Act, $14,000.
Special-
165e. Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act-Administration, operation and maintenance, $10,000.
6Ce. Fruit and vegetable division-Assistance in construction of potato warehouses under terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, $117,000.
50e. Dairy products division-Grants and other assistance in accordance with the Cheese and Cheese Factory Improvement Act, $97,500.
171e. Payment of the balance of contributions to Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan for expenses incurred in respect of crop insurance in the amounts that would otherwise have been paid to those provinces if the agreements entered into by Canada pursuant to the Crop Insurance Act on the 31st day of May, 1962 with Prince Edward Island and on the 1st day of June, 1962 with Saskatchewan had been entered into on the 18th day of July, 1959, $9,342.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 1, 1964