1964-04-24

COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. C. Harley (Halton) presented the first report of the special committee on food and drugs, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. J. Moreau (York-Scarborough) presented the first report of the standing committee on privileges and elections, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent to revert to motions in order to make a short announcement.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give unanimous consent to the Prime Minister to revert to motions to make an announcement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to announce at this time that I am depositing with the Clerk for tabling at 5.30 this afternoon copies in English and French of the report of the royal commission on banking and finance. Copies will be made available to all hon. members at that time, and they will go on sale to the public. The press summary prepared by the royal commission will also be released at 5.30 and will be distributed to hon. members.
Perhaps I might take advantage of this opportunity to say a word of sincere appreciation to the chairman of the royal commission, Hon. Dana Porter, chief justice of Ontario, and the other members of the commission, their staff and all who have assisted 20220-161i
in the preparation of this report. This is, I believe, the most comprehensive study of Canada's financial system that has ever been undertaken. The government will give immediate and thorough consideration to the conclusions of the report and the recommendations made by the commission.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I simply rise for the purpose of underlining the Prime Minister's words of appreciation for the contribution made by Chief Justice Porter and the other members of the commission. They undertook a very difficult and trying responsibility. From information that is available at the present time, though only by way of suggestion as to possibilities, we know that the commission has met a problem that needed to be faced, and all Canadians will be pleased to honour the members of the commission for having undertaken this heavy responsibility.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has he anything to report regarding Leonard McLaughlin, and is he in a position to say that the government has brought to the attention of the board of trustees the total unacceptability of this man as president of the S.I.U.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to add to what I have already said on this matter in the house. I have not indicated to the trustees any course of action that they should follow in this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the government consider that Leonard McLaughlin is a fit and proper person to be president of the S.I.U?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as the right hon. gentleman knows, the government has no authority to direct or restrain the trustees in any way. That authority has been granted by parliament to the trustees themselves. In.

Inquiries of the Ministry that way, it is quite impossible for the government to take any part in this particular matter.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: May
I ask a supplementary question. A few days ago I asked the Minister of Justice if the report prepared by counsel in reference to Banks did not recommend prosecution not only against Banks but prosecution against McLaughlin. At that time the Minister of Justice said he would consider the situation and let us have a report. Is he ready to give that report now?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: two days ago may be termed a few days ago, that is when the question was put. It is true I told the hon. gentleman I would ask for a report. I received it this morning, a few minutes ago, and I shall be in a position to answer the question on Monday.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: The President of the United States has called for intervention by other nations in the conflict in Viet Nam. It has been suggested that Canada might contribute hospital and medical care because of the fact we are a member of the truce team. May I ask if any such request has been made to the Canadian government, and have we his assurance that such a request will be refused?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No such request has been made to the Canadian government.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the state of virtual anarchy and open revolt existing in Cyprus, can the government give us some indication of what the United Nations peace keeping force is supposed to be doing in order to keep the peace; and is any consideration being given to requesting the secretary general of the United Nations to give permission to release some of the details of the instructions to Canadian troops in that area?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I saw the secretary general
[Mr. MacEachen.l
of the United Nations last night, and from the report he made it is clear that the situation in Cyprus does not warrant the description just given by the hon. gentleman. With regard to disclosure of the directives, the answer continues to be no. I suggest to my hon. friend that he examine carefully the documents already tabled in this house.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: May I ask a supplementary question. I may tell the minister that I have examined all the documents. Has the British government recently requested the secretary general to release the details of the instructions?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The answer is no.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I asked a question of the Prime Minister the other day, and perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs could give me an answer. I asked whether the instructions of the secretary general to the United Nations forces have been altered in compliance with the expressed willingness of Archbishop Makarios to extend the role of the United Nations forces from a purely defensive one to enable it to keep the green line clear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The situation with regard to that matter has not changed. I am satisfied, after talking to the secretary general-and this is one of the reasons I went to see him last night-that the course taken by him and the force commander is the correct one under the circumstances.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Following his conversation with the secretary general of the United Nations, is he now able to report any hopeful developments in that gentleman's efforts to enlarge the number of U.N. members participating in the hazardous Cyprus operation now being carried out by so few members?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, there is some reason for thinking that there may be an improvement with regard to the number of countries participating in the force.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the announcement the press carried in the last day or two relating to the federation of Zanzibar and Tanganyika, and in view of his visit to

the United Nations yesterday, does the minister have anything to report to the house on just what has taken place?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Nothing beyond what my friend already knows and the announcement made by President Nyerere as to the union of these two countries. If this means a step toward continental unity in Africa, it will be a welcome step.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could the minister who is perfectly bilingual, tell the house whether all steps have been taken since he has been appointed minister of the above-mentioned department, to ensure that the bicultural image of Canada is being reflected in our embassies abroad by hiring a bilingual staff?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has he protested on behalf of Canada to the British immigration authorities in connection with their off-hand treatment of two young Canadians who went to England recently to visit their grandparents with the intention apparently, of working there? Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs also intend to ask the British authorities for a financial indemnity for the inconveniences which they caused to the parents of these young Canadians?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. member that this is a question for the order paper, in spite of the persons involved.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of
Inquiries of the Ministry Transport regarding the regulations relating to government wharves, and ask the minister if he could indicate to the house how these regulations are to apply. I understand they are to apply in a different way to fishermen on the east coast and fishermen on the west coast, and can he say what money the department expects to realize from the rates charged to the fishermen on the east and west coasts?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Under the powers given to me by the house, this would fall under subsection (e) which states that a question should not be of a nature requiring a lengthy and detailed answer. I wonder if the hon. member would care to put it on the order paper.


Frank Howard: Under the powers given to me by the house, Mr. Speaker, I would like it set down for some debate later at ten o'clock.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister, and I am sorry I have not had the opportunity to give him notice of it. Is it a fact that the income tax exemptions for parents of children 16 to 17 years of age in all provinces but Quebec will be reduced from $550 to $300, while tax paying Quebec parents will continue to receive the $550 exemption?


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member put this on the order paper?


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, it just requires a yes or no answer.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. It arises out of a statement made in the adjournment debate last night, but not on the subject I raised myself. Under what federal-provincial program is the contribution to the Gaspe highway in Quebec being made? Is it under the roads to resources program, or is this a new program which the province has?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Well, Mr. Speaker, no contribution is being made. We are having a discussion with

Inquiries of the Ministry the government of Quebec-perhaps I should say I am having discussions with the minister of highways of Quebec-the possibility of this, but no final decision will be made until we reach some understanding about how it might be done.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Under what authority is this being considered? Is it under the roads to resources program?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is not being considered under any authority. We would have to come to parliament to ask for authority to do it, just as in the case of the Gaspe railroad. [Later:]


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (JoIietie-L'Assomption-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State which I hope he will answer. It is about the statements he made recently at the Reform club in Montreal.
Why does the government intend to divert an amount of $7 million to Rimouski from the $16 million earmarked for the Gaspe peninsula?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would be well advised to consult the notes I used in making my speech and to refer also to the retraction the Canadian Press sent to all newspapers about the report of that speech.
What I said then, Mr. Speaker, is that the government is undertaking a program, which will cost approximately $16 million, for the Gaspe peninsula and, moreover, that it intends to include in the supplementary estimates for 1964-65 a sum of approximately $3 million to start the construction of a deep-water wharf near Riviere du Loup.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the numerous protests made by the chambers of commerce in the Gaspe peninsula and by the businessmen of that region, does the government intend to reconsider its decision and build the proposed railway to promote the economic expansion of Gaspe and, therefore of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member put this question on the order paper.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I wish to raise this matter after ten o'clock next Tuesday.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Moreau (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. On February 5 a delegation from the city of Toronto met with the minister and other cabinet members to discuss an alternative site for the C.B.C. rather than the site already acquired in York-Scarborough. In view of the fact that the city of Toronto was given six weeks to prepare a proposal for consideration by the government, and as the time has now expired, has any such proposal been received and, if not, will the C.B.C. now proceed with the Don Mills site?


Mr. Speaker:: It is quite evident this is a question for the order paper.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the attention of the minister been drawn to a speech by Judge Claude Wagner in which he stated that Montreal judges last year had revoked 200 paroles in that city because the parolees had committed crimes, including murder? Could the minister have the department check the actual records and report to the house, since these figures seem so greatly different from reports made by the department on previous occasions.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member would in future put this type of question on the order paper, because if he does not expect an answer today the question is obviously not especially urgent and important.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Girouard (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. It has been reported by all information media that Mr. Keith Davie, chief Liberal organizer, has stated that I had been rejected by the Liberal party.
I am asking the Prime Minister whether, to his knowledge, I have ever offered my services to the Liberal party?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I suggest that this has nothing to do with the business of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question does not relate to public affairs at all.


Gérard Girouard: Under the new standing order, I give notice that I shall deal with this question at the earliest opportunity after ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the hon. member that his question is completely out of order, and if the question is out of order it cannot be raised after ten o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the last statement was, shall we say, inconclusive. Standing order 39(5) provides:
A member who is not satisfied with the answer given to a question asked on any day at this stage, or a member who has been told by Mr. Speaker that his question is not urgent, may give notice that he intends to raise the subject matter of his question on the adjournment of the house, as provided-
-and so on. This question I have ruled out of order because it does not deal with a public matter, that is with a matter which concerns the house. The private goings on and comings and goings of private members with regard to their own affairs are not matters of public interest. I do not think the question was in order. In fact I think it was definitely out of order.


Mr. Knowles:: May I draw Your Honour's attention to the first words you read: "A member who is not satisfied with the answer given to a question-". The hon. member was not satisfied with the answer given to his question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is quite right in drawing my attention to those words, but I would point out that the question itself is out of order. Perhaps I could recall to the hon. member's attention the words of standing order 39(1):
Questions may be placed on the order paper seeking information from ministers of the crown relating to public affairs-
That is the ground on which the Chair is relying at this time. In my opinion the question is not in order and does not relate to public affairs in the strict sense of this subsection.


Gérard Girouard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I want to tell the house that if, by Monday morning, the Prime
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister has not answered my question in a satisfactory way, I shall have very interesting information to give the house on a question of privilege following this.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, may I say that the question of an adjournment debate is quite academic because there is not an opportunity provided until Monday.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, may I speak to the point of order?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Erik Nielsen: I think a good many hon. members are interested in the rights which they have under the new rule. It was my understanding, and certainly this procedure has been followed thus far in the few days we have been operating under this new rule, that if Your Honour rules a question out of order we may still appeal and have the question discussed between ten and ten thirty. That course has been followed with several questions from hon. members thus far. I hope the understanding is that where an hon. member is not satisfied with the answer given to his question, or where Your Honour rules his question out of order, it is still within the power of the member concerned to transfer the matter for debate between ten and ten thirty.


Mr. Speaker:: The interpretation of any new statute is not an easy task, as the hon. member well knows. The distinction that the Chair is trying to make this morning is that private matters should be kept free and clear of this house unless they are matters affecting the house. It does not seem to me that this matter is of such a public nature that it should be raised at this time. However, in order to have some time for reflection, if hon. members will permit me I shall go over the matter at the week end and try to reach a very considered conclusion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before Your Honour considers it over the week end may I say that it is surely a fundamental rule of this house that the only questions which can be entertained, either on the order paper or on the orders of the day, are questions of the government relating to the conduct of the public business of this country. The private affairs of political parties, while we debate such matters a good deal in the house during our debates, are not matters under the jurisdiction of the government. Therefore it seems to me that this is the kind of question

Inquiries of the Ministry which is not even entertainable in any conceivable circumstances if we abide by the rules of the house.


Mr. J. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, just on this point may I say I agree with what has been said by the Minister of Transport, but surely it is not for the government to say what is and what is not a matter of private business. If there is an opportunity for an hon. member to raise the matter, and if the minister in reply says it is not the kind of question he chooses to answer, then that is an answer which I submit entitles the member concerned to bring the question up again on the adjournment debate.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order I would draw to Your Honour's attention and also to the attention of hon. members generally the words of the Minister of Transport. It is unfortunate that both he himself as well as his colleagues did not in the past address themselves to the same line of conduct which he is now advocating to the house, because on many occasions in past years the hon. member and his colleagues were extremely active in this particular field of questioning.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has stated that sometimes these matters are not easy to decide on the spur of the moment. In order to ensure complete consideration and impartiality I should like to have the week end to study the matter. Therefore I would hope that we can end the discussion at this point.


Mr. Bechard:: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, despite what the Minister of Transport has just said I think this question should be dealt with by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If I may say so I think the Chair has received sufficient advice to keep it busy well beyond the week end.


Mr. Pugh:: Mr. Speaker, in giving consideration to this point will you also give consideration to the rights of the electors in the constituency of Labelle?



WHEAT, OATS AND BARLEY-STATEMENT AS TO OPEN QUOTAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of

Trade and Commerce, not of "political trades and commerce", may I reply to a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Moose Mountain, when he asked me whether the wheat board will be able to provide an open quota for wheat, oats and barley by the end of the present crop year. I said yesterday in reply to his question that I did not think the wheat board would yet be in a position to answer this question, and I now have an answer from the wheat board.
The exact level of quotas which will be reached by the end of the crop year cannot be determined at the present time. There are two reasons for this. First, the wheat board does not know how much of the grain farmers now hold will actually be delivered. From past experience, as the hon. member knows, this depends a good deal on crop prospects at the time the crop is being delivered. Second, the board does not know the volume of sales, particularly of oats and barley, that will be made between now and the end of the crop year. However, it is known that producers will be able to market more grain this year than last year, and far more than they have delivered on the average in the past ten years.



OATS AND BARLEY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister on behalf of the Prime Minister and the government prepared to recommend an increase in the initial price for oats and barley?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when a decision is made as to the initial payments for wheat, oats and barley, it will be conveyed to the house.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the government of Canada received the urgent
request of the government of the province of Alberta that immediate negotiations commence between the government of Canada and the government of the United States for the joint cost sharing of the paving of the Alaska highway?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will have to look into the matter, Mr. Speaker.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I put to the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question concerning the 1967 world fair and of which I gave him notice?
Could the minister tell the house the reason why Mr. Guy Beaudry, director of public relations, information and promotion for the Canadian World Exhibition Corporation, has resigned?


Mr. Speaker:: Interesting though this question obviously is, it seems to me that it should be on the order paper.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I have given notice of my question to the minister and he is ready to answer it.


Mr. Speaker:: It does not seem to me that this question falls under the rule of urgency requiring an immediate answer.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Would it be possible to delay the closing of the swimming pool at R.C.A.F. station Edgar until June 30, when the classes that are now being held there will finish? They will then have time to complete their swimming program.


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, representations have been made on this subject by the mayor of Barrie and by the local Liberal association.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the opinion of the local Liberal association a matter of public business?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The Liberal association is certainly a legal organization.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Graffley:: You are getting in deep water.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I think the hon. member will understand that the closing out of the defence establishments affected by announced changes in defence programs must follow the established schedules as closely as possible, otherwise costly delays are likely to occur. Nevertheless, recognizing the importance of the swimming pool at R.C.A.F. station Edgar to certain community groups that have been conducting life saving programs, I am investigating the possibility of keeping the Edgar swimming pool in operation until June 30, when these life saving programs will have been completed.


Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. In his answer to the hon. member for Simcoe East he said that closing down had to follow the schedule set out. I ask the minister whether the government has a schedule for closing down establishments across the country; and if so, would they table it or have it printed in Hansard so that communities and staffs will know what the schedule is?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, there is not a determined schedule for all establishments across the country, but we are working on a program for the phasing out of all these establishments. That program has not yet been completed.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Have the staff of the R.C.E.M.E. workshop in Regina been consulted or advised yet of the shut-down scheduled for July 1?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: A supplementary question to the Associate Minister of National Defence in reference to the reply he gave the hon. member for Simcoe East regarding a swimming pool. I wonder whether he could give the same serious consideration to the position of the employees of the Point Edward naval base, who will not only not have a swimming pool but will not have any jobs?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I think it is only fair to advise the house that the Department of National Defence has done everything it can in order to phase out as slowly as possible the work at the Point Edward naval base. A ship which was not scheduled to go into the Point Edward naval base has now been directed to go there in order to be refitted, so that work will be provided for a longer

Inquiries of the Ministry period and we will then be able to phase out more slowly the work at Point Edward naval base.


Robert Muir: So they should get down on their knees and thank you?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the associate minister received any representations from the Liberal association in that area regarding this matter?



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, this is a question directed to the Minister of Public Works, of which I gave him notice. It arises out of a question I put on the order paper. The question I put on the order paper was in reference to the commencement of construction of the penitentiary at Drumheller. The answer to that question-and I am not saying that the minister deliberately misled the house-was contrary to a news report given by one of the staff of the Department of Justice. I wonder whether he would like to clarify the situation in this respect. Can the minister say when this construction is going to commence; because the answer he gave is certainly in contrast to the information given in the news report.


Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, if there is any confusion I am afraid it exists in the mind of my hon. friend. I have nothing to add to the answer I have given and I do not wish to amend it. I read the article in the Drumheller newspaper, and when the commissioner of penitentiaries mentioned that the architects are now working on the plans and specifications he meant that we have some basic plans that we can use for institutions of this kind. It is now a matter for our consulting architect- who was appointed yesterday, by the way- to adapt these plans to the Drumheller project. We expect tenders to be called in the fall. If my hon. friend would like to compare the answer I am giving today with the answer I gave a few days ago, he will see there is no discrepancy.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY DISCUSSIONS WITH PROVINCES RESPECTING SECOND ROUTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Charles J. M. Willoughby (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. On April 9, as reported in Hansard at page 1946, the minister promised a statement in regard to the co-ordination with the provinces for a second trans-Canada highway. He said the statement would be made within one week. Can he make that statement today?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I promised the hon. member for Skeena that I would make a statement yesterday. Yesterday morning, before the orders of the day, I got in touch with the hon. member for Skeena and told him I was not in a position to make that statement. It will be made in the very near future.


William Heward Grafftey: Manana, manana; government by manana.


Mr. Peiers:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether his department has completed-


William Heward Grafftey: Perhaps you would stop making speeches and run your departments.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters).



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON CONTAMINATED WHEAT SHIPMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether his department has completed the inquiry into the contamination of wheat shipped to Great Britain and Russia; and if that inquiry is completed, can he make the final report to the house at this time?


Mr. Speaker:: This is an important question, of course, and if the minister can answer it very quickly so we can get rid of it, fine; but really it is the type of question that should be on the order paper.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. I wonder whether he would inform me when he intends to answer question No.

109 which I placed on the order paper on February 20, 63 days ago.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I will try to answer this question as soon as possible, Mr. Speaker.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to either the Minister of Transport or the Secretary of State. How much longer must we wait before we get an indication of government policy on community antenna systems?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon the Secretary of State and I received a delegation from the television community antenna association, which asked us not to make any statement of policy until they had had an opportunity of making representations. Now that they have made representations it is our intention to give as urgent consideration to this matter as we can consistent with the other obligations we have to the country.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Before the government makes a decision on the matter will the minister cause this question to be referred to the standing committee on broadcasting?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is no standing committee on broadcasting, so that would be a miracle I could not accomplish.

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



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration including the national co-ordinating committee on agricultural services, contributions to commonwealth agricultural bureaux and a contribution to the agricultural economics research council in an amount equal to the contributions of the provinces but not exceeding $50,000, $3,368,900.
The Chairman:: This item in the main estimates may be found on page 8 of the blue book and the details are on page 11. Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. Winch:: Is the minister going to make a statement?
20220-162J
Supply-Agriculture


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Chairman, the amount shown in the main estimates of the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year 1964-65 is $140,124,800, of which approximately $140 million is to be voted by parliament and $70,000 is authorized by statute.
Included in this total are amounts required for three functions which have been transferred to the Minister of Forestry. These are the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act, the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act and the program respecting freight assistance and storage costs on western feed grains. The amounts required for these operations were included in the Department of Agriculture estimates prior to the functions being transferred to the Minister of Forestry. Where functions are transferred pursuant to the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act the appropriations relating to them are treated as appropriations of the department to which they are transferred. Thus while these three items appear in the Department of Agriculture estimates, they will actually be appropriations of the Department of Forestry. The total of these amounts is $31,359,600.
This leaves a balance of $108,695,200 required for the Department of Agriculture for 1964-65. This compares with $105,096,545 for the same functions in the estimates for 196364. I might mention here that this is the gross amount, and it is rather complicated to find out what the net amount is. However, there was something over $13 million on the revenue side which would reduce the $105 million by that amount.
There has been one recent development in connection with departmental operations which I think might be of interest to the committee. This has to do with our research work. We have a very strong and capable research organization within the department. I think the importance of research and its contribution to agriculture are widely understood and much appreciated. It is important, though, that this be brought as closely as possible to the farming community which it is designed to serve. In many of our research stations there is a close and intimate association between the stations and agricultural interests in the area. This, of course, is highly desirable as a means of directing our research work toward matters of primary interest to producers. We are moving to strengthen these contacts.
We made a start in this direction at a meeting which I and officials held in Lethbridge two weeks ago with an advisory committee which I have had set up to advise us

Supply-Agriculture
on the operations of our range experimental station at Manyberries. The committee consists of five prominent ranchers and farmers in southern Alberta. We reviewed our work at Manyberries and received several valuable suggestions from the committee as to the direction that work should take. Both the committee and I and the departmental officers were convinced of the value of this type of arrangement, and we plan to extend it gradually.
The total cash income from the sale of farm products in 1963, $3,220 million, was the largest on record, being 2.2 per cent above the previous record in 1962 of $3,154 million. The net income of farmers in 1963 was $1,716 million as against $1,679 million in 1962. The net income is made up of gross income, including cash income, income in kind and government payments, minus operating expenses and depreciation charges and with an adjustment for inventory changes. Operating expenses and depreciation charges were again higher in 1963, being $2,180 million compared with $2,080 million in 1962. The net income in 1963 was exceeded only in the years 1951 and 1952.
While the net income in 1963 was higher than in 1962, the realized net income was slightly lower at $1,410 million compared with $1,491 million in 1962. The realized net income does not take inventory changes into account. The increase in the inventory value of products on the farm at the end of 1963, compared with 1962, was $307 million.
Another matter which I might mention has to do with agricultural exhibitions. If the exhibitions are to be of the best possible service to agriculture it is important that the classes and prize lists in livestock and other classes be related closely to utility values and encourage widespread participation by breeders. I have had extensive discussions with exhibition people and some of the breed associations about this matter, and I find them very much in accord with our thinking. We are arranging this year at some of the major exhibitions to have some pilot classes as a start toward this objective, and the department will be assisting in the prize money for these exhibitions.
Possibly I should enlarge on exactly what we propose to do with exhibitions, because I am sure hon. members will be interested as will livestock breeders right across Canada. We have some 35 research centres in Canada, along with enough substations to make up a total of 56. There are 128 exhibitions in Canada, and these exhibitions are held in nearly all the important towns or towns of sufficient size to sustain exhibitions.

One group of exhibitions is known as class A because they provide $6,000 or more in prize money for agricultural purposes. Those in class B have to provide $3,000 or more to be eligible for inclusion in class B fairs.
Throughout the years the Canadian government has provided capital grants for these exhibitions to help them to erect buildings of a capital nature to be used for agricultural purposes. These grants were suspended in July of 1962, and for the most part they have not been reinstated. I discussed this matter with the provincial ministers of agriculture last June and again last December, and they were also of the opinion that we should take a whole new look at the exhibition set-up because it does play a very important part in research so far as Canada is concerned. I think we should relate this back to a form of research which we have lost in recent years due to the nature of the animals that are being shown. As I mention the vegetables, fruits and all the commodities that are shown at exhibitions, I will explain our program in relation to them.
This year we thought we would like to tie up this group of people who are the best breeders of livestock in Canada and who provide all the seed stock for our commercial enterprises. I believe they also do a great deal of work in so far as seed is concerned, and I am referring to corn and such things, and all the various activities that take place on the farm in connection with seed.
As a result of our geographical position we have always had a very high cost agricultural economy, but we have a very vigorous group of farmers. I think we have in Canada the best farmers in the world. This is probably a result of our geographical position, because they have to fight against great odds in connection with weather and that sort of thing. When you think of the 12 months pasture they enjoy in the Argentine or the 12 months pasture they enjoy in New Zealand, and when you think that Canada is covered with snow from coast to coast a great deal of the time, you begin to realize the problems the farmers have in competing with other countries of the world.
Concerning exhibitions, we felt we should take a new look at these exhibitions to see if we could not catch up on some of the work upon which our research centres are not moving fast enough. We thought we would tie in this program with the group of farmers raising these high class animals and thus make every exhibition a research centre for the betterment of agriculture in Canada.

We decided to do this first with beef cattle. We chose the Hereford to start with and we hope to extend the program to cover all the things that are exhibited. We chose Herefords because for the most part the breeders of these animals have abandoned exhibitions in Canada. The reason they have abandoned the shows is that fittings are so expensive, the cost of transportation so high and the prize money so small that even if they won all the first awards it was not worth while to exhibit these cattle. These breeders just stayed at home.
We have decided to revise the classifications for Herefords. I can best explain the program by relating it to the one breed and then you will see the direction in which we wish to move. Our breeders readily admit that during the last 10 or 15 years they have not been producing as efficient an animal as is possible. When I say "efficient" I am talking in terms of feed conversion and that sort of thing. It takes about five pounds of grain to make one pound of beef today on the hoof. If you realize that it now requires only two and a half pounds of feed to make one pound of chicken, you will acknowledge the job the chicken people have done in the last few years and you can see the objective that the beef breeders have in Canada.
Even though the production of beef was up this year we thought we would like to make these animals more efficient. We have therefore devised six classes and one steer class instead of the 15 or 20 classes we had before. We will have two classes for yearling bulls. They will have to be born in the spring, at the time when beef cattle should be born, and not in the fall when they are expensive to look after. We say he must be born at this time.
The first class will consist of yearlings at the time of the exhibition; this will give the people of the country an opportunity to see this animal. The next class will be the two year old class. We use this class because this is the time you would purchase a bull if you were going to turn him out and use him as a herd sire. These would be the only two classes you would have as compared with the numerous classes we used to have. We would put all the money on these two classes for bulls.
Then we would have four female classes. We would have the yearling class, and this animal would have to be born in the spring and would be comparable to the animal we would ordinarily slaughter at this time. It would weigh around 1,000 pounds. Then we would take the two year old female, and
Supply-Agriculture
there would be two more classes. There would be a three year old cow with a heifer calf afoot, and the next one must be a cow, three years or over, with a male calf afoot. These would be all the classes we would have in this category.
Then we would have a steer class common to all of these classes. This steer would also have to be born in the spring. Anyone who showed in the herd class would have to show in this steer class. The steer would be shown and then slaughtered. He would be cut in half and half would go into the cooler so people could see him. The other half would be judged on cutability, not on the basis of wholesale cuts so much as getting right down to the hamburg, the steaks and all of the other cuts. He would be judged 50 per cent on the hoof and 50 per cent on cut-ability, in terms of dollars and cents. Suppose, for example, he weighed 1,000 pounds, he would probably yield $271 on the basis of cutability. Another steer of exactly the same weight may bring only $250 on the basis of cutability. As I say, the steer would be judged 50 per cent on the hoof and 50 per cent on the basis of cutability. We would have a weight for it, conversion rates and all this sort of thing.
We feel this is a move in the right direction. I have discussed this with the directors of the Canadian Hereford association, with the directors of A exhibitions and the provincial ministers of agriculture. They all feel it is worth a try. I am happy to start this year with the western fairs, the A circuit. There will be a pilot project in so far as this program is concerned, and the federal government will be contributing half the prize money.
The people concerned with the London exhibition were down here. I feel that around London we have, in so far as Ontario is concerned, some of our very best breeders and some of our very best thinkers They feel we should go one step further and use their exhibition to go ahead with a dairy cattle program. We have suggested that we do away with the young classes and that we start out milkers two, milkers three, milkers four and milkers five. These are the categories that the people from the 30 or 40 different countries who attend these fairs come to this country to buy. In this way we would move toward efficiency in relation to the 128 exhibitions in Canada. It would give us a great deal more research than the people, who are doing a good job, could possibly give us today.

Supp ly-A griculture
In so far as wheat is concerned, we would say that one bushel of wheat must be backed up by 50 acres. We would not be selecting wheat on the basis of making a world wheat king. We would do the same thing with corn and so on through the whole list of items. I thought you might be interested in what we planned by way of getting more and better research in connection with producing seed stock.
In our research station at Manyberries we have 41,000 acres, on which we have 13 projects. I believe the cattle project has been completed for some time. We have also done some work there in crossing Highland cattle. We have selected the five top people around this station, and the people at the station would say, "Well, what do you want us to do; what is needed in this particular area?" This is something whereby the producers will be able to bring their work much closer to the job these research centres are doing. We hope to expand this as soon as we are able to and, as I say, we have 37 of these institutions.
I am sure hon. members will agree with me that when they stop and think of some of the great problems we have or are going to have in agriculture, there is a job which we must do in order to keep up with other countries in the world if our own people are to be able to compete in agricultural products right here in Canada. I mentioned hogs. We have seen our hogs go down in quality while other countries are producing a 10 to 15 per cent more profitable hog on feed conversion. It takes us about 3| lbs, of feed to make a pound of pork. We are speaking now about $4 a pig. I have brought this to the attention of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture which is holding a hog conference in Montreal toward the end of this month, and the members of that organization hope we can work toward getting this job accomplished in a hurry.
I sent a hog mission to Denmark last year and on their return asked them how long it would take to produce a hog to compete with the Danish hog. They replied about 10 years, but at the end of that time the Danes might still be 10 years ahead of us. Therefore we propose to put testing stations right across Canada so we can select these animals that have a feed conversion rate of 2.1 or 2.5 per pound of pork. By doing this we can follow the example we set with our dairy cattle. At one time, out of the 40 recognized world records, Canadian dairy cattle held 38, but today that figure has dropped to about 15.

The Canadian farmer can do this job because he is the best thinking farmer in the world and has proven himself so in many fields. I will give another example of what we can do. Last year we raised about 6 million acres of barley. Most of this barley, particularly in western Canada, was grown for malting purposes, yet only 10 per cent of it was used for malting. Our export markets were down because they wanted a white barley instead of a blue barley, and if the Canadian farmer had grown feed barley we would have had a market for a great deal of it in Japan and possibly China, because it is the sort of barley they want there.
If you stop to think of this 6 million acres of barley and the different varieties, Parkland and Montcalm as compared with Husky and Jubilee, you are talking about 10 bushels to the acre on 6 million acres, which is worth $30 million or $40 million to the farmer. When we speak about hogs of 10 or 15 per cent more efficiency we are speaking about an increase of $35 million, and when we speak of seed wheat we are talking about an increase of 90 million bushels.
If we in Canada do a proper job of research we can produce another $100 or $200 million worth of produce from exactly the same farms and the same land, provided we give the farmers the tools to do the job. To illustrate the kind of job the farmer is doing, in 1936 it took 27 cents of the workingman's dollar to feed his family, while in 1963 it took him only 19 cents. If you take subsidies into account you will find that the Canadian farmer feeds the Canadian workingman, living in an urban district, cheaper than the workingman is fed in any other country in the world. Therefore we have to give the farmers the tools to work with if they are to be the efficient sort of people they can be, producing the finest feed grains, wheat and livestock in the world.
Due to our geographical position we are not plagued with the sort of diseases which tropical countries cannot eradicate. We have high health standards, good farm land and a good group of farmers. But our farmers' image has been tarnished, and I do not know why. The other day I drove into a parking lot in Ottawa where a chap asked me "Are you from western Canada"? When I told him I was he asked, "How do you like all that money we send you to keep you on your farm"? We have to change this attitude. It is not helpful. When you stop and think about the amount of money we use from our budget on agriculture it is not much more than the C.B.C. uses. We know we like culture and

that sort of thing, but you cannot watch it with an empty stomach.


Mr. Hamilton:: My first word, Mr. Chairman, must be of congratulation to the minister. I do not think anyone can deny the tremendous interest that he aroused on this side of the chamber, and I hope on his own side, with his views on research and bringing research closer to the people. Having made that observation I would like to go on and, if I may, preach a political moral.
One of the chief responsibilities of a minister is to try to see the whole picture. I can illustrate this not only by the old story of not being able to see the forest for the trees but also by a much more cogent political anecdote. Once a very experienced politician was talking to a group of new politicians and he wanted to assess their political judgment. He asked them, "If you were put into a closed field and in that field there was a wild bull and a wild bear, and you had a rifle with one round of ammunition, which animal would you shoot"? Of course the bright politician came back with the answer "I would shoot the bear. A politician can always shoot the bull."
I tell this story to illustrate my theme. What we heard this morning was a very fine statement on how we should use our research institutions to carry the knowledge and know how of our scientists right down on to the farms. This is very important, and I agree with the minister that it is long overdue. Each one of us who has gone through the farm areas of the country has seen some farmers using all the knowledge of the technician and the scientist and doing very well, but in the very same areas other farmers are not using the knowledge which is available. This is something to challenge any minister of agriculture, and the minister should be complimented for taking on this task.
Now I have to go on and say that I hope, in chopping away at this tree in the forest, he does not forget the over-all picture because from the statements that have been made by the minister and others in the last year one begins to wonder if in the Liberal government there is this over-all comprehension of the basic and fundamental needs of agriculture. Once or twice during his speech today the minister indicated that he had a little glimmer of what these needs were.
There has been a tremendous concentration by the Department of Agriculture on the techniques of increasing production, making two seeds grow where one grew before, putting more pounds of beef on cattle, on poultry
Sup p ly-A griculture
meat and hog meat, side by side with a lower grain input. What has been missing over the long years of the department's history has been the concept that it is of no use getting farmers to produce things and then leading them into a blind alley because there are no markets at the end of the road. The minister should be praised for grappling with this problem of lack of contact between the work done in the scientific and technical fields of his department and the farmers in general. He realizes that this knowledge has to get to the farmer, and I think he should be congratulated for the remarks he has made today. This is not the end of course, and a great deal remains to be done, but the hon. gentleman will find us ready to support him in the efforts he is making in this direction, as the applause he heard at the end of this part of his observations indicates.
This is not to say the minister should lose sight of the whole picture. I have been collecting the hon. gentleman's speeches made over the past few months, and some of them do indicate that he realizes the nature of the problems which are facing us. I should like to remind the hon. gentleman of what he said last October-it was on October 14-speaking on a supply motion, and again speaking on the estimates on December 12. In his speeches since then he has indicated also that there are three legislative acts which he wishes to bring forward. One has something to do with crop re-insurance. We have heard this since last October, and speeches touching on it were made on March 18 out in Regina intimating that these measures were ready. Then the minister went on to make a statement about two weeks ago to the effect that he was being delayed, that these things were being held up and that he could not get his proposed legislation on the order paper.


Harry William Hays: I should like to correct one statement. I did not say I could not get it on the order paper. That is not correct. I said the house was so slow in getting legislation through that we lacked time to deal with some of these very important measures. I did not say we had trouble in getting it on the order paper.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Of course we shall accept the minister's word for it. I know the difficulty we have at times. But I wish he would consult the Lethbridge Herald and ask the editor to correct the absolute nonsense which was printed on that occasion. Here is an editorial from the Lethbridge Herald dated April 11 and entitled "The Farmers Wait".
The need for new parliamentary rules has been graphically illustrated by remarks of Canada's

S' upp ly-Agricu Iture
Minister of Agriculture, Hon. Harry Hays, during his recent visit to Lethbridge.
He has three important measures waiting to be brought before the House of Commons, but he can't get them there. The government's legislative program is bogged down by an opposition filibuster, and under the present rules nothing can be done about it except invoke closure. And the Liberal party is still licking its wounds from the last time, eight years ago, that it tried that.
Would the hon. gentleman please write to the editor of the Lethbridge Herald telling him to take out this arrant nonsense and that the minister can, at any time he wishes, put something on the order paper so we would at least know there was something tangible ready. We would give it first reading so we could consider it. We would look at it. I think the statement to which I have just referred is one which should be corrected. If the minister has this legislation ready he should put it on the order paper-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Providing there is something to put there.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -and not go around letting innocent editors think this house is holding up any legislation for agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The next point I should like to make has to do with the cost of farm machinery, a question about which we have heard a great deal. I have the experience of an investigation which was carried out in Saskatchewan over the years, and I have participated in investigations which took place here in Ottawa. As a matter of record, an investigation into the cost of farm machinery was being carried on by the standing committee on agriculture and colonization at the time the government changed. I understand that the present standing committee on agriculture and colonization has so far only held an organization meeting and, if my information is correct, nothing has been referred to it.
Here we have an incomplete study of the cost of farm machinery carried out in the 1962-63 session. Also, up to the end of the last session the same standing committee was working on a major item of cost to eastern farmers, that is the cost of eastern feed grain. We had brought in all these witnesses to give evidence. The committee, composed of Liberals, Conservatives and representatives of the Social Credit group, the Creditistes and the New Democratic party, were all working closely together to try to find effective ways of reducing the cost of eastern feed grain. I suggest to the minister that rather than going out to the west and saying that the opposi-

tion is delaying these things, we should make use of the machinery which is available in parliament under the present rules. Some of the most able men in this country would be glad to sit on this committee, to forget party differences and see whether they could not get at the factors responsible for this situation in which feed grain represents the major item of cost to eastern farmers.
I was hoping to hear from the minister an indication that agriculture is confronted with other problems in addition to the one respecting research. The biggest item of cost to eastern farmers is the cost of feed grain. In this regard the minister seems content with the action he took last summer, hoping that this will achieve the results he desires in stabilizing the price of grain to eastern farmers. At that time I indicated we had grave doubts that the action taken by the minister would get to the root of the trouble, and if hon. members would read the findings of the standing committee I think they would agree that my observations were well founded. So my proposal today is that the minister get on with his work to trying to bring the research done in the department closer to the people, but that he should not neglect these other aspects to which I have referred.
I hope he will look at another tree in the forest. Eastern farmers find themselves in most desperate need. I put on record last October that farm income had moved upward in the western provinces and that it was holding fairly steady in Ontario, but the rise in Ontario was held down by the fact that many of the areas were not as productive as they should be. In Quebec and the maritimes, however, we were facing one of the greatest challenges in the whole field of agriculture.
During the last election campaign-the last two, as a matter of fact-I asked the Conservative party to back me in a program concentrated on raising the farm income of eastern farmers, and by "eastern farmers" I have always meant to include those of British Columbia. I was opposed by the western Liberals, one of whom was elected to the legislature in Regina the other day, on the ground that I was going out to help eastern farmers and should be defeated. I carried this campaign into every constituency in the west and the western farmers supported me; they supported this program of having the federal government concentrate its interest for a few years on lifting up the eastern farmers as we have done in the west. We did not do anything against

the eastern farmer as a government. Indeed, our policy of finding world markets for western grain not only led to an immediate rise in income of western farmers but also caused an updraft which was of benefit to eastern farmers.
This was not enough. There had to be concentrated planning on several of their problems, and I outlined a six point program to meet those problems. We have been waiting for a long time to see what government policy would be.
During the election campaign the national Liberal program was first of all to get at this problem by naming two ministers of agriculture and thus raising the importance to agriculture of the departments of the two ministers. Since that time what have they done? They have decimated the department and made it look like a skeleton; and you know, Mr. Chairman, what a skeleton looks like out on the open street. They have taken the Department of Agriculture, and instead of being one of the two or three top departments of the government they have put it down to No. 20 or No. 23 on the list. First of all they took away the wheat board, which was the marketing arm of the department, and emasculated the whole idea of bringing agriculture into a co-ordinated and cohesive policy making machine.
No sooner had they done that-and we had a second minister of agriculture sitting in the wings for almost a year-then they began to cut the department to shreds and scatter it all over the place. I am not opposed to the moving of any sections of a department if greater good can be accomplished, but I think what has actually happened is that the Department of Agriculture has now become diversified.
During the course of his estimates I should like to ask the minister to answer some questions as to what these statements which have been made recently mean. I have not had much chance to go over what has been happening in Canada recently. For example, this is a headline in the Manitoba Co-Operator of April 2, 1964:
Sauve says new department independent.
The federal government's proposed new department of forestry and rural development is going to operate as an independent unit free of agriculture department controls-
Now, Mr. Chairman, this is not the way to get at our agricultural industry. We have been working for years to bring to agriculture all possible uses of the land which we have such as forestry, for recreation, for any use whatsoever which will increase the income of
Supply-Agriculture
farmers on that land, as one of the techniques of trying to lift the incomes of farmers on marginal land. Yet we now have a minister saying in a farming paper that this new department is going to be independent, and that is what I am concerned about.
Here we have a government trumpeting that they are centralizing the military services after many years of discussion to get efficiency, co-ordination and cohesion into the military operations in this country, yet at the same time the government are diversifying agriculture. Who is going to finance the military if the farmers are not in good shape? Agriculture is still the basic force for building up the economy of the whole country, and when agriculture is doing well every workingman in the cities of Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Hamilton, Montreal and all across the industrial country does well. If you ever reverse the tide with regard to agriculture, then in two or three years you will find the workingman out of work again.
Yet we have agriculture, which we fought like anything to get moving again, all of a sudden being divided up.
There have been words spoken about two or three ministers working together; the Minister of Trade and Commerce looking after wheat, the Minister of Forestry looking after redevelopment and the Minister of Agriculture looking after railway line abandonment, and out of this triumvirate we would get a co-ordinated policy. When I was minister of northern affairs and national resources and responsible under the laws of this country for the planning of all the uses of resources of the country, both in co-operation with other departments of the federal government and with provincial governments and private business, we were working out plans for agricultural redevelopment and plans for the Department of Forestry.
At that time I made no secret, either privately or publicly, of the fact that the job of the minister of northern affairs and national resources was simply planning the operations, but that the Department of Agriculture would be the operating arm because they had the tremendous experience and ability in their department and the staff to co-ordinate the work of all these departments in order to bring the help of all the experts in forestry, recreation, wildlife and all the rest of it to bear on bringing more income to the land. But in the planning which we carried out in our national development program and in its component part, the national agricultural program, the agriculture department was looked on as the heart and muscles

Supply-Agriculture
for the carrying out of the programs worked out by the various departments concentrating on the problem in their particular segments, because in that agriculture department we had the machinery. This government has reversed the whole thinking of the previous national agricultural program, and the test is going to be whether this diversification of a once great department and its relegation down to a subsidiary position in the over-all scale of things in the new regime will lift up farm incomes.
I am going to suggest to the minister in all seriousness that the real challenge before any agriculture minister today must be not just the individual problems of agriculture but that of seeing the situation as a whole. I will let him tell us what he is going to do about his program for cutting down the cost of farm machinery, about his crop reinsurance program and the changes in the Farm Credit Corporation; and we are sitting here ready and willing to help that legislation through the house if there is going to be anything in it to help agriculture. Therefore we would ask for a statement from the minister in this regard.
Now, basically these are the big problems. The big problems in Canada are traced by the research into the income which comes to the farmer. The minister mentioned that in 1963, which was one of the greatest years in the agricultural history of the country, the net income of the farmer was slightly higher. Gross income was up 2 per cent. He went on to confess that costs had also gone up, and then he mentioned the key matter, that the realized net income was down.
Mr. Chairman, the farmer does not give a hoot for any net income figures, and I hope that the minister throws those out of his lexicon. All these net income figures represent bookkeeper's figures. Whenever a farmer grows a big crop the bookkeeper adds the inventory on to his income, but he does not get any cash. Then when he sells his big crop the inventory value is taken off his net income they say his pockets are full. So that net income is meaningless. What one should look at is realized income. The minister said this was down in 1963. It certainly was not down in western Canada in 1963. Therefore it must have been down in eastern Canada.
This is the problem, Mr. Chairman. You have one segment of the industry going up much faster than another sector, so that any program which does not concentrate on the needs of the eastern farmers today is missing the main target. On the minister's estimates

last year I asked him, where is this national dairy policy? We had been grappling with that over the last two years of our term of office and had finally got the industry to sit down with us at a conference in February, 1963, where the late Dr. Hannam made his last great effort. He was chairman of the conference.
Last October I asked what was being done. We did get an announcement about a year ago, just before May 1, relating to price supports. We are still waiting for the price supports for this year even though May 1 is very close. As I pointed out last year in my statement on the estimates, price supports are only a short term policy for one year. What the dairy farmers are concerned with, as well as the great bulk of the dairy industry in eastern Canada, is when we are going to get a national dairy policy. These farmers knew that we were working on it and that it was a very difficult matter. They knew that we had to get co-operation from the provincial governments. We got that co-operation from Quebec and Ontario, and they knew that the others would follow. But what has this government done to grapple with the long range problem of the dairy industry?


Mr. Vinceni:: We do not know yet.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No, we do not know. I suggest that is what we want to hear about. What has happened to the income of the eastern farmers? The minister skipped over that point when he said it is down for the whole of Canada; but since it was up for the west last year it must be down for the east. We want to know what he is going to do with this legislation; but above all we want to know what is going to happen with regard to a national dairy policy. That is the greatest blistering sore on the whole agricultural industry today. I know the problem is tough and it will be difficult to get the co-operation of the provinces and the farm organizations.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes.


Harry William Hays: Is it not true that this is a record year for the dairy farmers, and that they have received more in Quebec than they have ever received since confederation?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am very glad the minister asked that question, Mr. Chairman, because it makes me despair of any hope for him in the future. It is no use worshipping these little figures that are published and show an increase of a percentage point. I will let some

of the members from Quebec answer that question in detail. It is no good taking comfort from an increase of a percentage point; you cannot get away from the basic fact that the minister is pinning all his faith on the hope that the present system will work its way out of the difficulties. I am pointing out to the minister something I am sure is right; that unless there is radical action in connection with the dairy industry, they will never be out of trouble. Because cheese, or some other product, is up a percentage point the minister says "We will get out of the trouble"; but he will not get out of the trouble, because the trouble is fundamental.


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the hon. member a question?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I should like to finish my remarks, Mr. Chairman. The minister will have to face up to the fact that the dairy industry is now national and is not centered around some city. The products are marketed all across the country, and the problems are exactly the same in the United States and 20 or more countries in Europe. Unless this question is faced in a national way in order to get at the basic, fundamental problems involved, the minister will not find a solution.
I suggest that the first fundamental is marketing. We will not be able to market these products in countries where there is a surplus of dairy products. Going over the GATT conferences and spending all your time talking about what you are going to do, and trying to sell dairy products to countries which have a surplus of such products is like milking a dried-out cow. That is what the minister is doing.
The minister must get at the fundamentals of the dairy program; he must work with the farm organizations, bring them together and get the support of the provincial governments. I know that the minister of agriculture of Quebec and the minister of agriculture of Ontario are willing to work together, but there is no leadership from Ottawa. We waited to hear something about that today, but we did not. Did the minister have a question?


Harry William Hays: No.


An hon. Member:: He forgot.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, he forgot. I think I have said enough, Mr. Chairman, to make my point. In going after the individual trees in the forest-


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question? Why didn't he do more about it?
Supply-Agriculture


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I think this indicates the bankruptcy of policy or ideas of the minister. After holding office for a year, with the most pressing problem facing agriculture as a whole, that of the dairy industry, he asks what could we do about it. I know that when I was in the department there were at least 15 different alternatives, and at least one or two showed signs of promise. We pulled in representatives of farm organizations and set up a committee. How many times has that committee met? What leadership has been given by the minister? He has available in the department all these alternatives, but the real task is to get down and choose the alternative that in his judgment is best and try to take some action on it. It will not be done quickly, but he will have a great deal of co-operation from the minister of agriculture in Quebec and the minister of agriculture in Ontario.


An hon. Member:: He cannot get any from his colleagues, though.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is right. I have made my points as well as I can, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the tremendous challenge of the declining farm income in eastern Canada. I like to think that the two hon. members from rural Quebec who came over to support us did so because they came to this house as a protest against the poor agricultural conditions in their part of the country, and the government has done nothing about this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: They have heard the debates in this house. They heard the debate during the supply motion last October, in which I indicated in statistical form the sliding income of Quebec and the maritimes in particular. I suggested several directions in which the government could go. Then they heard the minister's answer, that statistics are for losers and that all this was a pile of junk. I do not think it is a pile of junk to put before the house statistics which indicate that there is a pressing problem in certain parts of Canada.
Last December during my remarks on the estimates I asked the minister whether he had knowledge of the farm survey we conducted in 22 districts of eastern Canada in January, 1963. I said at that time that I would not ask him to produce the document, because much of that document is shocking in its significance and if the rest of the people of Canada found out just how poor were the farmers and how low was their standard of living in a great part of our farm population,

Supp ly-A gricu Iture mostly in northern and eastern Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes, there would be a demand on any government, Conservative or Liberal, to take action; because we cannot let 25 per cent of our people live in what can only be described, in city parlance, as slum conditions.
This problem is not new. With regard to this survey, I am coming to the conclusion, since I cannot get the government to take any action in regard to it, that we should ask the minister to publish it and let the people of Canada see what it is like to live in certain counties not very far from here, and counties through Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. We did not even make a survey of Newfoundland because we knew what it was like without making a survey. We should let the people of Canada see just how their fellow Canadians live in this country. Let that survey be published and let us begin to draw the conclusions that must be drawn from the survey and take action against these problems.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lucien Lamoureux: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired, unless he has unanimous consent to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am quite content, Mr. Chairman, to stay within my limit of 30 minutes.


Lucien Lamoureux: Will the hon. member please continue. He has unanimous consent.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have just about finished my remarks anyway. I say with all the force at my command that all parties in this house will stand behind the minister in any courses of action which are constructive and which move forward. I think the two basic problems are, first, the dairy industry-which is a national problem but is mostly concentrated in the east-and second the low income of eastern farmers. We from the west, with almost every seat represented by Conservatives at the present time, will stand behind the minister in any program that will help lift up our fellow Canadians.


William Arnold Peters: That may be more support than he has from the Liberal party.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If I may impose on the committee for a moment or two longer, Mr. Chairman, I have in my hand a whole mass of promises made by the Prime Minister. I do not want to take up too much time, but I will quote just a few:


A new Liberal government will take the initiative in formulating, in co-operation with the provinces, with farmers and milk distributors, a system of free milk for children in school.
This will only help the dairy industry to the extent of 1 per cent, but it is a little help and we will support it. Then with respect to dairy cattle the Prime Minister said this:
With respect to dairy cattle, the objectives will be to have at least 25 per cent of dairy cows on test within ten years.
I do not know how much the candidate concerned knew about the dairy cattle industry, but I would like to know what is happening with regard to these matters. Then the Prime Minister spoke about eastern agriculture, about which nothing has been done to solve the problems. He said:
Under no circumstances will a new Liberal government allow the Crowsnest rates to be eroded or abandoned by any branch line abandonment policy.
Well, they put the minister in charge of branch line abandonment, and he would not tell us what the policy was before the Saskatchewan election, so I do not think it bodes too well for us in this regard:
Would immediately provide for a floor price of $2 a bushel for No. 1 northern wheat and appropriate differentials for other grades to apply over the life of the present international wheat agreement.
Here is another promise in respect of a two price system for wheat:
This policy will be accompanied by a consumer subsidy so that there will be no rise in the price of bread.
Bread has gone up in price but there is no consumer subsidy. Here is another statement made in Regina by the Prime Minister:
Tonight X pledge that we will move immediately to increase the funds available under the Export Credits Insurance Act for financing farm exports.
I have not heard a peep about amending the Export Credits Insurance Act. I can go right through this whole long list, page after page of such promises. Here is another one:
A Liberal government will promptly seek agreement with the provinces on a plan which will enable marketing boards to operate on a national scale-
What is happening there? And so on. I am not suggesting that all these things outlined by the Prime Minister are going to be done. He has gone 60 days in one direction and then 300 days in the other direction. He now says there is a change in policy. He goes one way for 60 days and another way for the other 300 days. All this confusion is bad enough in the case of other ministers who are

new at their jobs and do not know much about Canada, but the Minister of Agriculture has, I am sure, the solid support of every member of every party for any move that will help agriculture. We know that the problems are difficult but I say to him now, bring in the legislation. Put some evidence before us that you have a national dairy policy. Bring some evidence before us that you really want to tackle the problem of the low income of eastern farmers. If you do these things you will get our support.


Lucien Lamoureux: I see the Minister of Justice rising at the same time as the hon. member for Vancouver East. It has been the custom on the first item to have a statement of policy or in any event a general statement from a representative of each party. I suggest that we should follow the same procedure; therefore I call on the hon. member for Vancouver East.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether an electrician can throw any light on agricultural policies, but I should like to make an approach to agricultural problems without going into details with regard to the various phases of the agricultural economy.
I was most interested in the remarks of the previous speaker. Time after time he spoke about the need to get down to fundamentals. Time after time he spoke about the need for a national agricultural policy. I do not know of any man or woman who stands for election in Canada or who has been elected to any of the legislative chambers of Canada who would not make exactly the same kind of statement, the same kind of speech and utter the same kind of platitudes and generalities. Platitudes and generalities are not the important thing. The important thing is, when is somebody going to have the courage to tell governments and agriculturists that they have got to face up to the problem and perhaps accept things that go against their grain?
We are not going to solve the problems of agriculture with policies based on bits and pieces. We have got to get down to the groundwork of doing the thinking for a national agricultural policy that will cover all phases of agriculture and will tie in agriculture from the west to the east, from the Pacific to the Atlantic. If we are going to approach the major problems of agriculture in that manner then government members, official opposition members and others are going to have to face up to an analysis of the Canadian economy and the principles that govern that economy.
Supply-Agriculture
We have heard a great deal said about the fact that in Canada we live under a private enterprise system and are proud of it. But, Mr. Chairman, you cannot separate the agricultural economy from the over-all economy, and if you honestly analyse our over-all economy today you will see that so far as the federal authority is concerned, we are rapidly getting away from a free enterprise system to a subsidized economy system.
Let us face the facts. So far as the federal government is concerned it is already subsidizing many aspects of the over-all economy. We subsidize the gold mines, we subsidize the coal mines; we subsidize the railways; we subsidize the shipping industry.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The manufacturers, through the tariff.


Harold Edward Winch: Through tariff procedures we subsidize the vast majority of manufacturers in Canada. We have a subsidized economy not only generally but in agriculture as well. May I make it very clear that in the 11 years I have been a member of the House of Commons I have always supported agricultural subsidies because of need and emergency, but we have passed the stage where such subsidies are granted only for a year, three years or five years. They have now become a part of the agricultural economy, a part of the subsidized economy of Canada, and we are not going to get down to a basic understanding of the problems and how to meet them unless we face that fact.
Just before I call it one o'clock I should like to say something so that it will appear in this portion of my remarks. If Canada does not have a secure agricultural economy, with those engaged in agriculture receiving incomes comparable with the incomes of other workers, this country is in trouble. If agriculture fails we do not eat, and if we do not eat we die. This is fundamental and basic, so let us start with this premise.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Lucien Lamoureux: When we adjourned for lunch at one o'clock the hon. member for Vancouver East had the floor. I understand the Minister of Justice has a short contribution to make to the debate and, since he has another obligation later this afternoon it has been suggested that he be allowed to make his contribution now and the hon. member

Supply-Agriculture
for Vancouver East would reserve his right to continue and terminate his speech later. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, may I first thank the hon. member for Vancouver East for his co-operation in agreeing to suspend his interesting speech to allow me to fulfil an undertaking which I had given to the house on March 31 last. At that time, at the request of the Minister of Transport, I told the house I would, along with my officers, analyse the events which took place between February 3 and February 20, 1964, that is between the time the first order in council was passed, which purported to transfer from the Minister of Agriculture to the Minister of Forestry certain of the powers of the Minister of Agriculture, and another order in council of February 20 by which the first order in council was annulled and rescinded. I could have limited myself to making a statement on motions, but in view of the opinions which I have given to the cabinet on all the facts involved, I thought it would be fairer to the members of the house if I made a statement in committee, thereby enabling hon. members to question me on any aspect of the statement.
I wish to inform the committee of several actions taken by the government in response to certain questions raised when the transfer of duties between the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Forestry was discussed in committee of supply. In the debate that took place in committee of supply on this matter, following the statement of the Minister of Transport on March 26, hon. members opposite raised certain questions and it is important that these be dealt with. First of all, there is clearly some uncertainty in the minds of some hon. members concerning the actual effect of the three orders in council, No. 157 of February 3, 1964; No. 295 of February 20, 1964 and No. 360 of March 5, 1964. Questions were raised about the status of actions which may have been taken by or in the name of the ministers concerned, particularly during the period between the first two orders.
The committee will recall that on March 31 I undertook to have the officers of my department look at the actions in the period between February 3 and February 20 which might have been affected by the orders in question. This has been done, and a copy of a letter addressed by me to the Prime Minister on April 20, which reports my findings, has now been tabled. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that under
[The Chairman.]
the rules of this house, even as Minister of Justice, I am not entitled formally to give an opinion to the house. However, since I am the legal adviser to the crown and the cabinet, to all the ministers, I thought the way to obviate the difficulty would be for me to advise the cabinet by way of letter, which I have to do anyway, signed by me under my own responsibility. This letter has been tabled by way of a report to the house as to what I may have advised the cabinet. This may be a little technical, but I think it puts my position properly in relation to the constitution and will enable me to answer questions put by hon. gentlemen.
As is suggested in that letter, an order in council has been passed in the interim to remove any uncertainty that might still exist. The number of this order in council is P.C. 1964/600, dated April 23, and it has already been tabled. I would draw the attention of the committee to three particular aspects of it. First of all, the order recites that certain powers, duties or functions which had, by an order of February 3, been transferred from the Minister of Agriculture to the Minister of Forestry were retransferred to the Minister of Agriculture by the order of February 20. The effect of these words is to remove any possible doubt about what is referred to by the Leader of the Opposition as the effect of that second order.
Second, the last paragraph of the order of April 23 confirms all things done since February 3 by or in the name of the two ministers concerned under the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act, the Farm Credit Act, the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act and the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.
Third, the new order makes one slight addition to the provisions of P.C. 1964/360 of March 5, relating to the administration of the programs respecting freight assistance and grain storage costs on western feed grains. Unlike the other matters transferred to the Minister of Forestry, these programs have no specific legislative basis other than items in annual appropriation acts.
Words have therefore been added to make it clear that the transfer of these powers, functions and duties is to have continuing effect in the new fiscal year and future years as the programs are extended by subsequent appropriation acts.
While there appears to be no legal necessity whatever, we will make assurance doubly sure by having the eight ARDA agreements, signed by the Minister of Agriculture during

the period February 3 to February 20, reexecuted by the Minister of Forestry.
The second principal aspect of this matter which was called into question in committee of supply concerned publication. We have considered very carefully the arguments presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and we have done two things. First, we have decided that in the future copies of all orders passed under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer Duties Act will be tabled. As an earnest of this decision I have today tabled a copy of an order, P.C. 477, passed on April 6 for the transfer to the departments of public works, transport, and northern affairs and national resources of the principal responsibilities of the Department of National Defence relating to Fort Churchill.
There remains the question whether or not orders passed under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act require publication under the terms of the Regulations Act. This, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will be the first to recognize, is not a question of policy but of legal interpretation. The practice in the past was, I think, clearly stated by the Minister of Transport on March 26, and it will be seen from my letter that I am of the opinion that such orders are of an administrative character and not an exercise of a legislative power. However, we share the view of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre as to the public interest in these orders.
I am authorized by the Prime Minister to state that henceforth, so long as this government is in office, we will alter the previous practice. Any orders made under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act will be published in the Canada Gazette. They will also, as I have already said, be tabled in the house, and they will therefore have in substance the treatment they would be required to have if they were regulations within the meaning of the Regulations Act.
I think that points raised by hon. gentlemen opposite, on the occasion of the discussion of these particular estimates, in relation to the effect of the two first orders in council and with respect to the possible application of the publication provision in the Regulations Act, have had the advantage of making the government reconsider a practice which, in my opinion, was a valid one, and at the same time has enabled the government to modify that practice so that in the future these orders in council, which are of interest to the public, will henceforth be
Supply-Agriculture
published and brought more directly to the knowledge of all members of the public.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On this point, before the hon. member for Vancouver East continues his speech, I would like to say we are glad that the minister and the government have agreed henceforth to table these orders in council. This will be of great assistance to hon. members and the people of the country.
Did I understand the minister to say that an order in council of April 23 has validated any agreements that were signed by the Minister of Agriculture and they will now be considered to have been signed by the Minister of Forestry?


Guy Favreau: There is, if the hon. member allows me to so state, a slight distinction to be made. As I said, they have been confirmed, which I think is different from being validated. This is my opinion, and I have advised the government very specifically in this matter. I have tried to place myself back 13 months ago, when I was practising law on Dorchester street in Montreal and advising a client in the most practical possible fashion. It is my opinion, and I have so advised the government, that the effect of the order in council has not been to invalidate any of the administrative acts which had been passed in the interval, but in order to avoid any doubt henceforth, the order in council of April 23 purports to confirm, that is to sanction and recognize, whatever has been done.
The principle that we have invoked and applied is that of agency. There is no doubt that the minister, on the occasion of a rearrangement of powers or a transfer of powers, becomes the agent of the government to that extent, and it is always the power of a principal to confirm whatever has been done in an imprecise period by an agent. But this has been done exclusively as a precautionary measure, and so as to make sure in the public interest that none of these acts may be brought into question at any time.
But I have this to say at the present moment. There are two types of acts which have been performed by the ministers concerned in the interval, or rather by the employees or officers of the two departments, and these are administrative acts. The acts of pure administration have been performed by the employees of the crown in their respective capacities in the name of the crown, and I am quite sure that each of them has purported to effect these acts in his respective capacity. So long as they were acts of pure

Supply-Agriculture
administration they were done on behalf of the crown, and they are not to be put into question.
But there were two types of acts with respects to which I must admit that some doubts have been raised in my mind. The first of these concerns the signing by the Minister of Agriculture of eight agreements with the provinces under ARDA between February 3 and February 20-around February 10 or February 15. So far as those are concerned, it is my view that the cancellation of the order in council of February 3 by the order in council of February 20 has had the effect of restoring the complete application of these statutes which vest these powers with the Minister of Agriculture. But for the sake of more precaution I have advised that the minister charged with the administration of ARDA should now sign these agreements so as to eliminate any possible doubt. On February 10, I believe it was, the minister appointed one person to act in connection with a program, jurisdiction over which had been transferred to the Minister of Forestry. There was doubt in my mind that he was entitled to make the appointment at that time, but the appointment was reconfirmed after February 20, that is after the order rescinding the first one had been made. So now there is no doubt that the reappointment now by the Minister of Agriculture was validly made.
One other question may arise and it concerns the validity of the acts performed by that appointed official between February 10 and February 20. I have not checked as to the number of functions performed but it is my opinion, as appears from the letter I have sent to the Prime Minister, that the application of the doctrine which is well known in law and which is called the de facto doctrine has the effect of confirming those acts. This doctrine means that when a person is appointed to discharge certain public functions, a judicial function, for instance if say, for certain technical reasons, the appointment was invalid, so long as the person concerned purported to perform acts which would normally have been within his jurisdiction, then he acted de facto as the person who might otherwise have carried out such acts, and from the standpoint of the public those acts are confirmed. There are a number of decisions in the case of minor judicial appointments cases where the original appointment has been declared to be invalid but where the decisions rendered by the person holding the office have been declared to be valid. Why should this be so? It is because

the public may not suffer as a result of the invalidity of an appointment so long as the person appointed purported to carry out duties which would normally come within the jurisdiction he would have acquired had he been validly appointed. Anyhow, it is my view that the order in council of April 23 has the effect of removing all doubts as to the validity of what was done previously.


Mr. Winkler:: May I ask the minister a question? Would he say with regard to the order in council of April 23 whether this order in council in fact indicates that an error or a breach of the law was committed in the month of February?


Guy Favreau: No. It is the case that a legal adviser, whether he be the Minister of Justice or anyone else is not only entitled to his own view, but has the responsibility of forming one. On the other hand, no single legal adviser in a situation like this one which is, to a certain extent, complex, can be conceited enough to believe definitely that there is no possible doubt as to the complete validity of what has been done. We have wonderful judges in the superior court, but there are occasions when their judgments have to be reconsidered by the court of appeal. Even in the supreme court one may find four judges holding one view on a point of law and the other holding a different view. So my conclusion was that in the public interest, for the purpose of better continuity of the administration of the affairs of Canada, a way should be found of removing all doubt as to what has been done in the past, and confirming whatever has been done in case there may be some question as to its validity.
I think it is the obligation of the government to pass whatever measures are likely to achieve such a purpose. The opinion I gave to the Prime Minister represents my opinion in accordance with my full responsibility as Minister of Justice, and my recommendation for the passing of the additional order in council and for the re-execution of the ARDA agreement is one which ought not to be interpreted as a declaration of the invalidity of or in condemnation of what was done in the past. Rather, it was a recommendation made in accordance with my responsibility as a minister of the crown, so that a double measure of assurance might be given to the people of this country.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It seems to me that the minister is being very gentle when he says the order in council of April 23 was merely to

confirm those eight agreements with the provinces, rather than to validate them. It seems to me that from February 3 until February 20 the right to sign those agreements was not in abeyance-it had been vested in the Minister of Forestry under order in council 157 which was passed on February 3. It seems perfectly plain that the Minister of Agriculture had no legal authority at all to sign those orders. So to say that the order in council of April 23 was passed merely to confirm what had been done, or remove any doubt, is in my view stretching things quite a bit.
The minister has drawn an analogy with judicial procedures, but it would seem to me this hardly applies to the case of a minister or agent of the crown when authority has been transferred from one department to another. In this case the minister from whom the powers had been transferred proceeded to sign eight agreements with the provinces, despite the fact that not only did he have no authority to do so, but that authority had been distinctly vested in another minister. The fact that the agreements had to be rescinded and confirmed by the order in council of April 23 seems to me to be something much more than mere confirmation. Indeed, it appears to me that this is tacit acknowledgement on the part of the government that the minister erred in signing these agreements when he had no legal authority to do so-that he was in error when he exercised functions which were vested for those 17 days in the Minister of Forestry.
I do not think there is any value in labouring the matter further. The Minister of Justice has done his best to deal with the situation, but I think we should not deceive ourselves that the order in council of April 23 was merely intended to confirm what had been done and clear up any doubt. I think there can be no doubt at all that the Minister of Agriculture who signed these agreements had no authority to do so. In these circumstances the Minister of Justice was right in insisting that a new order in council be passed and that the agreements be signed again.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, may I just ask one question. I am wondering whether there is still some confusion. Yesterday on orders of the day I asked the Minister of Forestry a question relating to the ARDA program. That question was referred to the ten o'clock adjournment period. At ten o'clock yesterday evening the Minister of Agriculture replied to my question on ARDA. Can the Minister of Justice inform the house why the
Supply-Agriculture
Minister of Agriculture, after the explanation he has given, replied to my question last evening?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Chairman, in reply to this question, the question of the hon. member seemed to us one which was dealing with some of the ARDA projects. Inasmuch as those projects were included in the agriculture estimates and we indicated, as I did also this morning, that this was the way they would be handled, I replied to the question yesterday.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Then are we to discuss the ARDA estimates as included in the estimates of the minister and not refer them to the Minister of Forestry?


Harry William Hays: The hon. member realizes, of course, that the Minister of Forestry is ill and that these projects do happen to be in my estimates, and have been for some time prior to this. I am quite prepared to answer any questions about them, or if the minister is back he will answer them.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam I do not think there is any point now in labouring this particular issue, but I think we should leave very clear on the record and in the minds of members of the committee that in this warfare which was going on during the month of February between the ministers dividing up the various parts of the corpus delicti, the Department of Agriculture, certain things were done which the Minister of Justice now confesses did create grave doubts in his mind, both with regard to the signing of the eight ARDA agreements by a minister who had no power to sign them, and second with regard to the transfer of one of the senior officials of the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Forestry who carried on certain functions during this interregnum.
I notice that the Leader of the Opposition asked the government when these discussions took place earlier if they would not pass an order in council ratifying all these acts which have taken place in order to make legal what the ministers had done in error, and whether the shifting of one member from one department to another had not created a very doubtful situation. All of these acts should be ratified by order in council. I think that what the minister is telling us is that in the actions which were taken, and in the April 23 order in council which followed those doubtful acts of the minister namely signing certain documents which he had no power to sign, and all of the actions of the official to whom

Supply-Agriculture
we are referring during the interregnum, have now been ratified by that order in council.
In bringing this matter before the house as the Leader of the Opposition requested, the minister is now following the suggestion which has been made, which I think adds up to this. In the haste to make these adjustments between the departments, and in pushing certain sections of the Department of Agriculture one way and then pushing them back the other way, the government has stumbled into a very serious mistake. In their haste they have made these mistakes and now they have to backtrack. I think we should make it clear to the committee and on the record that the government have now put themselves into a mess on a subject they did not know very much about, as a result of which this order in council had to be passed to rectify the situation, and in so doing they accepted the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, before the hon. member goes on with his speech one point which arises from what the Minister of Agriculture said in answer to a question a moment ago. While it is true that the ARDA estimates are in the Department of Agriculture-because I presume this transfer had not been made prior to the estimates being drafted- I think the committee ought to insist that those estimates which deal with ARDA be held until the minister responsible for them is here. I think we have a right to hear his statement and to question him regarding the programs he is proposing for the coming year.


Harry William Hays: I am sure there will be no objection to this.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, in order that there will be no misunderstanding may I say that I was happy to grant the courtesy to the Minister of Justice to interrupt my speech on the agriculture estimates so that he could make a very important statement; and in the event that the Leader of the Opposition should ask the same co-operation I would be most happy to grant him a similar courtesy.
In the seven minutes for which I held the floor prior to the luncheon recess I was drawing to the attention of hon. members my view that we were not going to be able to resolve agricultural problems in Canada until we had a general national agricultural policy. In arriving at the same it had to be considered in relationship to the economic system as it now operates in Canada.

In those seven minutes I made reference very briefly to the previous speaker who was not so long ago a minister of agriculture when the Conservatives were in power. I do not believe in discrimination, so I would not like to make reference to a previous agricultural minister without making reference to the present one. It may seem unusual and strange that I, as a private member on the opposition side of the house, should like to ask a favour of the present Minister of Agriculture. My favour is that before the first item of his estimates carries he does what he did not do when he opened his remarks this morning, and inform the members of this committee from his vast store of knowledge on agriculture, under his responsibility as Minister of Agriculture, of his views on a Canadian agricultural policy and what he hopes to do to bring this policy into being.
In the few minutes prior to the luncheon adjournment I was introducing my remarks by pointing out that emergency measures will not solve the problem of our economy in general and of agriculture in particular. I pointed out that we were rapidly moving, and have been for a number of years, from what is normally known as a private enterprise economy towards a subsidized economy. I outlined very briefly a few points of general economy and then I said that I should like to speak about subsidized agriculture. I submit that this government and the preceding government failed to bring about a national agriculture policy and to face up to the real issues.
If hon. members will refer to the estimates in front of them, which are for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1965, they will find there are agricultural subsidies in the estimates. In brief what are they? There are hog quality premiums amounting to $7,599,300; lamb quality premiums, $753,360; cheese quality premiums, $1,083,000; miscellaneous livestock improvement assistance, $16,000; lime assistance, $1,608,900; freight assistance, western feed grains, $18,500,000. These are the direct subsidies in the estimates, but that is only a very small part of the agricultural assistance program. It is not possible to get any figure as to what this assistance will be in the present fiscal year because the majority of agricultural subsidies are not in the estimates; they are covered by statutory authority. It is my understanding-and this information was received only today from the Department of Agriculture-that it is hoped it will not be too high on eggs and hogs because the selling price may be above what is known, I believe, as the support price.

Let us examine the situation and take, for example, butter. I believe my information is correct, that on May 1 the government will announce what its butter policy is going to be in regard to deficiency payments and support price. Last year it was 12 cents per pound. Butter production last year amounted to 345 million pounds; so by statutory payment the butter subsidy cost the federal government in the neighbourhood of $42 million. I do not believe that the majority of members understand that because of a bits and pieces agricultural policy over the years we now have a subsidized agricultural policy in Canada. I base that remark on the Agricultural Stabilization Act, chapter 22, Statutes of Canada 1957-58. How many people realize that private enterprise does not seem to work very much more in agriculture, and this is a basic and absolutely vital and fundamental part of our economy.
May I very, very briefly, for the information of hon. members, deal with this matter. I cannot give what might be estimated for 1964-65, but I refer to the fiscal year 1963-64. How many hon. members know how much the federal government, through its taxation, is tied up in the maintenance of agriculture? During the fiscal year 1963-64 the prices of the following commodities were stabilized under the act:	creamery butter; Cheddar
cheese; cattle; oats-not under the Canadian wheat board; barley-not under the Canadian wheat board. Those commodities were stabilized by purchase. Then by deficiency payment: eggs; hogs; sheep, lamb; sheep, wool; honey; soybeans; sunflower seed; sugar beets; wheat-not under the Canadian wheat board. By subsidy payments: milk for cheese-this is statutory, by the way-milk for butter and butterfat content; cream, butterfat content; dried casein and caseinates, and tobacco. The total amount involved was $122,235,000-and that is statutory.
I ask hon. members to consider these items and the amount involved. This is no longer an emergency policy, but subsidies paid year by year on a continuing basis. How can we be honest in saying we are tackling the problems of agriculture in view of the figures I have given, and what is contained in the estimates with regard to the amount paid by way of subsidy. The problem of agriculture is not going to be solved by a subsidy policy; we have to get down to the basic and fundamental problem. If I had unlimited time, which I have not, I would point out what the statutory and estimates payments actually mean, because in agriculture we have a complete conflict in policy.
Supply-Agriculture
Last year we subsidized butter, at the rate of 12 cents per pound, to the extent of $42 million. That is understandable; I voted for it on the original bill. But at the same time we subsidize soybeans, which are used in the production of margarine. Therefore our subsidy on butter is a persecution of the soybean industry concerned with the production of margarine. We are subsidizing both, and to my mind that is a bunch of damned nonsense.


An hon. Member:: How would you do it?


Harold Edward Winch: I would have a real understanding of agricultural policy in Canada, tying in all agricultural aspects in all phases from the Pacific ocean to the Atlantic. Let us have a national agricultural policy. I think it is nonsense that within Canada we are in conflict agriculturally. We subsidize soybeans and we subsidize the dairy industry in regard to production of a similar product. We have in British Columbia the most marvellous fruit growing area. We grow apples, and they grow apples in Ontario and Nova Scotia. Why do we have this competition? Why do we not have understanding and a Canadian agricultural plan whereby we produce the right things in the places best suited to producing them. In that way we would have unity, efficiency, and the most competitive price possible with which to face the markets of the world.
This basically is my presentation, Mr. Chairman. But you can carry it on. I wonder how many million eggs or how many pounds of powdered eggs we have in Canada now that the taxpayers are paying for by way of support prices. We have so many million pounds of butter that they cannot even hold it in cold storage and have to make butter oil. What can we do with it? We cannot even give it away unless we supply the steamship bottoms in which to send it. In the hungry thirties they burned coffee in the South American states. I should like to know why we are spending millions and millions of dollars for no basic beneficial result. If we tried to give it away, what would be the answer? This government and previous governments have tried to give away some of our surplus produce for which the Canadian taxpayers are paying. What happened immediately this government or previous governments tried to do this? It was said, "You are interfering with our normal market". So you're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't.
Surely, sir, it is time we got down to some serious thinking, some serious planning. If I may be a bit crude, it is not going to take

Supply-Agriculture
just straight courage; it is going to take a lot of political, governmental and agricultural guts to face up to this problem. It is going to mean governmental control so that uneconomic farms are not established or the operators are moved into economic areas, and so that we do not pay subsidies and deficiency payments only to destroy food. Surely to God we do not have to destroy or waste our butter, powdered milk or canned pork when hundreds of millions of people in the world are starving today. Surely we have got enough sense-[DOT]


Mr. Greene:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Harold Edward Winch: In one moment, please. Surely we have enough sense, or should have as members of parliament, as farmers and as citizens of Canada to try to work out a logical solution to our problems in order to obtain the greatest efficiency so that we can compete in world markets and so that if we have surpluses we will not waste them but use them to feed the hungry people of the world.
I am not necessarily recommending a royal commission. Sometimes I think that royal commissions are a form of escapism for governments. If you have a problem, appoint a royal commission. It will take two, three or four years to complete its work and you will be safe. It will take a year to consider its report and you will be safe. It will take another year to move on one or two or three or four recommendations. Royal commissions are a method of escape. I know the problem cannot be solved in a month or even in a year or two years. But I say to members of the house on this first item of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture that a permanent system of subsidies is no answer to the problems of our economy or to the problems of agriculture.
The other place has been having a holiday while we have not. They do not have enough work to do, but I can think of four times when committees of the other place have done a marvellous job of investigation and study. I suggest that consideration might be given to setting up of a committee of the other place or a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate. Let that committee be given all the technical assistance and money they need and instruct them to make a study of all the various phases of agriculture in Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and the position of agriculture in relation to the rest of the economy. Let them then make a report to both houses of parliament and the government in office as to how we can find a permanent solution, a national agricultural policy for Canada that will really

mean something and will place our agriculturalists, whether they are engaged in mixed farming or are dairy farmers, soybean growers or growers of any other crop, in their proper relationship to the economy of Canada generally. In this way we will be able to guarantee our farmers security and comparability of income with professional people in Canada on a basis of completely efficient operation from production to marketing. In this way Canada would be able to compete in world markets as one of the greatest and finest agricultural countries in the universe.


John James Greene: Will the hon. member permit a question? I wonder whether he is speaking for the New Democratic party or merely for himself when he advises, as he has, that agricultural subsidies should be done away with.


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but apparently the hon. member has either not been here or has not listened to what I said in the seven minutes I spoke before one o'clock, and what I have said since. Not once but three times I have stated that in my 11 years as a member of this house I have on every occasion supported subsidies for every aspect of agriculture. I have also said that I support them now. But my point is that subsidies are not the answer to the problems of agriculture in our country. I say that we should get down to real study and planning for a national agricultural policy, so that in the long run we can get away from subsidies for agriculture. Let us plan so that agriculture can take its rightful place in the Canadian economy.


John James Greene: Would the hon. member tell the committee how his party would suggest that the farmers be coerced into growing what his all-brainy and all-knowing planners would decide they should grow in a particular region of Canada?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Oh, come, come; you are having a pipe dream.


Harold Edward Winch: I have been asked a question so I shall answer it. May I tell my hon. friend he may have a different idea of himself but my name is Winch, not Moses. I do not know all the problems; I do not know all the answers. I very rarely speak in this way, but may I say that I had the honour of being elected a member of the legislature of British Columbia for 20 years. I have been here for 11 years and, by God, there are not very many who have had 31 years in parliament undefeated. I put forward the problem as I see it and I make recommendations as to how I think we might tackle the problem.

Nobody in Canada can be coerced as long as we have a parliamentary democracy, because if the electors are not satisfied they can throw you out at the next election. They have not thrown me out yet.


John James Greene: Does the hon. member suggest he is the right man to lead his party into the promised land?


Harold Edward Winch: I am a follower, not a leader.


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a word or two about the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver East. First, however, 1 should like to join with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle in expressing my congratulations to the Minister of Agriculture for the change that has taken place in the thinking of the department with respect to research, the end results of money which is spent on exhibitions and so on.
I think that some of the things that the hon. member for Vancouver East has suggested are very worth while. I agree with him when he says that we should have a policy that will allow agriculture in Canada to reach what might be termed the optimum of production, that will allow us to distribute food to the hungry people of the world where-ever it is needed, and that we should do away with the conflict or what appears to be conflict in subsidies for the production of certain products. When he calls for a study of the problem I agree with him, but may I also say that it is probably the most perplexing problem in the world and one which is not confined to Canada.
We know, for example, that just a few months ago agricultural policy as it relates to trade between nations, particularly in Europe, almost caused the European economic community to dissolve. So the problem of distributing agricultural products and foodstuffs is a very large one and it has created far greater ramifications in other parts of the world than it has in Canada.
I should like also to remind him, and I do not do this to take anything away from the objectives he outlined, that the government of the United States has spent several billions of dollars over the last two years to support the price of farm products. After large quantities of food products were in a surplus supply position, the United States tried many ways of distributing it throughout the world. They tried selling it at reduced prices. They tried long term credits. They even came to the position where they sold large quantities of it and took what was called soft currencies in return, but left those currencies in the countries in which the food was sold
Supply-Agriculture
for development purposes. I am not sure of the reason for this, but it does not seem to me the United States has made a large number of friends by following this kind of policy. There may be other implications. I mention these things only to point out this is a very complex problems. While we may agree with the objectives, I am sure there is going to be a lot of disagreement on how to reach those objectives.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We have not had any suggestions from the minister on how to reach them.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I agree. I was going to say that I congratulate the minister upon some of the things he said with regard to some changes he proposed in connection with research exhibitions and so on. However, I was a little disappointed in the lack of some evidence of new policy with regard to what he was going to do about the depressed condition of agriculture in eastern Canada, and what he was going to do about moving some of the surpluses we have of butter, eggs and a few other things.
There is one very important change, Mr. Chairman, in what the Minister of Agriculture had to say today, and that is the attitude of the Liberal party toward the percentage of the national income farmers receive. I was very pleased indeed to hear the minister say that the Department of Agriculture now only takes about 3 per cent of the total national budget, and this was a very small amount indeed when compared to the contribution agriculture makes to the economy and to the well being of Canadians. I was pleased also to hear him say that there is a false impression in the minds of many Canadians that farmers are getting more than their fair share of the national income and of the federal government's budget. I suggest that if he has made this change in his own thinking, he should inform some of his colleagues, particularly those from the urban areas of Ontario, that this is now government policy.
During the last two election campaigns at least, these people did go about the province of Ontario telling the electors that when a new Liberal government came to power they would see the farmers did not get too much from the federal government. I think the minister should tell the Prime Minister that this is the policy. I recall very vividly not long ago that in a speech in Ontario the Prime Minister said one of the things his government would do would be to see that the $200 acreage bonus was no longer paid. I am not going to argue the merits or demerits of that bonus, but I do say that the statement probably was made for the political impact it

Supply-Agriculture
would have, and that impact was to alienate some of the urban electors from the government of the day. I am sure it had that effect because the results of the election in 1962 clearly indicated there was a disenchantment with the previous government and perhaps a large portion of it was the result of the charge that the Conservative government was paying far too much attention to the rural areas.
I agree with what the Minister of Agriculture said today, because 3 per cent of the national budget is a very small amount for the farmers to receive when one thinks of the contribution the farmers make in producing foodstuffs for the country. As the minister has said, we do have a very high standard of living. I should like to point out also that it is true there were some cash payments out of the national budget during those years from 1957 or 1958 to 1962. I do not want to go over a lot of history, but I say that from 1946 until 1953 or 1954, the farmers producing grain in the western provinces certainly had a lot of consideration coming to them from the people of Canada for having accepted substantially less for their products than those products were selling on the world market. This is an old story that has been told many times, but it is still valid today.
To get back to this matter of research, I may say I am pleased the minister is now going to put more emphasis on the utility and practical value that can come from the research stations across Canada. I know he has appointed an advisory committee to sit in at meetings with the officials of the Manyberries range station. I agree that this is a good idea. I should like to offer some suggestions to him and to this committee because the Manyberries range station happens to be in my constituency. I know this station has, in fact, developed many new methods for range management using some new varieties of seed, and that is very beneficial to all areas of the prairie provinces. One of the problems is that there has been a tendency on the part of farmers and ranchers not to make use of this information and actually apply it to their own operation.
I have a number of reports here from the Manyberries range station. This station has proven conclusively that the use of tame grasses such as crested wheatgrass, wild Russian ryegrass and Rambler alfalfa, in conjunction with native grasses actually increases productivity of the land. For example, I have in front of me a publication that was printed at the Manyberries range station in the summer of 1962, which contains a table indicating the total digestive nutrients in three different

types of fodder. In so far as native grass is concerned the table shows the amount consumed contained 69 pounds of total digestible nutrients per acre; the crested wheatgrass contained 144 pounds of total disgestible nutrients, and the Russian wild rye contained 150 pounds of total digestible nutrients per acre. These grasses were grown in exactly the same area, with the same amount of rainfall and with the same fertility so far as the soil is concerned.
In addition to that, Dr. R. W. Lodge, who conducted a number of experiments, states that as a result of seven years of grazing trials they have shown that complementary grazing-a combination of native and tame pastures-will increase annual beef production by at least 50 per cent. They found that li acres of crested wheatgrass, plus eight acres of native grass, carried a yearling for five months of grazing. Where native grass was used alone, it took 16 acres to carry a yearling steer. The complementary grazing produced 35 pounds of beef per acre, as compared to only 20 pounds per acre where only native grass was used.
I wish to point out that the research station at Manyberries has already found out how to double the carrying capacity and how to increase, from 20 pounds to 35 pounds, the production of beef per acre. But unfortunately, in the areas where farmers could make use of this advice, they are not doing that. I suggest that some kind of program be undertaken to make the farmers aware of the results of this test. There is no greater incentive for a farmer to change his method than to let him realize it is profitable to do so.
We have to face some pretty disturbing developments respecting the production of beef in other parts of the world. For example, the United States had had to try to enter into import agreements with Australia, New Zealand and Ireland because these countries have a far lower cost of production per pound of beef and their competition with the United States producer is becoming very severe.
Just a few months ago quite a number of cattlemen in western Canada attended a meeting in Memphis, Tennessee, sponsored by the beef growing organizations in the United States. Many of the, shall I say, cow and calf operators who raised beef on the open range, thought they were pretty efficient producers and could compete with anybody anywhere in the world. But the United States organizations had sent a team to Australia to see what they were doing there, and even the most efficient of the producers on the North American continent became concerned



IS64

[Stage Direction]
with the reports that came back. For example, on an actuarial cost calculation it is possible for Australian producers to raise a steer from the time it is born until it is two years old, for $6.80. No one in Canada or the United States can come anywhere near that cost factor.
The Australian steer may not be of the same quality and as big as the Canadian steer, but with modern transportation it is possible for the Australians to send their beef to the North American continent and sell it here for less than half the cost of home production of North American beef.
We know a great deal about how to increase the efficiency of our beef production, but there has been a missing link in getting the farmers to adopt the new procedures and new methods which have been tested and proven satisfactory. I do not want to labour this point any more, except to say that along with the new facilities for research something should be done to encourage ranchers and farmers to make use of the knowledge that has been discovered.
The minister mentioned exhibitions and the change which would be made in government grants for agricultural exhibitions. I agree with him that there should be more emphasis on utility than has been the case in the past. In so far as the prize winners in beef classes are concerned, I suppose the prettiest animal gets the prize, but that does not necessarily mean it is the most efficient, in terms of the feed conversion factor. However, I would suggest that the minister move rather slowly in making changes because we have a long tradition respecting the kind of classes that are judged in these shows, and the people who breed and prepare animals for them will not be able suddenly to change over to a whole new classification.
For this reason I am glad the minister is starting out with a pilot project for Hereford beef cattle, and perhaps by next year something can be done with respect to hogs and sheep.
I did not quite follow the remarks of the minister when he talked about trying to tie research and exhibition policies together. I hope that some time during this debate he will be able to give more explanation of that. Of course I understand that the prizes which will be offered in exhibitions will have the purpose of enhancing and upgrading the practical value of animals developed in Canada, but I did not quite follow his remarks as to how this was to be related to research. I was very interested in his comments that there would be only two classes of bulls, four classes of females, and a completely new
Supply-Agriculture
concept in the classification of the factors that will determine the winners in the steer classes. I shall not go into the detail of these now, but there is a great deal of merit in what the minister said.
With respect to grain, whether it be wheat, oats, barley or any other type, I am pleased the minister will insist that a large quantity of grain be produced to back up the sample that is actually shown to the judges. In many cases the prizes have been given to those persons who have carefully gone through a large amount of grain and picked a select sample from it. If exhibitors were required to show a reasonable, commercial amount of grain to back up their samples, it would be impossible for them to get away with their previous practices, where probably only 5 per cent or 10 per cent of the grower's grain actually looked the same as the samples presented to the judges. Surely, it is only reasonable to expect that what the judges inspect should be representative.
I am glad the minister is supporting and intends to participate in the conference to be held in Montreal later this month to reclassify hogs and try to improve their food conversion rate along with their "cutability"-I think that was the word he used.
There is another point I wish to raise. It was brought up by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle and is a very valid point when we are considering agriculture. It is that, perhaps even more important than production, is the question of distribution and marketing. I have long contended that in western Canada, where I know the agricultural establishment best, if at any time there is a guaranteed substantial market for any particular product, whether it be beef, or wheat or barley or anything else, at a price level which will enable the producers to make some money, the farmers, who are very resourceful, will be able to supply the product. We know that in the past three years there has been a substantial and expanding market for wheat. It is true there have been better than average crops and that the good harvests may to a large extent have been due to favourable weather; but at the same time I can assure the minister that if there is a continuing market on the long term basis over say, five years or ten years, the farmers of western Canada could increase the output of wheat still further. Last year it was 720 million bushels. They could easily produce a billion bushels or even more as long as they could sell it at a profit. I believe this is also true of beef.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture
Not very long ago the present minister and, indeed, the former minister of agriculture were advocating that people should devote part of their operation to the production of beef. I was concerned at the time that if this movement went too far there would be surpluses and the price of beef would fall, resulting in an unfortunate position for the one commodity which has been helping to maintain the stability of our agricultural economy. That has not happened yet, but there has certainly been a lowering of the price of beef and it is to some extent due to the fact that more and more people are getting into beef production after being encouraged to do so by the minister and by his predecessor in office. So, as I have said, this question of distribution is one of great importance.
Something should be said about the problem of farmers in eastern Canada. As far as we in this party are concerned, we are prepared to support some kind of program which would improve the position of these farmers. We should like to hear some statement on dairy policies. We think this new approach to hog classification and selection is a good move. We have stated on several occasions that we support a policy of getting feed grain into eastern Canada at least at a stabilized price-whether it is higher or lower is something else. But at least these farmers and feeders in eastern Canada should know from one month to the next how much they will have to pay for their feed.
It is easy to say that there are too many farms in eastern Canada which are too small to be efficient, but I know there is an attachment to the land and to the family home which has been built up there over the generations. This is also true of western Canada, but not to the same extent. While understanding this we must face the fact that our farms are becoming larger and that larger farms are more efficient. Perhaps some kind of program could be undertaken to encourage an increase in the acreage of farms in eastern Canada in order to improve the efficiency of their operation. I was pleased to note a few days ago a release from the department informing us that 44 new soil and water conservation projects had been approved for Quebec under the ARDA program. That release was dated April 15. We support this, but we believe the minister should be moving a little faster in some of the other areas. I know that the minister of agriculture for the province of Alberta said only a few days ago that the federal government had acted a little less than fast in approving some of the cost-sharing programs

under ARDA. I do not know why the government has, apparently, not moved as rapidly as the provinces are ready to move. It may be that the federal government has not worked out all the details as to what they intend to include in the projects they would be prepared to approve. In any event, I think the government is moving far too slowly in this matter, though some progress is being made.
In my own constituency there is one project which, I believe, has already been submitted to the federal Department of Agriculture. I suppose, now, it is in the hands of the Department of Forestry. It concerns the establishment of ground water reserves in the southern part of the prairie. We have just gone through a winter during which very little snow has fallen. Consequently there has been very little run-off and the surplus water available for stock watering purposes particularly is at a very low level. I know that the local ARDA committee did recommend that a fairly large program be undertaken to delineate the ground water resources in order that wells could be drilled and stock water brought to the surface.
Lucien Lamoureux: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I still have half a minute left-


Lucien Lamoureux: Does the committee give unanimous consent to the hon. member continuing?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I must urge the minister to do what he can to get this project approved at once and to reintroduce the program which will allow some assistance through P.F.R.A. in respect to the drilling of water wells for stock watering purposes.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, allow me first of all to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) for the rather interesting statement he made a while ago.
It is gratifying for us to see him so often in the house because it is always pleasant to see that a minister is interested in our work and discussions. I must say that we did deplore the frequent absences of the minister from the house.
But I am still wondering which personage I should admire in our Minister of Agriculture: the minister or the businessman? This afternoon, I am convinced that the Minister of Agriculture is an outstanding businessman. He is also very good at stock farming, especially at beef cattle breeding.

Therefore, his speech was very good as far as his knowledge is concerned, but not quite so good as far as his responsibilities as minister are concerned.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, we were expecting this afternoon to be presented with a general statement on the Liberal party farm policy for the whole of Canada. We, from the province of Quebec, expected something to raise our hopes for some improvement in the status of our agriculture which is now at its lowest level. In fact, if we consider statistics for the last 20 years, we find that, as far as farming is concerned, the western provinces have continually bettered their position while the province of Quebec saw its situation deteriorating more and more, to the point that nowadays, it is on the verge of bankruptcy.
I made those few observations to draw the minister's attention on the real problems facing the province of Quebec. Far be it from me to criticize without rhyme or reason. I simply wish to draw the minister's attention to that situation and tell him that people in my riding and farmers all across the province of Quebec are expecting some action from the federal government. I think that if this government does not take positive steps in 1964, the loss suffered by agriculture in the province of Quebec could not be repaired.
As I said, we were very disappointed this afternoon to hear about cattle trade, beef breeding, international exhibitions and fairs, and finally wheat, and that last point did not surprise us too much. Since I have been in this house, every time agriculture is discussed, in 95 per cent of cases, the discussion has to do with wheat: will farmers be able to sow it, is there going to be enough rain, will they be able to harvest wheat, and finally will it be possible to sell it? All the efforts of the minister are for the wheat business and the products of the other provinces are not discussed in this house.
I would ask the minister-if he has found markets for our cattle as the Minister of Trade and Commerce found some for our wheat, well and good-to devote some of his efforts to try and find markets for the dairy products of the province of Quebec. And let them stop telling us, when we have production surpluses in some fields: cease production, you have too much produce.
If we were going to say that for wheat, Mr. Chairman, what would happen to Canada?
No, we never have too much wheat; we must always have more. The ministers concerned have the responsibility of finding 20220-163
Supply-Agriculture
markets for that product. In the province of Quebec we have too much milk and we are told: stop production. We have too much cheese and we are told: throw it away. We have too many eggs, and we are told: let them go bad. Such are the answers we are given. It is necessary-


Mr. Asselin:: Who says that?


Mr. Choquette:: Who said that?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I am not talking about the present government, but of what I have been hearing for 50 years.
What strikes me-and you are well aware of the fact-is that we have not had a single minister of agriculture from eastern Canada in the last 50 years. In all fairness we should at least be given one from the east from time to time. You people from the west have had them all for the last 50 years, while we did not even have one. We are asking for a minister from the east, and we are a bit disappointed at not getting one.
The minister does not seem to realize what serious problems eastern farmers are up against, and especially those in Quebec. He acts as if only western Canada existed and he is quite shocked when he is asked, and I am quoting him: "What do you do with the money we send you in the west?"
That is what the minister said this afternoon. In my opinion, that question, which he put to the house, is the most interesting part of his speech.
I admit that if western Canada is very prosperous today it is due to the joint programs. But it must be remembered that all those joint programs are paid for by taxes on a pro rata basis according to the population of each province. Forty years ago the country's two largest provinces, that is Quebec and Ontario, agreed to take part in these programs to help economically weak provinces. They were happy to do it, sure that their sacrifices would benefit them later.
Today, things are different; the poorer provinces have become prosperous, at least they have means of subsistence. Therefore, it is no longer urgent to assist them. That is why we maintain that a number of joint programs should be done away with. Besides, that was a promise made by the Liberal party.
I should like to call every hon. member's attention on this matter of joint programs in order to readjust this assistance according to present needs. To prove my point, I would ask the minister to look at the latest

Supply-Agriculture
publication about federal-provincial conditional grants under joint programs. I received this publication recently and I was greatly interested in it. I urge all those interested in agriculture, as well as all those interested in joint programs in general, to read it. You will see that, very often, the claims of the province of Quebec are well founded if you study calmly the distribution of those joint programs. Just to mention a few lines, I will simply take the Department of Agriculture, at page 11, the part dealing with manpower: joint program on manpower.
In 1961-62, total benefits for the province of Quebec were $21,000.
This is what agricultural joint programs yielded under the agreements; Prince Edward Island, $21,000; Nova Scotia, $130,000; New Brunswick, $61,659; Quebec, $287,560; Ontario, $1,213,982; Manitoba, $290,697; Alberta, $837,442; and British Columbia, $390,899.
If you take into account the population figures for each province or if you figure those grants on a pro rata basis, you will see that they are not advantageous for Quebec.
Another joint program concerns the federal government contribution toward the transportation cost of cattle to the Royal Winter Fair, and the Minister of Agriculture is familiar with that. In that field, the federal government reimburses 75 per cent of the cost borne by the provinces; there again, western Canada gets the highest grants.
Grants are somewhat to the advantage of Quebec in one field and that is in the assistance provided in the case of agricultural lime.
I am quoting those figures in order to kill two birds with one stone; I want to prove that compared to the other provinces, Quebec needs more assistance in this regard. Federal grants are distributed as follows: Newfoundland, $18,313; Prince Edward Island, $71,457; Nova Scotia, $115,526; New Brunswick, $106,487; Quebec, $2,236,648; Ontario, $436,536; British Columbia, $74,500.
This clearly shows the poor quality of Quebec farms. As a matter of fact, there are no payments for the western provinces which have been built up, so to speak, thanks to these joint programs. If I quote these figures, it is simply to prove that there should not be any joint programs for provinces that do not need them in the least, now.
During 1961-62, the federal government paid a subsidy of $217,040 to the province of Manitoba for damming and drainage works in the Riding and Duck Mountain basin.

As far as Saskatchewan is concerned, the federal government spent there until March 31, 1961, the sum of $2,208,853 for the development of the Pasquia area along the Saskatchewan river.
Mr. Chairman, it should be noted that those are all joint programs for the sole benefit of the western provinces; Quebec gets nothing.
In the same province again, and until March 31, 1962, the federal government spent $30,165,796 for irrigation and power works with respect to the South Saskatchewan river.
Now to revert to the maritime provinces, it was found that the federal government spent a total amount of $311,305 under the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act.
Still in the field of joint programs, we come now to ARDA. In my opinion, it is the plan which might have been of the greatest benefit to the province of Quebec. As a matter of fact, it has finally been realized that the few possibilities we had were not used. Last year, an amount of $111,000 was spent, and, this year, about $1,500,000 will be spent for land drainage alone.
In answer to the question I asked last year, I was told that the western provinces had received $179,000. At last we are going to receive this year an amount of $1 million under joint programs.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to criticize the western provinces, but I merely want to set the record straight, so that the value of ARDA might be judged.
Recently, the Department of Forestry issued a release in which one could read:
"Four different programs under the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act (ARDA) provide for the extension and development of pastures along the forest line in northern Saskatchewan", says a joint announcement by federal Minister of Forestry Maurice Sauve, and Saskatchewan Minister of Agriculture I. C. Nollet. A fifth project which has been approved for the province of Saskatchewan provides for the continuation of a drainage and flood control program.
Those, Mr. Chairman, are the advantages which have been granted to the western provinces.
Quebec might have more particularly last year, benefited from ARDA to a greater extent if the farmers had been offered greater advantages with regard to agriculture.
But what did actually happen? To get the right picture we only need to look up the list or the number of farm credit counsellors who advise the farmers in each area. Those advisors on farm credit might have made us benefit to a greater extent from ARDA, in connection with our land.
And how are the farm counsellors distributed? In British Columbia there are six, in

Alberta 32, in Saskatchewan 36, in Manitoba 12, in Ontario 35, and only four in Quebec. The same situation prevails in almost every field. But, even considering only the agricultural sector, I think that I have quoted enough figures to indicate to this government that if it does not wake up and straighten out things soon, it is useless for the taxpayers of Quebec to pay taxes, just to starve on their land.
The federal government paid $58,856 to the western provinces in premiums for pedigreed breeding stock.
The federal government even subsidizes sow breeding contests. It is true that the subsidy is not very high but New Brunswick and Manitoba did receive $1,705.
In 1961-62, the federal government spent $203,269, that is $140,745 in Manitoba, $37,864 in Saskatchewan and $24,600 in British Columbia, to encourage the construction of storage facilities for potatoes. On the other hand, Quebec did not get a cent. However, at last a little money is going to be spent there in 1964.
As far as crop insurance is concerned, I do not remember exactly the statistics, since I asked for such data last year. As Quebec is not participating in this scheme it did not receive anything, but the Quebec taxpayers pay federal taxes just the same.
For the fiscal year 1961-62, the federal government spent the sum of $193,932 for crop insurance in Manitoba.
As for the drilling of community wells under the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act, the federal government pays 35 per cent of the cost.
Considering the grants paid as indemnity for losses caused by disease, it is found that during 1961-62, the federal government paid $12,814, but that Quebec did not receive a cent.
Now let us speak about the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act.
Up to March 31, 1962, the federal government paid $23,550,036 for the St. Mary river irrigation project. As for the Bow river project, the federal government spent $30,577,445, of which $2,400,000 was to purchase the assets of the company that had undertook this project.
The eastern irrigation district, that is the former Brooks district, in Alberta, received a federal contribution of $35,793 in 1959-60 and of $83,449 in 1960-61.
Let us take a closer look at the situation with regard to the feed grain transportation assistance. In 1958-59, Saskatchewan and Alberta received $183,623 and $46,976 in 1959-60, for a grand total of $230,599, while 20220-163J
Supply-Agriculture
the province of Quebec got nothing at all.
Now, let us consider another project. In 1959-60 and 1960-61, in view of the poor harvesting conditions which prevailed in the prairie provinces, the federal government spent $316,972.
On June 27, 1961, in view of the extreme drought of that year, the federal government offered the prairie provinces to pay half the amounts they had spent and then disbursed the sum of $1,091,604.
Let us consider now the matter of transportation of seed grain in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The government agreed to pay back 75 per cent of the freight charges.
Under the heading of emergency assistance with regard to unharvested crops, we learn that the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba received a total amount of $6,182,452. And so forth, Mr. Chairman.
We could give enough proof to put an end to the contention that we, Quebeckers, are always criticizing or speaking without rhyme or reason. We do not speak without rhyme or reason; we make claims in order to balance the position of the province of Quebec with regard to that of other provinces. In my opinion, this can only be done by establishing a department of agriculture for the east, and this is what I want to deal with.
The project of establishing a department of agriculture for the east has been given up, but I believe that we should reconsider it. I then ask the Minister of Agriculture to examine this question because it is the only way we can solve the agricultural problem in the east.
We need a department that will try to improve agricultural conditions so that our farmers may know a certain degree of prosperity after giving so much in taxes over the last 35 years to the western provinces. Now that their agriculture is well organized, we should get the opportunity to reorganize ours.
Right now we are a little like the father who has given too much to his children. We gave too much and we are still giving a lot to the western provinces in taxes of all kinds. That is why we ask you, with regard to joint programs, to give us back our taxing powers, so that we may give a new lease on life to our agriculture, after contributing to the development of agriculture throughout Canada and giving it that impetus about which we boast everywhere.
Let us give Quebec farmers a chance to rebuild their economy and regain the control of their own business. That is why it is urgent to give them competent men and especially financial means. Let us put an end to the programs which benefit Quebec only

Supply-Agriculture
in a proportion of 32 per cent whereas our province's share of taxes is paid on the basis of its population.
That is why I advocate the repeal of such taxes. If the Minister of Agriculture, being the businessman he is, took the trouble of treating eastern farmers not as farmers but as businessmen, if he prefers, I am sure he would be aware of the pitiful condition of agriculture in our part of the country. If he is sincere and responsible, he will strive to make Canada a place where it is good to live because for the past 30 years we from Quebec have done our share to make this country the bread basket of the world as far as wheat is concerned.
Let us have the opportunity to recover the little that is left to us, to rebuild our strength and to take our place among the other provinces so that Quebec may once again be for Canada the asset it was 30 or 35 years ago.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Francis):: The
hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe.


Joseph Patrick Tobin Asselin: Not now, Mr. Chairman.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The
hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to intervene in the debate at this point but I am prompted to do so by some of the interruptions that have been made by members opposite. I noticed that when the hon. member for Qu'Appelle was speaking and when the hon. member for Vancouver East was speaking members across the way kept interrupting and saying, "What would you do"? It seems to me somebody ought to tell the government members that a year ago the people of Canada elected them to office on their promise that they knew what to do about agricultural problems. They went about the length and breadth of this country telling people in the rural constituencies particularly what they were going to do about farm credit, what they going to do about crop insurance, what they were going to do about national marketing boards, what they were going to do about the price of farm machinery and other farm costs, and now we deserve something better than to have from government members the question, "What would you do"? It seems to me that we are entitled-


Mr. Byrne:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -to an answer from them as to what they intend to do.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -I am sure the hon. member
would not want to misinterpret what was said. I was in the house when some of these interruptions were made and they were not "what would you do" but "what did you do"? That was the question that was asked.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member was not here most of the time.


Mr. Vincent:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of clarification, is it Liberal time which has been given to the N.D.P. now?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I recognized the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe and he indicated he was passing at that point, so I recognized the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


Clément Vincent: Is the time being taken from the time of the Liberal party?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The
Chair recognized the only member who was on his feet at that point.


Clément Vincent: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago I went to the Chair and asked if I would be next and was told I would be. I was told that a Liberal member would be the next speaker and that I would have the floor after him.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Unfortunately I had to recognize the hon. member who was on his feet at that time. I believe that is the practice of the house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I was saying to the committee that I think the government has a responsibility to tell us what they propose to do, not ask what the opposition proposes to do. As far as the hon. member for Kootenay East is concerned, he was not in the house when the hon. member for Vancouver East was speaking.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There is no member of the house who pops up more often to talk about things he does not know anything about than the hon. member for Kootenay East.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I ask
the hon. member to sit down. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has the floor.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member said I was not in the house. I can tell the hon. member and you, Mr. Chairman, that I was in the house and left the house only a few moments ago to return almost immediately.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the hon. member had let me finish he would have heard me say that he was not in the house when the hon. member for Vaucouver East was interrupted by a member who wanted to know what he would do. He could not have been asking, "What did you do" because the hon. member for Vancouver East was never the head of a government nor the member of a government.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman-


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The
hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has the floor.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -the member for Kootenay East was in the house all the time while the hon. member for Vancouver East was speaking.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Order. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has the floor and other members will have an opportunity to speak in the course of the debate.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the hon. member for Kootenay East was in the house that proves my point, that although he was listening he did not understand anything of what was going on. This is characteristic of most of his conduct in the house. He seldom understands what anybody else is saying and most of the time nobody understands what he is trying to say.


An hon. Member:: Raise another question of privilege.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: That is a matter of opinion.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Before I was unnecessarily interrupted I was about to say that I would have expected the Minister of Agriculture, in opening the debate on his estimates, to tell the committee, and through the committee the farmers of Canada, what he intends to do to meet some of their most pressing problems, particularly what he intends to do to implement some of the pledges which the government made to the farmers of Canada last year in the election campaign. The minister made a very excellent speech, if it were being delivered to a fair board, on how to raise better livestock, how to improve certain varieties of grain and how to get better production on certain kinds of soil, all of which is very useful, and I compliment him on his knowledge in these fields. But the minister has not told the committee or the farmers what he proposes to do about their most pressing problem, the problem of farm income.
Supply-A griculture
If the farmers could get a price that is commensurate with their costs of production, the minister would not have any trouble about getting farmers to co-operate in producing a better class of livestock, in experimenting with new varieties of grain, new types of fertilizer and increasing their production. The farmers of the prairie provinces have proven that. As soon as the wheat board was able to sell wheat, the farmers soon demonstrated they could grow wheat. As soon as this government demonstrates they can help the farmer rectify his income problem, there will be no problem about getting farmers to increase their production. 1 say the central problem facing farmers in all parts of Canada today is the problem of farm income.
The dominion bureau of statistics figures show that real income per farm in 1951 was $2,641; in 1952, it was $2,656. From then on, it was below that and considerably below that. In 1954, it went down to $1,890 and only exceeded the 1952 figures in 1961 when it rose to $2,755. In 1962 it was $3,144, which is an all time high. This was the cash income per farm. The dominion bureau of statistics shows that when these figures are adjusted into constant 1951 dollars, the farm income in 1951 was $2,641 and stayed below that, every year until 1962 when it was $2,487. In other words, we have never since 1951 reached, in constant dollars, the per farm income of 1951, namely, $2,641. In terms of what a dollar will buy, farm income is lower now than it was in 1951. The last figures which were published for 1963 show that total farm cash income is up by 2.2 per cent, but that the net income for the farmer is only up in two provinces and is down in every other province.
The real measurement of the farmer's prosperity cannot be measured by looking at his income, either his net income or his cash income. At the same time you have to look at what it costs him to produce. If one takes a look at the index commodity figure for the things which the farmers has to buy in order to produce, one finds that in 1951 it was 230 and in 1962 it had climbed to 290. This is a fabulous increase in price of the things the farmer buys. The dominion bureau of statistics shows that the index commodity figure for the things a farmer had to sell in 1951 was 296 and in 1962 it had dropped to 264.
The real problem, therefore, facing agriculture is that while the prices which the farmer receives for the products he produces have gone down, the prices of the things which he must buy in order to produce have gone up at an amazing rate. This is why agriculture faces a serious problem. I say that

Supply-Agriculture
before we pass this item the committee should insist that we have some statement from the minister referring to the matters which he outlined to us last year. He said the government was going to take some action to reduce the price of farm machinery. I remember asking him some questions last year: What was the government going to do to reduce these prices; was there going to be an investigation by an agriculture committee of the house; what steps had the government in mind to bring prices down because agricultural implements constitute for farmers, the most important item in their cost of production?
This is not only true of farm implements, it is equally true of other things which the farmer must buy, such as his pesticides and fertilizers. A great many of the commodities which the farmer buys have gone up in price, while the price he receives for his products in constant dollars has gone down. The minister, it seems to me, ought to tell the committee what he is going to do about farm costs.
The minister told us also last session that he was going to introduce some legislation to help farmers get credit. As everyone recognizes, agriculture now is highly capitalized and it requires larger amounts of capital for equipment, for land, for buildings, for mechanization and for many of the materials that are necessary for production. This means the average farmer is suffering from the problem of under-capitalization. When the minister talked today about improving stock and improving farming methods, what ought to be kept in mind is that all of this costs money. A farmer cannot improve his production, he cannot improve his farm methods unless he is able to get the necessary capital to carry out such a program.
I think we should have a statement from the minister as to what the government's plans are with reference to farm credit. I believe we should have a statement also with reference to crop insurance. Last year during the election campaign the Liberal party referred often to reinsurance in connection with crop insurance plans. It is undoubtedly true that too large a share of the responsibility has been left with the few provincial governments who have co-operated with the federal government in setting up crop insurance plans. Reinsurance would be a partial solution. Is the minister going to bring in legislation for reinsurance under the crop insurance plan? If he is, I think we should be told about it, or he should put it on the order paper so we could know before these

estimates are passed whether the government was merely talking last year during the election or whether it intends to carry out the promises it made.
Most important of all, I think we need to know something about the government's intention with regard to setting up national marketing boards, about which it talked a great deal during the last federal election. One of the very specific promises that was made was uttered by the Prime Minister on March 7, 1963 in the city of Saskatoon when he told the farmers of western Canada that in lieu of acreage payments, which the Liberal party were going to discontinue, it was the intention of the Liberal party if elected to compensate the farmer in two ways: First of all, to institute the two price system for wheat and, second, by guaranteeing to the farmers by means of deficiency payments, $2 per bushel for No. 1 wheat, basis Fort William. We have not had a single word as to whether the government intends to proceed with this very specific commitment made by the Prime Minister, and echoed and re-echoed by the Liberal candidates all over western Canada.
The indications are that the price of wheat is declining. For the last crop year the average price for all grain worked out at about $1.65 a bushel as compared with $1.68 a bushel for the previous crop year. On the basis of the sales to the Soviet union and China, which have been around the market price, it looks as though the average price for No. 1 will not be much better than $1.95 a bushel, basis Fort William. If this is true, then under the Liberal commitment there ought to be at least a deficiency payment of five cents a bushel on No. 1 wheat in this crop year, and whatever adjusted price there would be for the other grades.
Are we going to have this commitment carried out? If the government has decided to repudiate it, surely in all honesty the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Prime Minister ought to tell us that the government was just kidding when it made this promise to the wheat growers of western Canada, that it was just a political platform that is used like a railway platform-you use it to get in on, and then forget about it when you are in. If that is what the government has decided, let them say so honestly, but let us not evade the issue by pretending the promise was never made.
We would like to know something about the national marketing boards for hogs and cattle. The farmers are very perturbed about

fluctuations in cattle and hog prices, and it would do a great deal to help the minister's problem of production if the farmers knew in advance that there was to be a guaranteed price, and that there would be deficiency payments adequate to meet the farmers' cost of production when they produce these commodities.
All I am asking is that the minister do not treat this committee to just a lecture on livestock and crop diversification. Before this first item of the estimates is passed I hope he will use this occasion to tell the farmers what the government intends to do about the basic problems facing agriculture, and to tell this committee what he intends to do about the specific promises he made-whether he intends to carry them out, how he intends to carry them out, and how soon the legislation to implement those commitments will be placed on the order paper.


Erik Nielsen: In the short time left to me this afternoon I do not intend to discuss the agricultural problems that exist in my riding. I shall wait until I have a little more time to place these problems fully before the minister, but I thought I would bring a little joy into the minister's life this afternoon by raising a particular matter which came to my attention during my travels across the country.
The minister is probably aware of R.C.A.F. station Namao at Edmonton. I travel through Edmonton quite a good deal, and as recently as April 5 and April 6 I had occasion to be at R.C.A.F. station Namao, where I talked with some people and received a good deal of very interesting information.
I have been informed that there was a contract concerning the supply of milk and ice cream to this R.C.A.F. station, and I believe the contractor under the same contract also supplied the same products to the army station Griesbach at Edmonton. This contract ran from October 1963 until March 1964. I see I have the minister's rapt attention, and I know the recollection he must have of this contract.
The contractor was a certain Purity Dairy Company in Edmonton, and a very strange sequence of events transpired recently, which cause some doubt as to the integrity of the department itself, its officials and the minister. My information is that the company was managed by a Mr. Trach, Jacob Trach, and he was called up by the minister's representative in Edmonton and requested to cut this six month contract in half. Naturally, having signed the contract for the supply of these goods to the Namao and Griesbach stations,
Supply-Agriculture
he was somewhat reluctant because he was in possession of an executed contract between himself and the government, and he felt he should fulfil the full provisions of it. He objected to this and he requested to have a personal discussion-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but there is nothing he has said until now that I can see relates to item 1 of the Department of Agriculture. It may be a fact that the Minister of Agriculture has done something, or has failed to do something else, but that does not necessarily place the matter within the boundaries of the item before us. It has to be something which has to do with the Department of Agriculture itself, and it seems to me that the complaint, which might be a very legitimate one, might come possibly under the items of the Department of National Defence. It may be that the hon. member wants to relate this to the Department of Agriculture, and I would ask him to do so, if he thinks it can be done.


Erik Nielsen: Well now, sir, I cannot see anything that would be more relevant to item 1 in the discussion of the minister's estimates than a discussion of the minister's actions or of the actions of officials in his department. If the minister's own personal actions are involved, or those of any of his officials, in the matter I am raising, then this would be relevant to the item under discussion. I make that submission with the greatest respect to you, sir.
I want to provide the minister with this information in the short time left, so that he will have the whole week end and all of next week to get all the facts and bring them back to the committee and inform us fully. I of course abide by your decision, Mr. Chairman, but I submit on that basis the discussion is relevant.


Lucien Lamoureux: I must say with all due respect to the hon. member that the last thing in the world I want to do is try to limit the discussion, but I do feel there is nothing at all in what the hon. member has said until now that relates to the specific item before the committee. As he knows, what we are trying to do all the time is limit the discussion in committee specifically to the item under discussion. This could be the type of thing that might come under grievances, or under another department, but I am afraid I have to rule that the point which has been raised by the hon. member is not relevant to the item now before the committee.


Erik Nielsen: I do not for a moment question the ruling you have made, sir, but allow me

Supply-Agriculture
if you will to submit that under the general item in the estimates, item No. 1, we are being asked to pass certain salaries involving officials of the Department of Agriculture and the minister himself. Now then, if we as members of the committee have any remarks concerning the activities of the officials of his department, or the activities of the minister himself, which activities relate directly to the question of salaries and which activities relate directly to the administration of the department, this I submit with the greatest respect is the time to raise this matter; and if Your Honour will allow me to make one further point-Your Honour has not yet heard my fully developed argument in this respect and I would, with great respect, suggest that you permit me to develop it before you come to any firm conclusion-


Lucien Lamoureux: As I have already said twice, nothing which the hon. member has said until now brings this particular point within the framework of the item. If the hon. member wishes to show me and the other members of the committee that this is really a matter which comes under the item before us I would certainly be prepared to hear him.


Erik Nielsen: I am sure Your Honour will realize the relevancy as I go along. The information I have leads me to believe, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, that the minister has personally interfered with the full term of a contract for the supply of milk and ice cream to an R.C.A.F. station-


Harry William Hays: I know absolutely nothing of what the hon. member is insinuating. I will be glad to look into it, but as far as I am concerned I can categorically deny any of these insinuations he has made.


Erik Nielsen: I have simply made the suggestion that the minister has interfered in the present contract. I am sure that because of the hon. gentleman's interest he will want to have the details of the information in my possession so as to allow him to make a complete investigation of the circumstances I am about to place before him. An official of the department in Edmonton, one Mr. McKay, had a personal discussion with the sales manager of the Purity Dairy Company, Mr. Trach, according to my information, and out of that discussion came the suggestion on the part of his official that the six months contract be cut in half. The civil servant involved, Mr. McKay, inferred, or said, he was acting under the direction of the minister, or under the direction of officials in Ottawa. He went even further-


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Is it in order to bring such accusations against civil servants in the course of debate, when they cannot reply to this kind of irresponsible charge?


Erik Nielsen: The minister represents them here. I am making no direct accusation against any civil servant. I am saying that when information such as this comes to my attention it should be investigated and the minister has a responsibility for investigating this type of situation because it concerns his department.


Mr. Deachman:: Is it not the proper procedure, when a matter of this kind arises, to put it in the form of a question to the minister? Then when a reply is available the matter can be debated. Surely it is pointless, when the minister has no information before him, to put this kind of question.


Erik Nielsen: That is precisely what I am seeking to do now-to pass on to the minister all the information which is in my possession so that he can make the kind of investigation which will produce the answers, and allow him to come back and make an explanation to this committee. If the information I have is inaccurate, that is fine; I shall be very happy. But I am concerned that it may not be inaccurate.
In the conversations to which I have referred, not only was the suggestion made to Mr. Trach that the contract be halved but he was informed that unless he was tractable in this regard some method would be found to have his product declared below the standard acceptable at the stations. I want to ask the minister this: Did any of his officials in Edmonton make any approach to the manager or other personnel of the Purity Dairy Company to suggest that this contract be cut in half and, if such an approach was made, did any of his officials, either here or in Edmonton, or did he himself, authorize a suggestion to be made to the Purity Dairy Company or any of its employees that the government could in accordance with instructions from Ottawa find something wrong with the milk and ice cream supplied by the company?


Harry William Hays: On a point of order, I think the hon. member is making a lot of insinuations. I know nothing about this. I should like to investigate. As to the smears he has made, let me say we have between 10,000 and 12,000 employees; we have the responsibility for spending in the neighbourhood of $1 million a day on working days. I assure the hon. member we will investigate this matter and

give him a reply. He has not come out with anything definite; he has just been beating about the bush.


Mr. Stewart:: No sources.


Erik Nielsen: I heard an intervention; I could not identify the hon. member who spoke because he did not rise. He said there were no sources. But I am giving the minister the name of the official concerned, according to the best of my information, in Edmonton- Mr. McKay. I hope his investigations will completely exonerate Mr. McKay. I hope they will completely exonerate himself and any of his officials in Ottawa. But I am sure the minister will wish to have full particulars of the information in my possession so as to enable him to make the complete investigation he says he is willing to make and to supply this committee with an explanation when he returns next week to deal further with his estimates.


An hon. Member:: Five o'clock.
Progress reported.


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



CANADA FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, April 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mather for the second reading of Bill No. C-28, to amend the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act (age discrimination).
Mr. Marvin Gelber (York South):: Mr. Speaker, George Bernard Shaw is reputed to have said that youth is a wonderful thing, but it is too bad it is wasted on young people. The qualities of youth which were so attractive to George Bernard Shaw are qualities which do not apply only to young people. Our conception of age, longevity of life-all these things are changes, and we have to adjust our view to the changing worries and facts of our society. One of the stark realities of life in twentieth century Canada is that for people 65 years and over two chief factors, are poverty and loneliness.
We are dealing today, Mr. Speaker, with a bill to assist the absorption of older people into the labour market. I think we should look at the composition of the population of Canada today. Half of the Canadian population is under 25 years of age; 7.8 per cent or 7.9 20220-164
24. 1964	2571
Canada Fair Employment Practices Act per cent are over 65 years of age. One half of the population supports the other half. An analysis of the trends in population reveals that by 1971 the percentage of persons in the 30 to 40 age group will have shrunk.
The essential needs of old people are not any different from those of any other age group, except in degree. As of March 31, 1963, the percentage of recipients of old age assistance to the population in the 65 to 69 years of age group ranged from 13.12 per cent in a relatively prosperous province like Ontario to 52.93 per cent in Newfoundland. That is from roughly one in eight to better than one in two of that age group. A very considerable number of the aged live in inadequate housing, are ill-fed, insufficiently cared for medically, and deprived of opportunities for normal social intercourse and recreation. The problem of absorbing older people in the employment stream is a reflection of the general level of employment in Canada. When there are enough jobs to go around, then the problem of the aged is less acute. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the entire problem of older people must be viewed in terms of the rate of economic growth of our country.
There are a number of illusions about older workers. I believe that this bill is a palliative but that the illusions are much more serious and are matters with which we must deal if we really want to tackle this problem. About 33 per cent of the unemployed persons in Canada at any given time are over 40 years of age. Many experience long periods of unemployment. Many older persons are refused interviews for jobs because company policy restricts hiring of personnel over the age of 35 or even as low as 30. In a study made of 950 classified advertisements in a group of newspapers, it was found that 490 or more than 51 per cent stated age restrictions. Only 18 of those advertising were willing to accept applicants up to 50 years of age.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what are some of these illusions about older workers? One of them is that among older people you have a higher frequency of illness and therefore greater absenteeism. Another illusion is that physical deterioration is synonymous with age and therefore older people are more accident prone. Another illusion is that age has a direct bearing on insurance rates, and therefore the costs of pension plans mount successively with each new participant over 40 years of age. It is said-and this is a very serious matter-that as people grow older their ability to learn decreases, and it is therefore more difficult to train older people in new industrial methods and techniques. There is a myth that a
2572	HOUSE OF
Canada Fair Employment Practices Act man over 40 is not as productive as he was at 20. The myth of the older worker has no firm basis in truth. Chronological age is not a sound foundation on which to build hiring policies. It gives no indication of a man's ability or his skills and knowledge, the important elements to be considered when people are hired.
A study was undertaken by the economics and research branch of the Department of Labour covering 1,018 employees in two large department stores in two Canadian cities, and this study was the first of its kind in the field. It was found, Mr. Speaker, that those qualities which make for good salesmanship are not exclusively the property of any age group. Flexibility, adaptability and other traits which make a person a preferred employee and which bring a profit to a firm exist in all age groups. Further, the report showed that sales performance improves somewhere between the ages of 51 and 55 and declines slowly in the ensuing years. The record of performance of people past 40 is as good as that of other employees, if not better. The sales clerk employed after age 40 attained a higher performance rating within a shorter period of service than a younger employee. Workers hired after the age of 40 tend to outperform those hired below the age of 30. The older workers attained a higher performance rating within a shorter period of time. This represents savings for companies which would otherwise have spent money on training. In all cases the average score for employees over the age of 60 compared favourably with that of employees below the age of 51.
Performance was below average in the case of employees under 31 years of age, and about average in the case of employees between 31 and 40. The best average in the case of employees was over 46 years of age. The best performance in store A related to employees in the age group 51 to 55; in store B, to those in the late 50's.
Mr. Speaker, there is also the question of labour turnover, which involves an enormous cost for industry. It has been found that there is less turnover in more mature workers than in younger workers. The worker of 45 and over quits his job less than one half as often as the younger worker. Similarly but to a less marked degree, the older worker is fired from his job less often than the younger worker. A 12-month survey in seven cities in the United States covering establishments employing 3.9 million workers showed that if an older worker obtains a regular job lasting at least one year, he is more likely than a younger person to stay [Mr. Gelber.l

with the firm up to the age of normal retirement. The annual separation rate for all groups was 54 for each 100 workers employed at the end of the pediod under study. The rate was 62 per 100 for those persons under 45 years of age. In contrast, the rate for those over 45 was 38 separations per 100 employees. This indicates that older employees are better employment risks than younger employees.
Then, Mr. Speaker, there is the myth about learning ability. A scientific study was undertaken in the United States concerning the intellectual ability to absorb. The army alpha intelligence test was administered to 127 male freshmen at Iowa State College during 19181919. It was readministered to the same group after an interval of 31 years, during 1949-50. In analysing the results, psychologists took into consideration the effects of social background, experience and the other factors which might have a bearing on the better scores attained in the 1950 tests. The net result was that it was found that the group was intellectually more able at 50 than they were in 1919.
Dr. Margaret Mead, the famous sociologist has said that "to put all the learning into childhood, all the work into middle age and all the regrets into old age" is one of the illusions of our society. It is time that society accepted the fact that it is possible to learn at any age and that learning ability is not the exclusive property of any age group. A program of education, based on the findings that older workers are flexible, can adapt themselves to new techniques and new ideas, should be highly successful in bringing about the reduction of age prejudice and the end of hiring restrictions.
Another factor, Mr. Speaker, is the question of pensions. We all know that the Canada pension plan, which this parliament will surely enact and which will give to all workers a portable pension, will destroy this one further obstacle to the employment of older workers. It seems to me that what we have to do in dealing with this problem is to educate industry, to educate employers, to educate the public into the idea that the illusions we have about older workers being costly, are harmful and are inequitable in terms of the growing group of older workers in our society.
A program undertaken by the national employment service advisory group in Toronto, which has been widely quoted and is quoted by the international labour office, showed that by interviewing older workers not only were some opportunities found for these

workers but the self-respect of the workers was built up and many went out and got jobs themselves, when prior to that they were depressed by the social mores which condemned them to the industrial heap.
With regard to this problem we have to change our attitude; we have to change the attitude not only of industry, not only of employers but we have to change the attitude of our society. We are providing benefits for older people and for younger people, and we must not assume that we are the only social welfare society that the world has ever seen. Our particular problem is an aspect of industrial society; it is an aspect of the decline of patriarchal society. Patriarchal society looked after older people; rural society absorbed to some extent older people. We live in a largely individualistic and industrial society and the welfare state is our answer to that hiatus which has been created in our society by the growth of this highly individualized and industrialized economy. We have to change our attitudes; we must carry on a large program of education, and we must show to employers the great waste consequent in the attitudes they have towards the employment of older workers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we who are the colleagues of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather) in this house appreciate the fact that an opportunity was made for this bill to be discussed again today. This arose from the fact that on April 3 the time allowed was something less than an hour and it seemed only fair that it should retain its position in the list of public bills. We feel, however, that the matter is of such sufficient interest and importance that the discussion should not be limited even to the further time it is getting today, but that the subject matter of this bill should at any rate be discussed in the industrial relations committee. It of course would be our preference that the bill itself come to a vote and be approved on second reading; but since the indications are that this might not happen between now and six o'clock, we would like to suggest to the house that it take its time in this private members' hour to discuss this matter, but that it agree that the subject matter of the bill is of sufficient importance that it should be discussed in the industrial relations committee.
We note with interest that those who have spoken on this measure thus far, both on April 3 and today, are sympathetic with the principles and purposes of the legislation proposed by my colleague the hon. member 20220-164J
24, 1964	2573
Canada Fair Employment Practices Act for New Westminster. I hope, therefore, that the motion which I should now like to make will be welcomed by the house. As hon. members will be aware, it is not a motion that closes off debate; it is a motion that can itself be debated. I hope there will not be any feeling that this motion needs to be talked out, but rather that some time just before six o'clock hon. members will let my motion carry so that the subject matter of this bill can go to the industrial relations committee for discussion. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, without further ado I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard):
That Bill C-28 be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on industrial relations.


Mr. D. G. Hahn (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the motion just moved, that the subject matter of this bill be referred to the standing committee on industrial relations I am assuming I am in order if I discuss the subject matter of the bill. The purpose of the bill is to add to the act now on the statute books a provision that extends the field of discrimination against which we are trying to guard in our employment practices. It would ensure that age is not used in a purely prejudicial manner against a prospective employee.
The act now on the statute books which this bill seeks to amend ensures that certain factors cannot be used as a means of barring employment. It ensures that prejudice and bigotry will not prevent people from getting a job and it specifically enumerates the factors of race, national origin, colour or religion.
I do not think there is any question in anybody's mind that these factors already in the act have any bearing on a person's capability in carrying out an employment function. I do not think that any member of the house feels that race, national origin, colour or religion matter in terms of a person's ability to carry out his function. The amendment would add age to these factors.
To my mind the factor of age is one of several grey areas. I am very much against, as we all are, prejudice on the ground of any of the factors already listed; but what about linguistic ability? What about a provision that would state that an employer cannot discriminate because of somebody's ability to speak a certain language? You might have a situation where a person of foreign birth is applying for a job and has a very heavy accent. The prospective employer might, because he had a prejudice against people of that person's racial background, discriminate
2574	HOUSE OF
Canada Fair Employment Practices Act against him and because of his linguistic ability say: I will not take you.
On the other hand, there may be quite valid reasons for not employing a person with a very heavy accent. He might be applying for the type of job where his communicative ability was a key factor, in which case the employer would be justified in disqualifying this person for employment. This to me is a grey area. How do you know? It is very difficult to decide whether or not in the case I have just outlined the person is being discriminated against because of his linguistic ability or because of prejudice in the mind of the prospective employer.


Harold Edward Winch: I rise on a point of order, although I do not want to do so. I have listened very carefully to what the hon. member has been saying. I would point out that the bill has to do with only one thing, discrimination on the ground of age, but my hon. friend is discussing everything else except age discrimination. I would ask that the debate be confined to the subject matter of the bill now before us, age discrimination, and not whether a person speaks with an accent or anything else.


David George Hahn: If the hon. member will be patient, I was trying to indicate that there are certain categories of discrimination now in the act which are very clearcut, and that there are others where there can be some doubt; but I am coming now to the one specifically mentioned in the bill before us, age. I wanted to indicate that age also is one of those factors that can sometimes matter and at other times does not matter in terms of a person's ability to carry out a job. There are times when, for obvious reasons, the age of the person is important. There are times when it does not matter. There are several examples.
Some years ago when I was establishing a business I engaged a person for a function that normally would be a function that a young person would perform. It involved physical activity out of doors in all sorts of weather. I did not take a young man; I took an older man. This person has been with me for a number of years and has carried out the work extremely well. In the normal course of events one would have thought I would have been quite justified in saying to this person: No, you are too old for this job. It is very difficult indeed to tell.
At the same time I engaged this man I employed another man. His type of work was different and I hired a very young man, a man who according to the normal rules of
CMr. Hahn.]

the game might not have had enough experience. I could have discriminated against him by saying: You are too young-but I did not. It is very difficult in these cases to draw hard and fast rules. How do you know specifically whether age is or is not a factor in regard to a person's capability to carry out a job? It is extremely difficult to define.
There is a third kind of grey area of this type. A company may want to engage a person for a function for which age does not matter, but let us assume for a moment they want to engage a man to act as understudy to a senior person already in the organization. The age of the understudy does not matter in terms of his ability to carry out the job; but in terms of the long term development plans of the company age is a factor, if the company is looking forward to providing a replacement against the retirement of the more senior person. Is that company discriminating or not discriminating if they say that they would like a younger man for this particular function?
It seems to me that the major problem we face in this proposed legislation is that we are going to set out an area of discrimination and are going to say that an employer cannot discriminate against somebody because of age, and unless age is a bona fide occupational qualification he should disregard it in his hiring practices. It is exceedingly difficult, if not almost impossible at times, to determine whether age is a bona fide occupational qualification, because a person's capability to carry out the work is not the only factor. I think we must assume that the organization doing the hiring must have some plans for the future and must be able to carry out those plans, and if this involves selecting people in a certain age bracket the company should be allowed to do so.
This is not to say that I support, condone or agree with rank discrimination on the ground of age, because I feel that to discriminate only because of age, to turn a man down only because of age, is wrong. I should like to try to find an answer to the problem but I do not think this legislation is the right answer. I am afraid it could lead to all sorts of litigation. Indeed, if the bill is put on the statute books and is to mean anything it must lead to all sorts of litigation, and I think there would be great difficulty in establishing objective yardsticks to use. So I think we would wind up with an enactment on the statute books that would be unworkable. I do not think that this is the sort of thing we should do in this parliament. I think we

should be very careful to try to put on the statute books acts that will work.
What is the answer to this problem of the older worker? As the hon. member for York South (Mr. Gelber) pointed out, and as I heartily agree, in many respects the older workers are superior workers. There are prejudices in the minds of many people against hiring older people. The approach suggested by the hon. member for York South appears to me a much more logical approach, that is to try a fundamental educational program on the employers. This, in my opinion, would produce far better results than putting unworkable legislation on the statute books. I believe that if this bill is passed it is not going to solve the problem. Again, without going through all the ramifications of the problem, I think the hon. member for York South covered a number of the reasons why older people have difficulty in getting jobs.
This particular measure does not answer many of these problems. On the other hand, it is going to create problems in terms of litigation. I think it will create problems on the one hand without, on the other hand, achieving the objective we seek to achieve. I feel it will, in fact, do more harm than good. It has been moved that the subject matter of this piece of legislation go to a committee for study. I feel that, obviously, study is the answer to this problem. I do not believe we have an answer yet. However, I believe there is a committee of the other place that is studying the problem of aging. This is certainly an important part of the problem of aging. Is it, then, sensible or wise for us to establish another little study group working on a segment of essentially the same problem as the committee of the other place in tackling? I do not think it is. I feel that we should allow the committee of the other place to do its work and then, having the results of that committee before us, we could try to draft legislation if such legislation were deemed to be useful. For these reasons, I reject the suggestion that we refer the subject matter of this bill to the standing committee on industrial relations.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I intend to be very brief in speaking on this matter. I am glad that this piece of legislation has been introduced into this house. It has been a subject of great interest to me over the years, and on a number of occasions I have introduced resolutions designed to assist the employment of older workers in industry. I
24, 1964	2575
Canada Fair Employment Practices Act am glad to see a bill of this nature produced to help those who are employed by the federal government.
When this bill was previously before the house my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) requested support for it and requested that it be referred to a committee for further study. The hon. member's speech is recorded in Hansard for this session at page 1,783. Having heard the last speaker, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hahn) and the previous speaker, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Gelber), I am glad to note that the members of the government at least have some sympathy for this type of legislation even if they are not interested in having it passed or considered by a committee. We all realize this matter is complex and that there are difficulties of administration and enforcement in this type of legislation. This is exactly why it should be referred to the committee on industrial relations.
I am astonished to hear the hon. member for Broadview say that this type of legislation should not be introduced or even studied at this time, because the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) introduced just this kind of legislation, in a related way.


David George Hahn: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I did not say that at all. If the hon. member for Oxford was listening, he will know I stated the reason I did not believe this legislation should go to a committee was that there was a committee of the other place currently studying the problems of aging. I made no reference at all to actions on the part of the government.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: This committee has been studying the problem for quite a while, and probably will continue to do so for quite awhile, just like the sixth committee of the United Nations has been studying the definition of "aggression" for a number of years and has not decided on that as yet.
The Minister of Labour introduced legislation to assist the employment of older workers in industry. I really fail to understand the logic which says that type of legislation is all right, even if it does not work very well, and yet the hon. member for Broadview gets up and says this type of legislation should not be studied by a committee. I certainly hope the viewpoint he is expressing is not common to all the other members of his party. I certainly hope this bill is referred to the committee on industrial relations for study this afternoon. If the committee ascertains it is not possible to enforce or administer this type
2576	HOUSE OF
Canada Fair Employment Practices Act of legislation, then we will know that is so. However, I cannot possibly understand how anyone could get up in this house and attempt to prevent this bill going to a committee for study.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I spoke on this matter when it was raised first some time ago on the basis of information I had just received that day from a civilian employee of the Department of National Defence.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; is the hon. member speaking to the amendment? I assume that is why he is speaking now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what is before the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, I spoke on the main motion, but we are considering the amendment now.
This civilian employee of the Department of National Defence received a communication from the civilian personnel officer advising him of a recommendation for his release due to age. Those words were used in a letter which had been forwarded by the higher authorities. I put a question on the order paper which will be found on page 2195 of Hansard for April 15, 1964. It is question No. 640, and reads as follows:
Are civilian employees of the Department of National Defence dismissed from employment on the grounds of age before reaching 65 years?
The answer by the associate minister reads as follows:
The normal retiring age for civilian employees of the Department of National Defence is 65. There is provision in the Public Service Superannuation Act and regulations whereby a deputy head, with the concurrence of the civil service commission, may at any time, for reason only of age, terminate the employment of a contributor who has attained 60 years of age. It is the policy of the Department of National Defence to retire persons between age 60 and 65 years, by reason of age, only in unusual cases where continued employment involves a serious problem.
The answer is not completely clear, but it does admit that whereas the normal retiring age is 65, the department does retire people at an earlier age, on the grounds of age, and that is precisely the case which has been drawn to my attention, the release of an employee "due to age". To have the subject matter of this bill considered by a committee would throw some light on the policy of the government with regard to the problem of employment, and the release from employment, of people by reason of age.
I would think a committee would want to investigate very thoroughly this particular question, and see what the grounds are on


which government departments release people simply on the grounds of age when it is normal, as the answer to my question indicated, to continue people until-


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Does he realize that the clause in the Civil Service Act, referred to in the answer he has just read, was put in that act by the government of which he was a member?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, that is irrelevant. If it is a bad provision I don't care what government put it in; I would say throw it out. This has not come to my attention before, and if our government made a mistake we are quite prepared to admit it. The present government spends all its time apologizing for the mistakes it is making.
My point is that in this period, when we have become more sympathetic towards the question of employment and the age factor, when we have been attempting to deal with the employment of people over the age of 45 years, when we have been attempting to continue employment throughout the sixties-and in various circumstances suggesting that people should carry on until they are 70-surely we must look at any rules, regulations or provisions within the government service which permit retirement before the age of 65, simply on the grounds of age and, if there are arbitrary decisions being made, then some modification of these provisions should be entered into.
The reason I support the proposal that the subject matter be referred to a committee is that it is impossible under these circumstances to discuss the subject fully or to get the necessary answers that one would require. Whereas, a committee of the house is admirably suited to get the information, to have witnesses brought before it, to have the officials summoned, to study the matter and clear it up by suggesting modifications to some of our statutes or to the regulations of the civil service commission, modifications which would bring to an end the release of people from employment simply on the grounds of age.


Mr. Beri Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak only a short while. First I would like to say I think the subject matter of the bill is worthy of close examination and should be placed before a committee for study, but the other thing I would like to say is that I doubt the practicability of the bill itself. I think it one of those cases where we sort of give lip service to something,

and there are so many loopholes that nobody can catch up with one who is actually transgressing in the situation.
One of the things that has caused this legislation to appear on the books has been the fact that pensions have been the criterion so far as hiring older people is concerned. The fact that people are getting on towards the pension age has worked against their securing employment; but now, if we get a universal pension plan with portability, this will have a great effect on the chances of the older workers becoming employed.
I look forward to our getting a pension plan suitable for all Canadians, with the portability that will make it possible for the individual who finds himself out of employment to take his pension with him, so that his prospective new employer will not look askance at him because of the pension situation.


Miss Pauline Jeweit (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, if I may revert for a moment to the few remarks made by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt)-by the way they were not nearly as good as the cheese his country produces-he did say one thing about which I should like to comment. He drew attention to the fact that the government, through the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mac-Eachen), introduced a measure to encourage industry to employ persons over 45 years of age who had been unemployed for six of the previous nine months.
While, as he said, this measure has not been taken up by employers on as wide a scale as we would have hoped, nevertheless it has provided a very substantial financial incentive for them to employ older workers. To my knowledge this is the first effort on the part of any government to set an example by actual legislation to encourage industry to employ older workers.
The hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe) has just pointed out that we are now hoping to have a comprehensive, portable pension plan, again devised by this government, and this too will provide an enormous incentive to the employment of older workers. Indeed, as I was sitting here listening to some of the speeches, particularly from the official opposition, I could not help recalling that these two measures this government has taken have been by far the most substantial strides ever taken to encourage the employment of persons who are getting on in years and who have such great difficulty getting jobs.
When this matter was debated three years ago, to be exact on May 5, 1961, speaker after
24, 1964	2577
Canada Fair Employment Practices Act speaker on the opposite side got up and talked about it. Presumably the government of the day spent a good deal of time talking about it, just as it spent a good deal of time talking about how wonderful it would be to have a portable, national, contributory pension scheme; but nothing was done about it. Neither was anything done on the score of encouraging industry to employ older workers, or getting the kind of pension scheme going that would make for the encouragement of the employment of older workers.
Therefore since this government has, in a very short time, taken these two steps which were talked about since 1961, and earlier, by the previous government, and since it is quite clear that the matter of the older worker is one that has been of very great concern to this government, in particular to the Minister of Labour, and in the case of the pension plan to the other ministers as well, we can pretty well rely on the interest and concern on this side of the house in this problem, an interest and concern which are sufficient to make us want to do something about it.
I see that the bill which it is proposed to amend, the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act, contains no provision for preventing discrimination on the ground of sex which, it seems to me, is an extraordinary omission and I hope the hon. member will-


Mr. Mather:: You look after the sex and I look after the age.


Pauline Jewett: If I were the hon. member, I would not like that at all. Perhaps we could be offered an amendment which would prevent discrimination against women workers, because such discrimination is widespread in many places.
What puzzles me about the amendment is the phrase "unless age is a bona fide occupational qualification". I have found it difficult to understand what this really means and how it would be interpreted. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather) in his speech on April 3 really did not tell us what that means and I feel there is a danger it would mean all things to all men. If an employer were to say: "I am sorry, but this particular job is one which requires people under the age of 45", his word would be taken, there being no arbitrary way of judging whether the job was, indeed, one which could be done only by people in certain age groups.
This is a particular weakness. If we are to include this reference to age it would seem to me better to do so without making any qualification at all, except of course that obviously one would not include child labour.
2578	HOUSE OF
Canada Fair Employment Practices Act It is interesting that we should have spent so many years in this country in the past fighting to get some degree of age discrimination, namely to prevent child labour, only to discover that there is discrimination at the other end against older workers.
The bill should be examined very closely before an age factor is introduced into the act. I agree that the act is not complete. As I have indicated, there is no clause in it to help women, and there is nothing about age in it at the moment. But the government it seems to me is already seized with this problem, as indeed is the other place right now. The interest being taken in it is greater than for a number of years. The government has already taken two important steps to encourage the employment of older workers, and undoubtedly further steps will be taken, steps which I suggest will be in the end more effective than the clauses which the hon. member wishes to introduce into the act.
For my part I am prepared to see a continuation of the progress we have made in this field over the past several months. I am not sure that the industrial relations standing committee would have much further to contribute on this subject. I believe additional progress can be made by other means. I was interested to notice that in one branch of the government service, the Canadian penitentiaries service, an attempt has been made recently to employ older workers in occupations other than those of guards.


An hon. Member:: Just the opposite.


Pauline Jewett: Someone says: "Just the opposite". I have heard about the case of a man older than 45 whose application was turned down several months ago. I wrote to the commissioner about this and in reply he stated that while there may have been in the past some tendency to prefer to employ a younger person, they were not now discriminating on account of age and that this man would be sent an application form.


Harold Edward Winch: Talk it out. You have two minutes to go.


Frank Howard: I thought you had a mind of your own.


Pauline Jewett: So they were not discouraging the employment of older workers in those categories, other than custodial officers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


An hon. Member:: No, do not help her talk it out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of her statement that the terms of this bill should be inquired into further, does she not think it would be a good idea to let this motion go through so that the subject matter could be examined in a committee of private members?


Pauline Jewett: To be quite honest, the reason is that this is obviously a problem which is already under consideration by the government. I am not saying the standing committee could not do an excellent job. Private members can do a lot of things, but in the light of the steps the government has taken recently I think we could look forward to better results by continuing as we have done over the past several months, bearing in mind the additional encouragement which is being given within the civil service itself to the employment of older workers wherever possible.
I do not think hon. members opposite realize what has been accomplished, by comparison with previous years. If they look more closely at what has been done I think they will agree with me that it is a very good record.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before we call it six o'clock may I say that a point of procedure has been brought to the attention of the Chair. It appears that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who moved the amendment proposed this afternoon was the seconder of the original motion. Perhaps the hon. member would allow someone else-the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett)-to be the mover of the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business is now expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: The business for Monday has been announced. I presume that it holds, and that we will carry on with it on Tuesday and Wednesday if it is unfinished.


Mr.   Mc@: I am not able to give the business of the house beyond Monday. On Monday we shall be dealing with the three budget resolutions-the income tax resolution, the customs tariff resolution and the estate tax resolution. I am sorry I am not able to go beyond that.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 27, 19G4