1966-03-02

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Canada Pension Plan investment fund.
Under the Canada Pension Plan, all funds received but not required at the end of each month to meet expenses and payments of benefits during the following three months are transferred to the Canada Pension Plan investment fund for the purchase of securities of the provinces or the government of Canada. These are special non-marketable securities, with terms of up to 20 years.
The allocation for purchases of provincial securities by the Canada Pension Plan investment fund is proportionate to the amounts of contributions paid in each province. Any balance not taken up by the provinces, together with funds collected in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, must be invested in special non-marketable securities of the government of Canada. The securities issued for this purpose by the government of Canada are subject to the same conditions as those issued by the provinces.
The first funds were available for investment by the Canada Pension Plan investment fund at the end of February. These were derived from contributions paid in January and amounted to $34,852,909. Provincial treasurers have been advised that the amounts available for the purchase of their securities up to and including March 10, 1966, are as follows:	Newfoundland, $655,000; Prince
Edward Island, $108,000; Nova Scotia, $1,248,000; New Brunswick, $972,000; Ontario, $20,110,000; Manitoba, $2,077,000; Saskatchewan, $1,432,000; Alberta, $3,064,000; British Columbia, $5,085,000.
If the provinces take up the above amounts as expected, the amount available for the purchase of securities of Canada will be $101,909. The rate of interest applicable to these securities, as determined by the Minister of Finance under the act, is 5.29 per cent. Interest is payable semi-annually.
A statement was issued in the form of a press release on February 4 giving a preliminary forecast of the amounts which might be available to the investment fund for the purchase of provincial securities. Because of lags in the receipt of contributions and the need to deduct administrative expenses which had already accrued, the amount available for investment in this first month was somewhat below the preliminary forecast.
I am making this statement, Mr. Speaker, because I believe there is some interest among members in this initial allocation of pension plan funds. In future the provinces will be notified directly of the amounts available, and I do not intend to make such an announcement each month.


Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. minister for having sent me an advance copy of his statement. In it he mentions that the required expenses for the next three months are retained, and also that any accrued expenses have been deducted from the initial allotment. It looks as though, on this basis, the total amount for the provinces will be somewhere around $450 million in the first year.
The minister does not point out that this first deduction undoubtedly includes a very high amount, some $2 million, which was spent during the election campaign to attempt to advertise the pension plan.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, following the statement just made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) I wish to point out to him that we have not been handed an advance copy, a privilege which was granted to members of the Conservative party.
I feel this is an appropriate occasion to urge the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) to ask his ministers in future, when they have motions or statements to make, to hand over a copy not only to an opposition party, but to all parties, so that all opposition parties may be on the same footing. I hope the Prime Minister will take this request into consideration and advise all his ministers accordingly.

March 2, 1966
Canada Pension Plan
Mr. Speaker, I notice that concerning the Canada pension plan, the amounts available will be invested in provincial or federal government bonds, and what strikes me is that interest of 5.29 per cent will be charged the provinces getting these amounts. I wonder if the Minister of Finance should not arrange to have these amounts available to the provinces without interest, so as not to increase the interest charges the provinces are already carrying.
I wonder if the minister could not see to it that the sums made available to public finance be used to develop the country instead of increasing provincial debts, because every month from now on, the provinces will have an additional source of indebtedness. To my mind, these amounts should serve to develop the country rather than increase the provincial debts.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to comment in any great detail, but I do think the Minister of Finance with his sense of fairness and good judgment should have sent each of us a copy of this statement. This would have saved the time of the house and would have been most helpful and equitable to everyone.
Whether or not it is to the best advantage of the Canadian people to have a funded pension plan of this type is irrelevant at this time, but we do appreciate that the government is making these funds available on an equitable basis to the provinces. It is interesting to note that provinces which have no direct debt, such as Alberta and British Columbia, will be able to use the funds for parity bonds or for municipal finance corporations, which will directly assist the people who are providing this money.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I offer just a brief comment. First of all I appreciate the fact that the Minister of Finance does not feel that he should take the time of the house every month to indicate the allocation of funds, but I hope he might find some way in which to lay the figures before parliament, even if he does not rise in the house to do so.
The other comment I want to make is that in our view and in the view of parliament generally, the purpose of the Canada pension plan is to pay pensions to the contributors to the plan. I hope, therefore, the minister will not pay too much attention to suggestions that are made which would have the effect of
[Mr. Gregoire.l
cutting down the funds available. We are glad the Canada pension plan is a going concern, and we hope the government will soon match it with improvements in the old age security pension as well.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Allard: 1.	Has Canada recognized the Chinese nationalist government of Formosa and, if so, when and how did this recognition take place?
2.	What other countries have recognized the said government to this date?
3.	Does Canada regard the government of Formosa as a de facto government or as a de jure government?
4.	Does Canada regard Formosa as a state, or simply as a government, or as both?
5.	Without recognizing at present the communist government of Peking, does Canada continue to recognize the continental Chinese state?
6.	What countries have recognized communist China since 1949 and what are the dates of recognition?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: 1. Canada recognized the Government of the Republic of China as the de jure government of China on December 20, 1928. On that date, the United Kingdom minister in China, with the authorization of the Canadian Government, undertook an exchange of notes with the Chinese National Government which had the effect of renouncing the rights of Canada to benefit by the provisions of existing treaties limiting the right of China to settle her national customs tariff or to impose tonnage dues. It was the express intention of the then Canadian Government that this exchange of notes constitute recognition by Canada of the Government of the Republic of China. A Canadian Legation, later raised to the status of an Embassy, was opened in China in 1942, but closed after the National Government left the mainland to establish itself on Formosa in 1949. The Canadian Government continues to recognize the Government of the Republic of China at its present seat of government.
2.	The Canadian Government does not consider that it ought to comment on the nature of relations existing between other governments. The following is a list drawn up from various public sources, of countries
March 2, 1956

which, so far as we know, recognize the Government of the Republic of China:
Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Gabon, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Iran, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Republic of Korea, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Luxembourg, Malagasy Republic, Malta, Mexico, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Chile, Colombia, Congo (Leopoldville), Costa Rica, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Spain, South Africa, Thailand, Togo, Turkey, United States of America, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Republic of Vietnam, Kuwait.
3.	See reply to question 1.
4.	Canada regards the island of Taiwan (Formosa) as the present seat of government of the Republic of China.
5.	See reply to question 1.
6.	The Canadian Government does not consider that it ought to comment on the nature of relations existing between other governments. The following is a list drawn up from various public sources of countries which, so far as we know, have recognized Communist China since 1949:
Country
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Bulgaria
Burma
Burundi
Cambodia Central African Republic
Ceylon
Congo (Brazzaville)
Cuba
Czechoslovakia
Dahomey
Denmark
Finland
France
Ghana
23033-129|
Date of Recognition January 1950 November 1949 July 1962 October 1949 June 1950
January 1964 (Diplomatic relations suspended)
July 1958
September 1964 (Diplomatic relations suspended)
January 1950 February 1964
September 1960 October 1949 November 1964 (Diplomatic relations suspended)
January 1950 January 1950 January 1964 July 1960
Questions
ountry	Date of Recognition
Guinea	October 1959
Hungary	October 1949
India	December 1949
Indonesia	April 1950
Iraq	July 1958
Israel	Not known
Kenya	December 1963
Laos	June 1962
Mali	October 1960
Mauritania	July 1965
Mongolia	October 1949
Morocco	October 1958
Nepal	August 1955
Netherlands	March 1950
North Korea	October 1949
North Vietnam	January 1950
Norway	January 1950
Pakistan	January 1950
Poland	October 1949
Roumania	October 1949
Senegal	Not known
Somalia	December 1960
Sudan	December 1958
Sweden	January 1950
Switzerland	January 1950
Syria	August 1956
Tanzania	December 1961
Tunisia	January 1964
Uganda	October 1962
United Arab Republic	May 1956
United Kingdom	January 1950
U.S.S.R.	October 1949
Yemen	August 1956
Yugoslavia	October 1949
Zambia	October 1964


BRIDGE OVER SAINT JOHN RIVER-FEDERAL COMMITMENT
Mr. MacRae: 1	Have any financial commitments been made by the government of Canada to the province of New Brunswick in connection with the building of a bridge spanning the Saint John river at Maugerville and Burton. Sunbury county?
2.	If such commitment was made, when was it made?
3.	If such a commitment was made, what is the amount of the financial commitment?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Stale):: I am informed by several departments as follows:
1.	No.
2	and 3. Not applicable.

March 2, 1966
Questions


GRANT TO PEACE RESEARCH ABSTRACTS
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): Has the government received representations concerning a grant to Peace Research Abstracts and, if so, what response has been made to such representations?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: The government received a request from the Canadian Peace Research Institute on October 8, 1965 for a grant of $35,024 to assist the work of Peace Research Abstracts in the year 1966. I replied on January 24 as follows:
The government is sympathetic to the objectives of the CPRI and regards the Peace Research Abstracts as a constructive and useful publication. We have also been happy to note the decision by UNESCO to grant assistance for the publication of the Abstracts. We also believe, however, that projects of this kind are best supported by private means or, if they qualify, by the Canada Council, which as you know does make grants available to scholars or organizations concerned with the social sciences. The fact is that the Department of External Affairs does not subsidize research or publications in this field, although we do help the United Nations Association of Canada because it performs tasks which are directly related to publicizing the objectives of the United Nations and Canada's part therein. You will, I am sure, appreciate that a grant for the publication of Peace Research Abstracts would be likely to attract requests for the support of similar projects by other institutions or individuals. There is no legislation or machinery which would enable us to evaluate such requests and to reach sensible decisions on them. I do not rule out the possibility that this situation may change. I am aware for example that the governments of Norway and Sweden have approached this matter differently. For the present, however, and for the reasons given I regret not being able to respond favourably to your request. Please be assured that we shall continue to be glad to extend informal assistance and advice to the CPRI whenever you consider this useful or appropriate.


POSTAGE STAMP DEPOTS, WESTERN PROVINCES
Mr. More: 1.	As of December 31. 1965 (a) how many postage stamp depots were being operated in the provinces of Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan (b) what are their locations (c) when were they established (d) what is the floor space occupied by each (e) when did they occupy their present quarters (f) what is the staff at each depot (g) what is the value of postage supplies sent by each depot to its dependent offices for sale during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1965 (h) what is the combined cost of staff salaries and cost of space assessed against the Post Office Department by the Department of Public Works (i) how many offices did each depot serve?
2.	Since the elimination of the Regina depot on April 1, 1965, what savings have been effected in (a) staff (b) accommodation (c) correspondence and telephone calls (d) transportation (e) general management?
[Miss LaMarsh.l


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: 1.	(a) Four, (b) Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg and Saskatoon, (c) Calgary, April 1, 1934; Edmonton, April 1, 1934; Winnipeg, April 1, 1934; Saskatoon, October 1, 1934. (d) Calgary, 1,135 sq. ft.; Edmonton, 2,400 sq. ft.; Winnipeg, 3,350 sq. ft.; Saskatoon, 1,600 sq. ft. (e) Calgary, May 8, 1961; Edmonton, April 1, 1934; Winnipeg, May 31, 1958; Saskatoon, September 2, 1961. (f) Calgary, 8; Edmonton, 7; Winnipeg, 11; Saskatoon, 10.
(g)
Depot
Calgary
Edmonton
Winnipeg
Saskatoon
Amount

(h)	The combined cost of staff salaries, which are based on new salary range as of 1st October, 1965, and the cost of space assessed against the Post Office Department by the Department of Public Works is: Calgary, $36,305; Edmonton, $36,148; Winnipeg, $56,003; Saskatoon, $45,254.
(i)
Depot	Number of offices
Calgary	711
Edmonton	698
Winnipeg	912
Saskatoon	879
2.	(a) None.
(b)	Although this department does not actually pay rental for space supplied by the Department of Public Works, based on the revised rate of $3.40 per square foot for 1965, the reduction in assessment by the Department of Public Works would be $2,805 from the 31st March 1965 (when the space was returned to that department) until the 31st December 1965.
(c)	It is not possible to assess the savings effected in telephone calls or correspondence as no records are available as to the number and cost of telephone calls between the Calgary and Saskatoon district office headquarters and the Regina postage stamp depot when it was in operation. There was, however, an exchange of both telephone calls and correspondence which is no longer required because of the consolidation of the stamp depot activities.
(d)	It is not possible to assess a dollar saving in transportation costs as post office operating supplies are transmitted through the mails free of charge in accordance with Section 19 (2) of the Post Office Act.
March 2, 1966

Questions
(e)	It is difficult to assess an economic not maintained, as post office operating supsaving pertaining to general management, plies are transmitted through the mails free However, the consolidation of postage sup- of postage in accordance with Section 19(2) plies has resulted in an improvement of of the Post Office Act. administrative procedures and provides improved control.	ROY WOOLAM-EMPLOYMENT BY B AND B


COMMISSION
Mr. More: 1.	As of December 31, 1965 (a) how many postal stores depots were being operated in the provinces of Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan (b) what are their locations (c) when were they established
(d)	what is the floor space occupied by each (e) when did they occupy their present quarters (f) what is the staff at each depot (g) what was the total operating cost of each depot for their last annual accounting period (h) how many offices did each depot service?
2.	As a result of the closing of Regina depot on
February 13,	1965, and the Calgary depot on
February 28,	1965, what economies have been
effected in (a) staff (b) accommodation (c) maintenance and control of inventories (d) transportation (e) general management?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Postmaster General):: 1. (a) 2; (b) Winnipeg and Edmonton; (c) Around the end of world war I; (d) Winnipeg 5,236 sq. ft.-Edmonton 7,200 sq. ft.; (e) Winnipeg 1958-Edmonton, around the end of world war I; (f) Winnipeg 7 positions-Edmonton 5 positions; (g) Winnipeg $40,962-Edmonton $38,502 (these figures include staff salaries and the cost of space as assessed by the Department of Public Works); (h) Winnipeg 1991-Edmonton 1174.
2.	(a) 1 position; (b) 8,880 sq. ft.; (c) and
(e)	The maintenance and control of inventories and the general management of the departmental stores system is centralized in Ottawa, and it is not possible to isolate specific economies within these functions which may be attributed to the closure of postal stores depots. Since the total number of postal stores depots in Canada was reduced from 11 to 8, some economies were effected, but within these functions the main benefits derived were in the area of greater efficiency rather than actual economies; (d) One of the principal objectives of the rearrangement of areas served from postal stores depots was to reduce the amount of transportation of supplies involved by eliminating, to the greatest extent possible, the backtracking of supplies from postal stores depots. No dollar savings in transportation costs are available since costs of transportation of supplies are


Mr. Ormislon: 1.	Has Mr. Roy Woolam been employed by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Bi-culturalism?
2. If so, what were his detailed terms of reference?
3.	What remuneration has he received from the government of Canada for services rendered to the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Bicul-turalism?
4.	What was the nature of his employment immediately prior to joining the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism?
5.	What are his qualifications in respect of his duties with the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism?
6.	Did Mr. Woolam undertake surveys or studies on behalf of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism in the province of New Brunswick and in St. Boniface, Manitoba?
7.	Is Mr. Woolam bilingual?
8.	Was Mr. Woolam recommended to the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism and, if so, by whom?


Mr. John R. Malheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: I am informed by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism as follows:
1.	No. The royal commission has contracts with Group Resources Consultant Services Limited, Calgary, Alta. Mr. Roy Woolam is managing director of this company.
2.	See answer to part 1. The company referred to contracted to investigate the following matters, (a) In a pilot study by interviews of officers of the departments of education and of French Canadian education leaders in western provinces to obtain a broad impression of the school system in French language communities, with special emphasis on the use of French and the extent to which it is unofficially used as a language of instruction, (b) "A study of attitude patterns of selected ethnic groups as represented by (12) schools in four western provinces with special reference to the role of the school in preparing young people for adult careers and in expressing the cultural values of the several groups". This study was carried out in St. Boniface, Winnipeg, St. Malo and Gretna, Manitoba; Gravelbourg, Saskatchewan; Thorhild, Legal and Red Deer'

March 2, 1966
Questions
Alberta; Port Coquitlam, B.C. (c) "The attitudes of selected Acadian communities in New Brunswick toward the provincial education system." This study was carried out in Sussex, Moncton, Bathurst and Allard-ville, N.B. (d) "The ethnic participation and influences in local government in the Mail-lardville-Coquitlam community of British Columbia."
3.	None. Any payments to Mr. Woolam would be made by Group Resources Consultant Services Limited.
4. Not applicable. See answer to Part I.
5. Not applicable. See answer to Part I.
6.	See answer to Part 2.
7.	No, but the Group Resources Consultant Services Limited advise that 15 of the 25 interviewers employed by the Group Resources Consultant Services Limited for royal commission contracts were bilingual.
8.	The Group Resources Consultant Services Limited was recommended to the commission by its research officers, after receiving information as to the group's capacity to perform the work assigned. The decisions concerning research contracts were made after a pilot study had been carried out by the Group Resources Consultant Services.


FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION TO SHIPYARD, MARYSTOWN, NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Is or will the government be contributing financially to the construction of the shipyard at Marystown, Newfoundland?
2.	If so, what will be the amount of the federal contribution and under what authority will the contribution be made?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 1 and 2. No request for assistance in the construction of the shipyard at Marystown, Newfoundland, has been received by the Department of Industry.


RESTORATION OF WOLFE'S MONUMENT
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Was Wolfe's monument in Quebec city, following its dynamiting by separatist elements, restored to its original form?
2.	If not, what alterations were made, for what reason were they made, and who authorized the changes?
3.	Was there any earlier restoration of the monument and, if so, was the original motif maintained?
4.	From what sources were the funds raised for (a) the original monument (b) any succeeding restorations?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1. I am informed by the National Battlefields Commission as follows: Yes, the same form as its immediate predecessor; however, this monument was apparently toppled by a truck using a cable strung around column's centre.
2.	N/A.
3.	Yes, five monuments were built. The first monument, a large stone, was erected in 1759; the second in 1832, the third in 1849, the fourth in 1913 and the present monument in July, 1965. The present monument reproduces the third monument.
4.	(a) By the British Army stationed in Canada; (b) In 1832 and 1849 by the British Army stationed in Canada; in 1913 and 1965 by the National Battlefields Commission.


EMPLOYMENT OFFICER TESTS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Were members of the staff of the National Employment Service who were engaged in interviewing, counselling, or placement work in local offices or permanent staff in supervisory positions at local, regional and head offices required, durmg 1965, to write a test to become eligible to enter a new' employment service officer classification?
2.	If so (a) what was the nature of the test (b) what knowledge on the candidates' part was the test designed to judge (c) on what date did the test take place (d) how many persons wrote the test how many members of the N.E.S. other than clerical staff wrote it, how many persons who were qualified for entry to the new class took the test and how many in each of these mentioned categories failed the test (e) was the test seen previous to being taken by any member of the staff of the N.E.S. or the Department of Labour (f) was the test authorized by either written or oral instruction, by the Treasury Board, the Civil Service Commission, or the Department of Labour and, if so, who was the author and who the recipient of such authorization (g) if any employees of the N.E.S. are reclassified because of this test, in what way will their duties differ from those performed by the present or former classes of employment officer, employment and claims officer, employment and insurance officer, and unemployment insurance officer?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1. Yes, if they applied for the new class series.
2. (a) It was an intelligence test, (b) The test was designed to assess the extent to which the applicants have the intellectual ability normally possessed by persons capable of achieving university standing, (c) The test took place on 11 December, 1965. (d) 3,062 N.E.S. employees wrote the test, of which
March 2, 1966

number 2,481 were other than clerical staff. All employees of the N.E.S. were eligible to apply for the class. It will not be known how many are qualified for entry to the new class until each person's qualifications and past and potential performance have been evaluated by an appraisal board. The test was an instrument to aid in the over-all evaluation of applicants, (e) No. (f) The use of the test was authorized by the Civil Service Commission as an integral part of the Civil Service Commissions's class standards for all entrants to the new employment service officer class series, and the Department of Labour was the recipient of this authorization. The Civil Service Commission established and administered the test, (g) The duties of the new class series are at a professional level, with corresponding salaries, and the qualifications required are at a university level. The appraisal process is designed to give an opportunity for entry to the new class series to existing N.E.S. staff who would otherwise be excluded because of the test of academic standing and qualifications which attaches to the series.


NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE RESOLUTIONS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Did the national employment committee, during its meeting in 1965, pass a resolution (or resolutions) protesting the written test given to permanent staff members of the National Employment Service?
2.	If so (a) to whom were these resolutions addressed (b) were these resolutions actually received by the then Minister of Labour or any officer of his department, and (c) what were the aforementioned resolutions and what action was taken on them?


John Carr Munro: 1.	At its 91st meeting, on August 31 and September 1, 1965, the national employment committee passed one resolution respecting personnel matters of the national employment service, including the written test.
2.	(a) The resolution was addressed to Hon. Allan J. MacEachen, then Minister of Labour, (b) Yes. (c) The resolution was as follows:
That the national employment committee is pleased to learn of the substantial upward revision of salary rates for employment officers as a result of the introduction of a new series of employment service officer, and the upgrading of the basic qualifications of applicants for such positions. The committee also welcomes the decision to establish 948 new positions in the National Employment
Questions
Service. It is felt that these changes should greatly improve the quality of the staff generally, and the efficiency of the National Employment Service. The committee notes with concern the fact that the filling of vacant position has been frozen pending the development of a test and appraisal program, and urges that a decision in this matter be arrived at as quickly as possible, so that the already excessive number of vacancies will not result in a serious impairment of the service. The national employment committee also notes the intention of the Civil Service Commission to require present NES staff to pass a written test in order to gain access to the new series. This procedure, we understand, is causing considerable unrest among the employees and it is the view of the national employment committee that the stipulation with respect to the written tests of present employees should be considered and that the appraisal program for entry into the new series be administered so that decisions affecting present employees will be based upon their performance in the National Employment Service. The national employment committee is strongly of the opinion that the National Employment Service should be represented on the body responsible for appraisal of present staff.
Following consideration of the resolution, the Minister of Labour informed the Chairman of the national employment committee that an objective test was necessary because previous experience had clearly indicated that it was not sufficient, in introducing a major personnel change such as the employment service officer series, to rely solely on appraisal of past performance. The chairman was subsequently informed of the precise role of the written test as an aid in the evaluation of candidates, and also informed that all the appraisal boards responsible for these evaluations would include representation from the NES.


V.L.A. LAND PURCHASES, P.E.I.
Mr. MacDonald (Prince): Did the government of Canada recently purchase land in Prince county for use under the Veterans Land Act and, if so (a) how many acres have been purchased (b) what price was paid per acre (c) were public tenders called for this purchase (d) who was the land purchased from (e) what is the name of the attorney who did the legal work for this purchase (f) what fee was paid to this attorney (g) is the attorney a shareholder in the company which sold the land to V.L.A. (h) how far is this land from the nearest school or shopping centre (i) was any attempt made to acquire land nearer to a school and shopping centre (j) has any land been resold since this purchase (k) is there an option for additional land and what is the length of the option time (1) how much land is under option (m) what will be the price per acre as stated under the option (n) has any land been purchased in Sum-merside, Charlottetown, or any other village under the Veterans Land Act (o) is it the policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs to purchase land without calling public tenders (p) did V.L.A.

March 2, 1966
Questions
relieve the previous owner of such land of a tax agreement with the village of St. Eleanors (q) has a tax agreement been made by V.L.A. with the village of St. Eleanors (h) how was the evaluation arrived at for the purchase price of this land and is this the same land that was offered for sale to the Department of National Defence for the construction of 275 houses in connection with RCAF station in Summerside, in 1963?


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Yes. (a) 6.7 acres subdivided and served with sewer and water, (b) $2,164.20 per acre, (c) No. (d) M.C.L. Development Corporation, Summerside, P.E.I. (e) G. Bruce MacDonald, LL.B. (f) Fee not yet paid. Estimated fee $145. (g) No. (h) Elementary school .75 mile, region high school 2.9 miles, vocational school 2.6 miles, transportation to each school by school bus; post office and store .75 mile; shopping centre 1.7 miles, (i) Other land was considered, (j) No. (k) No. Vendors have submitted offers on two other parcels, one offer expiring September 1, 1966 and the other December 31, 1966. (1) None. Vendors' offers relate to 9.3 acres partially serviced and 10 acres not subdivided or serviced, (m) Based on vendors' offers $1,345.16 and $1,000 per acre, (n) Yes. Since April 1965, 48 parcels have been purchased on Prince Edward Island for veterans under the Veterans' Land Act. (o) The director follows the usual practice of purchase by negotiation, (p) The vendor is required to pay taxes to the date of purchase, (q) VLA will be subject to the usual tax assessment on the same basis as any other ratepayer in the village of St. Eleanor's (r) The value of the land was arrived at by the appraisal methods used by the Veterans' Land Administration and the Appraisal Institute of Canada. Suitability for VLA purposes, location, topography, installed services and roads, sale prices of comparable parcels, are among the factors considered.
On May 17, 1963, Laurie Coles and Associates acting on behalf of M.C.L. Development Corporation advised Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation it had land for sale at St. Eleanor's P.E.I. No price was mentioned and no negotiations were carried out by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


FRENCH SPEAKING FILM BOARD EMPLOYEES, MARITIME PROVINCES
Mr. Fairweaiher: 1.	Is the Secretary of State aware of the protest of the Acadian Education Association that there are no French speaking employees of the National Film Board in the maritime provinces?

2.	If so, what steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that this situation is remedied at once?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: 1.	Yes.
2.	I have discussed this matter with the National Film Board and wish to report as follows; The board has had for many years two French speaking field representatives in New Brunswick. Their positions became vacant, the Moncton position on January 1, 1966 and the northern New Brunswick one in May, 1965. Recruitment has now been completed and appointments will be announced shortly.
I would like to add that the National Film Board will conduct its activities with regard to the French speaking population of the Atlantic provinces from Moncton, establishing there a central film library and distribution system particularly aimed at the French speaking population. The officer will be designated as co-ordinator of French distribution and his level will be that of assistant regional supervisor.


TENDERS FOR DESTROYER ESCORTS
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	When will tenders be called for four new destroyer escorts for the Royal Canadian Navy?
2.	Will tenders be called on a national or regional basis?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.	Present plans are to request bids for the four Royal Canadian Navy helicopter destroyers during the first quarter of 1967.
2.	It is planned to call tenders on a national basis in accordance with the shipbuilding procurement policy announced by the government on July 19th, 1965.


ASSISTANCE FOR MENTALLY RETARDED TRAINING CENTRES
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
Has the government received representations from the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded, requesting greater federal aid and support for adult training centres and, if so, what action is proposed, and what reply has been made?


John Carr Munro: Yes, the government received a letter from the Ontario association for the mentally retarded in which they requested information about additional financial support that the government might make available to adult
March 2, 1966



training centres for mentality retarded in co-operation with the provinces. The letter was acknowledged and received essentially the same reply as I gave in the house recently, that the government is giving consideration to various ways by which additional assistance may be provided for rehabilitation of the mentally and physically disabled.


POWER GRID BETWEEN MARITIMES AND NEW ENGLAND STATES
Mr. Coates: 1.	Have any negotiations been carried out by the federal government, or any of its agencies, with the government of the United States, or any of its agencies, related to the development of a power grid between the maritime provinces and the New England states of the United States?
2.	If such negotiations have been carried out, what is the state of these negotiations at the present time?


Paul Joseph James Martin: 1. No. In an exchange of notes dated December 18, 1965 between myself and the United States ambassador in Ottawa providing for the opening of negotiations on the co-operative development of the Saint John river, it was agreed that the Governments of Canada and the United States would continue their studies of the benefits of interconnected operation of the power systems of New England and the maritime power pool. A copy of this exchange of notes was tabled in the house on February 9.
2.	Answered by (1).


CYPRUS-ROTATION OF CANADIAN TROOPS
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Will Canada continue to supply troops for the United Nations peace keeping operation in Cyprus beyond March 26, 1966?
2.	If so, when will rotation of the present troops be carried out?
3.	What units will replace the present units there, namely, the 2nd battalion Canadian Guards and the RECCE squadron of the Royal Canadian Dragoons?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows:
1.	The security council of the United Nations on December 17 extended the mandate of the United Nations force in Cyprus for a period of three months ending March 26, 1966. It is expected that the security council
Questions
will meet before that date to consider whether to extend the force for a further period. If the security council should decide to do so and if the Secretary General of the United Nations requests Canada to continue its participation in the force the government will take a decision on such a request in the light of all the circumstances existing at that time.
2.	If the security council should extend the force after March 26 and the government should decide to continue Canadian participation in the force, the rotation of Canadian troops would be expected to take place between April 2 and April 16, when the contingent at present on Cyprus would be due to return to Canada.
3.	If the force should continue to exist after March 26 and the government should decide to continue to contribute a Canadian contingent similar in size and composition to the present one, the second battalion, Canadian Guards, would be replaced by the second battalion, the Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment) of Canada and the reconnaissance squadron, Royal Canadian Dragoons by B reconnaissance squadron, 8th Canadian Hussars.


WINTER CONSTRUCTION BONUS FOR HOME EXTENSION
Mr. Lefebvre: 1.	Will the government study the possibility of granting the winter home construction bonus of $500 to home owners who extend their homes, bearing in mind that only one bonus will be paid per home?
2.	Has a study been made by the government to consider the effect of granting such bonus to small home owners who wish to enlarge their homes and, if so, what is the result of any such study?


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: 1. Yes. The feasibility of providing a financial incentive for home improvements including extensions to existing homes when carried out during the winter months is a matter which has been receiving continuous consideration and will receive further study.
2. Yes, as indicated in the reply to No. 1. A considerable portion of home improvements cover indoor work which involve no additional costs by reason of winter construction. Consequently the need for a financial incentive requires careful consideration. Under the

March 2, 1966
Questions
winter employment campaign home owners are encouraged to carry out home improvement projects during the winter through the use of home improvement loans. These efforts have been successful in shifting a large volume of home improvements from the summer to winter.


CABINET MEETINGS. NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 1965
Mr. Korchinski: How many cabinet meetings were held each week commencing November 14, 1965, to December 18. 1965?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: The arrangements made for meetings of the cabinet for the discharge of the business for which it is collectively responsible are not customarily disclosed.


POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION, DARTMOUTH AND UPPER MUSQUODOBOIT, N.S.
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Has the government under consideration the expansion of the present post office in the city of Dartmouth?
2.	Has the government considered the matter of a new post office to serve Upper Musquodoboit and, if so, what decision has been reached?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: 1.	At this time the Post Office Department has no plans for expanding the post office at Dartmouth, N.S., although a complete review of postal facilities is being undertaken.
2.	The post office at Upper Musquodoboit, N.S. is in the category of offices where the postmaster is normally responsible for the provision of suitable accommodation as a condition of employment. There are no plans for the construction of a post office building as this location is not in an area designated by the Department of Labour as one of high winter unemployment.


TOBACCO RESEARCH
Mr. Honey: 1.	What steps, if any, have been taken to establish and develop a program of market research for the Canadian tobacco industry as recommended by the standing committee on agriculture and colonization in its report dated August 12, 1964? [Mr. Mackasey.l
2.	What amounts have been spent for tobacco production research in Canada in each of the years 1955 to 1965, inclusive?
3.	What steps, if any, have been taken in the field of research directed to the development of a milder cigar tobacco and a more acceptable pipe tobacco as recommended by the standing committee on agriculture and colonization in its report dated August 12, 1964?
4.	Are there any vacanies at the present time in the establishment of the experimental farm at L'Assomption, Quebec, and, if so, which positions are now vacant?
5.	Have any steps been taken to establish a research advisory committee as recommended by the standing committee on agriculture and colonization in its report dated August 12, 1964?
6.	What enlargements or improvements, if any, have been made to the tobacco experimental station at Delhi, Ontario, in the years 1964, 1965, and 1966, what was the cost of any such enlargement or improvement and what further enlargements or improvements, if any, are planned for the said tobacco experimental station?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	There are no formal market research studies relating to the Canadian tobacco industry under way in the Canada Department of Agriculture, but a continuing watch is maintained on developments in this industry and departmental situation and outlook reports dealing with production, price and marketing developments in the tobacco industry in Canada and foreign markets are prepared and published regularly.
The Department of Trade and Commerce collects and disseminates information on world tobacco production, consumption, export and import trade to serve the tobacco industry in the development of export trade. The department maintains close contact with all segments of the tobacco industry, particularly the growers organizations and the tobacco exporting companies. In connection with export promotion and market research the Department of Trade and Commerce has also participated in the formation of an industry wide group to be known as the Canadian tobacco export council and has agreed to supply all of the tobacco marketing information which may be required by this industry group as it becomes actively involved in export promotion. The department appointed in January 1965 a commodity officer who is exclusively responsible for serving the needs of the tobacco industry in relation to export market research and trade promotion.
March 2, 1966



2. Cost of tobacco production research
1954-55	$ 285,027
1955-56	355,129
1956-57	324,112
1957-58	372,336
1958-59	362,373
1959-60	360,448
1960-61	403,368
1961-62	477,385
1962-63	473,421
1963-64	447,051
1964-65	575,414
1965-66 (estimate)	490,033

3.	For many years, research at L'Assomp-tion, Quebec, has been directed toward the development of varieties of cigar filler tobacco possessing milder smoking qualities. A new variety, named Ottawa 705, was released to Quebec growers in 1965. A plant breeder was added to L'Assomption staff in 1964 to increase the effort in breeding milder cigar tobaccos. A chemist was added to L'Assomption in 1965 to assist in this work.
Research at L'Assomption has also brought forth new cultural methods which are of great importance in producing mild cigar leaf. The new recommendations were released to growers in 1964.
The recommendation on pipe tobacco, made by the standing committee on agriculture and colonization, was considered carefully. Since the qualities of pipe mxitures depend greatly upon processes developed by manufacturers, and since burley and flue-cured tobaccos are used in varying quantities in pipe mixtures, in addition to pipe tobaccos, and since acreage planted to varieties designated as pipe tobacco is very small in Canada and not likely to be increased, it was not considered practical to devote additional effort to developing pipe tobacco varieties at the expense of the flue cured, burley and cigar types. If better pipe tobaccos are to be made from Canadian tobacco, it is a manufacturing problem and not necessarily a research problem at the agricultural production level. As stated in the report of the Standing Committee, research in the manufacturing field is chiefly the responsibility of the companies concerned.
Questions
4.	There are no vacancies in professional staff at the experimental farm, L'Assomption, Quebec at present.
5.	Yes. Preliminary discussions have been held. The subject will be further reviewed at the next meeting of the research section of the Canadian agricultural services co-ordinating committee in April 1966.
6.	Improvements to the experimental farm
at Delhi are as follows:
1964-	65-Site development	survey $	655
Extension of chemical laboratory 5,503 Purchase of land	75,000
1965-	66-Converted cottage to entomological laboratory	$	4,000
Fit up laboratory in office
building	4,350
Air conditioning greenhouse	1,600
Underground irrigation	line	6,888
Fencing	500
Projected but not begun:
Flue chamber building	$110,000
Air conditioning-physical
laboratory	8,000
Headerhouse	600,000
Greenhouse	100,000


POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Webb: 1.	How many post offices have been constructed, or construction started, in the years 1963, 1964 and 1965?
2.	What is the number of post offices constructed, or construction started, in these years in each province?
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh Works): 1. 526.	(Minister	of	Public2. Province	1963	1964	1965Newfoundland	0	53	31Prince Edward Island 0	10	3Nova Scotia	3	29	42New Brunswick	0	37	11Quebec	11	69	86Ontario	17	31	29Manitoba	1	9	3Saskatchewan	9	10	5Alberta	6	4	4British Columbia	3	4	4Yukon & N.W.T.	0	1	150	257	219
March 2, 1966
Questions


AMHERST, N.S., POST OFFICE
Mr. Coates: 1.	How much additional space will be provided with the proposed enlargement of the Amherst post office?
2.	Will public tenders be called to carry out the improvements and, if so, when will these tenders be called and how long will the proposed enlargement take?
3.	Does the plan contain an improved method of entrance for patrons of the post office?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Approximately 1200 square feet net.
2.	Yes, during the 1967-68 fiscal year. The period of enlargement is not yet known.
3.	The plans have not yet been completed.


HOUSE TO HOUSE MAIL DELIVERY, SPRINGHILL, N.S.
Mr. Coates: 1.	Does the town of Springhill qualify for house to house mail delivery and, if not, for what reason?
2.	How many towns have been selected for this type of delivery in the past six months and what is the population of each town selected?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: 1. The town of Springhill N.S., does not qualify for house to house mail delivery because it does not have the 2,000 available points of call required for the establishment of this type of postal service.
2. Letter carrier delivery service has been established in 3 communities during the past 6 months. Nineteen additional communities at which this type of delivery has been authorized will receive service when 80% of the homes are equipped with the necessary mail receiving facilities. The Post Office Department does not maintain population figures for the communities involved since the establishment of letter carrier delivery service is based on the availability of 2,000 points of call in a compact, well built-up area.


NEW VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS
Mr. Starr: 1.	How many new vocational schools or additions have been approved under the amended Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act from June 1, 1961, to date?
2.	What is the total student capacity?
3.	What is the total cost of these projects?
4.	What is the federal government's share of the cost?
5.	How many new technical schools or additions have been approved under the amended Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act from January 1, 1965, to date?

6.	What student capacity has been added in the period January 1, 1965, to date?


John Carr Munro: 1. 880 new vocational schools and additions have been approved April 1, 1961 to January 31, 1966.
2.	337,878 new student places have been provided under the Technical and Vocational Training Act, April 1, 1961 to January 31, 1966.
3.	Total cost of approved projects, $1,054,195,238, April 1, 1961 to January 31, 1966.
4.	Federal share of approved projects, $598,507,015, April 1, 1961 to January 31. 1966.
5.	228 new technical schools and additions were approved in the period January 1, 1965 to January 31, 1966.
6.	140,622 additional student places have been added in the period January 1, 1965 to January 31, 1966.


MUNICIPAL WINTER WORKS PROGRAM
Mr. Starr: 1.	How many applications under the municipal winter works program have been received during the current winter from the starting date to January 31, 1966?
2.	How many were received last winter in the same period?
3.	How many of the applications were accepted in that period under the (a) 1964-65 program (b) 1965-66 program?
4.	What was the estimated number of men to be hired during the period to January 31 in (a) 1964-65 (b) 1965-66?
5.	What was the number of participating municipalities or local authorities to January 31 in (a) 1964-65 (b) 1965-66?


John Carr Munro: 1. 5,165.
2.	5,393.
3.	(a) 5,254; (b) 5,106.
4.	(a) 140,128; (b) 139,318.
5.	(a) 2,348; (b) 2,290.


VETERANS AFFAIRS LAND PURCHASE, ST. ELEANORS, P.E.I.
Mr. Douglas: 1.	Has land been purchased since January 1, 1965, by or for the Department of Veterans Affairs at St. Eleanors, Prince county. Prince Edward Island?
March 2, 1966

2.	How was the land purchased?
3.	Who was the land purchased from?
4.	How many acres of land were involved and what was the purchase price per acre?
5.	What is the purpose for which this land is to be used?
6.	Will any of this land be made available for
purchase by veterans?
7.	If so, what will be the selling price per acre?
8.	How many houses have been built for veterans by or for the Department of Veterans Affairs or any of its agencies in each of the years 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965 at St. Eleanors, Prince county, Prince Edward Island?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: 1. Yes.
2.	The director follows the usual practice of purchase by negotiation.
3.	M.C.L. Development Corporation, Sum-merside, P.E.I.
4.	6.7 acres subdivided and serviced with sewer and water at $2,164.20 per acre.
5.	For assembly into thirteen half acre lots for resale to qualified veterans under the provisions of the Veterans' Land Act.
6.	Yes. It will all be resold to veterans.
7.	Approximately $2,165 per acre. No more than one half acre lot will be sold to a veteran. Price per serviced half acre lot will be approximately $1,100.
8.	1961, three houses; 1962, 1 house; 196364-65, no new house construction.


INCOME TAX EXEMPTION ON TOOL DEPRECIATION
Mr. Hamilton: Has the Minister of Finance received any representations for depreciation allowance as an exemption from income tax on the tools of (a) automobile mechanics (b) plumbers (c) carpenters?


Mitchell William Sharp: In August 1965 the National Automotive Trades Asociation made a representation requesting that the cost of tools purchased and used by mechanics in the course of their work be deductible as an expense in computation of the personal income tax of the mechanic.
Some individuals in letters to the Minister of Finance have suggested that amounts spent for tradesmen's tools be deductible for income tax purposes.
Questions



POST OFFICE CHARGE FOR FRANKING PRIVILEGES

Mr. Webb: What was the post office charge for revenue purposes for the franking privileges covering parliamentary and departmental mail in the following years: 1959-60, 1961. 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965?


Hon. Jean-Pierre  Coie@Postmaster General: The Post Office Department determines the value of the franking privileges covering parliamentary and departmental mail but there is no actual payment made to the Post Office Department. The value of this service to each department is included in a list which shows the approximate value of major services not included in the estimates. The total amount is as follows:
Fiscal Year
1959-	60
1960-	61
1961-	62
1962-	63
1963-	64
1964-	65



KERWOOD, ONT.,

Mr. West): What were the names of all postmasters at the Kerwood (or Kerrwood). Ontario, post office in Middlesex county, from its inception to the year 1900, with the period for which each served?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: The post office was established on February 1, 1861 under the name of Kerrwood. The name was changed to Kerwood in 1950.
Postmasters J. H. Thomas, February 1, 1861 to September 30, 1866; James Irving, October 1, 1866 to March 31, 1875; Charles Foster, April 1, 1875 to June 30, 1888; John C. Jury, July 1, 1888 to January 31, 1896; Jos. B. Denning, February 1, 1896 to November 22, 1898; Alfred Rogers, November 23, 1898 to January 18, 1934.



CF-100 AND SABRE JET AIRCRAFT- ORENDA ENGINES

Mr. Hales: 1.	How many CF-100 and Sabre jet aircraft were in use by the Department of National Defence as of December 31, 1965?
2.	How many Orenda jet engines were left in stock for replacement purposes after the sale of the 65 engines to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation at the close of the calendar year, 1965?
Amount



$6,201,000 $5,200,000 $5,227,000 $5,676,000 $5,500,000 $6,179,000 POSTMASTERS

[Stage Direction]
Thomas (Middlesex
[Stage Direction]
March 2, 1966
Questions
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: 1. 28 and 24 respectively.
2. 346.



EXCISE TAX ON JEWELLERY PRODUCTS

Mr. Irvine: 1.	Was representation made by the Canadian Jewellers Association on or about January 27, 1966, with regard to the special excise tax on Jewellery products?
2.	If so, what were the results of these representations?
3.	Is consideration to be given to this association by way of part or total removal of this tax?


Mr. Jean Chretien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is yes. With regard to the second and third parts, representations asking that this tax be removed, as well as representations on a wide range of other tax subjects, are being studied during the preparation of the budget.



PURCHASES FROM WHEAT BOARD BY DEALERS

Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	How many grain merchants or dealers purchased wheat from the wheat board since the 1st day of January, 1965?
2.	What are the names of such purchasers and the respective dates and amounts of such purchases?


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, question 681 is divided into two parts. One answer is provided.
The Canadian Wheat Board advises that it is not its policy to disclose the competitive position of grain companies with regard to their transactions with the board. Furthermore, to reveal the information requested would in the opinion of the board be prejudicial to its marketing operations.



CENTRE FOR PERFORMING ARTS, OTTAWA

Mr. Aiken: 1.	When is the Ottawa centre for the performing arts now expected to be completed and ready for performances?
2.	What was the original estimated cost for the centre?
3.	What has been the cost of the construction to date?
4.	What is the current estimate as to how much this centre will finally cost in total?


George James McIlraith: 1. April 1969.
2.	The original cost estimate was $18.2 million.
3.	The cost of construction to date is $3,815,500.
4.	It is not customary to reveal estimated cost before tenders are called.



COMMUNICATION WITH U.S. ARMY AGENCY

Mr. Fulton: Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs or any official of the department had any communication with any official of the government of the United States concerning any proposed activities to be carried out in Canada by, or under the direction of, the special operations research office of American University, an agency under contract to the United States Department of the Army and, if so, what was the nature of the communication?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the answer on behalf of the minister is as follows:
I have had no communication with any official of the government of the United States about any proposed activities to be carried out in Canada by or under the direction of the special operation research office of American University, and inquiries I have had made indicate that no official of my department has at any time received any proposal concerning such activities by American University from any official of the government of the United States.



INTEGRATION OF CADET CORPS

Mr. MacRae: 1.	Is It the intention to integrate the cadet corps of the navy, army and air force?
2.	If so, when is this policy expected to be implemented?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1 and 2.
The Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corps, the Royal Canadian Army Cadets and the Royal Canadian Air Cadets operate under a partnership between the Canadian forces and the civilian sponsors of the corps. The integration of the Canadian forces and the establishment of an integrated directorate of cadets at Canadian forces headquarters will probably result in some adjustments to this partnership and the whole matter is now under study.
March 2, 1966

TROIS-RIVlfeRES POST OFFICE-HOLIDAY WORKERS


Mr. Mongrain: How many extra workers were hired at Trois-Rivieres post office during the holiday period, for the last five years?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Year	Christmas helpers employed
1961	106
1962	110
1963	112
1964	117
1965	108



POST OFFICE FACILITIES, MEATH PARK, SASK.

Mr. Douglas: 1.	When was the last inspection made of the physical facilities of the post office in Meath Park, Saskatchewan?
2.	Were any recommendations contained in this inspection report and, if so, what were they?
3.	Have any requests been made for the construction of a new post office in Meath Park and, if so, who made the requests?
4.	Is it the intention of the government to build a new post office at Meath Park?


John Cole: I.	September 15, 1965.
2.	No.
3.	Yes. On January 22nd, 1964, village of Meath Park, A. E. Semchuk, overseer, Peter
J.	Kyle, secretary treasurer. A request was also received on February 16th, 1966 from the council of the village of Meath Park, Peter J. Kyle, secretary treasurer.
4.	No. Meath Park is in a group where it is the responsibility of the postmaster to furnish adequate and suitable accommodation. However, we are having the district director, Saskatoon, inquire into the suitability of the present quarters.



FARM MACHINERY-COST AND VALUE

Mr. Korchinski: 1.	Using the base period of 1949, what was the index of the cost of farm machinery each year to date?
2.	Since 1949, what was the total value of all farm machinery sold in Canada in each year to date?
Questions


Mr. Jean-Charles Canlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. Index numbers of prices paid by farmers for farm machinery Canada-1949-
1965	(1949 =	: 100):	1949,	100.0;	1950,	104.3;1951,	118.0;	1952,	123.4;	1953,	124.3;	1954,125.0;	1955,	125.6;	1956,	132.3;	1957,	141.4;1958,	149.1;	1959,	156.5;	1960,	160.1;	1961,164.7;	1962,	169.4;	1963,	172.4;	1964,	176.6;
1965, 180.0.
2. Farm implement and equipment sales (including repair parts), Canada, 1949-1964 (value at wholesale prices): 1949, $245,194,190; 1950, $248,049,154; 1951, $264,393,214; 1952, $281,509,187; 1953, $269,869,172; 1954, $174, 038,491; 1955, $181,576,398; 1956, $202,592,127; 1957, $183,721,649; 1958, $205,993,039; 1959, $251,118,817; 1960, $258,777,808; 1961, $241,420,086; 1962, $282,676,676; 1963, $337,561,595; 1964, $380,132,718; 1965, $424,270,000 (estimate only).



FARM STATISTICS

Mr. Korchinski: 1.	In each year since 1949, how many farmers were there in each of the provinces of Canada?
2.	In each of the years 1950, 1955, 1960 and 1965 (a) what was the average size of farms in each of the provinces (b) what was the total capitalization of each farm?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1 and 2. Information requested is not available for the years specified. According to the censuses of Canada, data available are as follows:
The number of farmers, stockraisers, farm managers and foremen, by province,
1951 and 1961:
	1951	1961
Canada1	549,583	396,735Newfoundland	2,480	858Prince Edward Island	8,761	5,886Nova Scotia	15,605	7,365New Brunswick	17,826	7,214Quebec	109,620	75,639Ontario	134,293	97,453Manitoba	50,203	38,884Saskatchewan	109,373	85,632Alberta	82,601	65,570British Columbia	18,821	12,2341 excludes the Yukon	and the	Northwest
Territories.

March 2, 1966
	Questions		
Average size	of farm by provine		
1951,	1956 and 1961		
	1961	1956	1951
	Acres Acres		Acres
Canada	359	303	279Newfoundland	31	30	23Prince Edward Island 131	113	108Nova Scotia	178	132	135New Brunswick	187	135	131Quebec	148	130	125Ontario	153	141	139Manitoba	420	365	338Saskatchewan	686	607	550Alberta	645	579	527British Columbia	226	183	178Total farm capital, Canada	and	theprovinces-1951 and 1961	1961	1951	$	$Canada 13,171,221,700	9,470,876,372	Newfoundland	23,937,400	19,656,779	Prince Edward	Island	96,296,500	87,153,205	Nova Scotia	145,588,800	152,464,945	New Brunswick	145,363,000	157,778,559	Quebec	1,624,879,600	1,399,363,121	Ontario	3,741,596,000	2,547,969,618	Manitoba	1,154,087,600	916,786,792	Saskatchewan	2,864,359,300	1,991,773,250	Alberta	2,717,496,800	1,789,616,297	British Columbia	657,166,300	408,265,668



INCOME TAX DEDUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL TAXES

Mr. Irvine: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation to permit municipal taxes on owner-occupied residential properties as a deduction on federal income tax returns?
2.	If not, is there any justification in what would appear to be double taxation?
3.	If so, can this legislation be anticipated during the current session of parliament?


Mitchell William Sharp: This question concerns budget policy. If the government proposes any change in the income tax law it will be announced when the budget is presented.



ARMY &quot;CALL-OUTS'' RELEASED FROM SERVICE

Mr. Irvine: 1. Have all Canadian army "call-outs" been released from service and, if not, how many are still on strength?

2.	What benefits were awarded those who have been released or struck off strength?
3.	What annual or other leave was granted at the time of release?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 

RECREATION PROGRAM, P.E.I. PARK

Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What were the reasons for the removal of the recreation hall at the Cavendish area of the P.E.I. national park?
2.	To what use was it put in the 1965 season?
3.	What organizations or individuals have protested this move?
4.	What recreation program is to be carried out in the P.E.I. park this summer?
5.	What personnel will be responsible for this program?


Arthur Laing: 1. The recreation hall at Cavendish in Prince Edward Island national park was erected in 1950 to provide a centre for recreation and the entertainment of park visitors. At that time, overnight camping and picnicking were permitted at Cavendish beach near the junction of Cawnpore lane and the Gulf Shore Road. Activities carried on under a recreational director included film showings, square and round dances, camp fires and sing-songs and a daytime program for children, including games.
With the development of a new campground at New London bay and the termination of camping at the Cavendish beach site, a recreation hall at that location had outlived its original purpose, and in the latter years of its operation, the evening programs were frequently interrupted by rowdyism and special policing measures were necessary. These disturbances were mainly related to the attendance of persons from points some distance from the park. Furthermore, the officer in charge of recreational programs in 1963 received requests to curtail or rearrange the
March 2, 1966

dates of dances so as to not conflict with those held by organizations located in communities adjacent to but outside the park. These included the Rustico recreational committee, New Glasgow junior farmers, and Stanley Bridge Hall committee.
Following the development of a national park interpretation and the appointment of a seasonal park naturalist, the former recreation program at Cavendish beach was discontinued. The park interpretation program is directed principally from the Dalvay region which contains the park headquarters. Activities are carried on in both the Dalvay and Cavendish areas with emphasis on attracting the park campground populations.
With the change in the park emphasis to an appreciation of the natural features of the park, and the appointment of a park naturalist to develop a new program, the recreation hall was relocated from the congested area at Cavendish beach to the new Cavendish camp ground. It seems that the recreational function that the hall served in its previous location can best be carried out by private enterprise outside the national park.
2.	As a centre for the park naturalist's interpretation programs including lectures and films in inclement weather and as a focal point for the commencement of conducted trail outings.
3.	The Honourable J. Watson MacNaught, Summerside, P.E.I., Mr. John C. Mullally, Souris, P.E.I., Mr. R. S. Humphreys and the Cavendish Resort Association.
4.	An interpretative program is being carried out in the park this summer. Primarily educational, this program is also recreational in character. It endeavours to show and present to the public points of interest, gives facts of natural history that the public might not otherwise know about, and provides recreation, educational and informal instruction to the park visitors giving a better understanding not only of the park and its natural features but also of the purpose which the park serves. It consists of talks accompanied by films, conducted trips and a self-guiding interpretative trail.
5.	The park naturalist.



DIVISION OF BUDGET EXPENDITURES

Mr. Godin: What is the percentage of the total Canadian budget spent on (a) family allowances (b) debt charges (c) defence production (d) national defence?
Questions


Mitchell William Sharp: Total budgetary expenditure	Fiscal year ended March 31,1965 Per Cent 100.0
(a) Family allowances	7.6
(b) Public debt charges	14.6
(c) Defence production (excluding non-defence	
expenditure)	.3
(d) National Defence	21.3



UNCLAIMED TAX DEDUCTIONS

Mr. Dionne: 1.	What was the amount of taxes deducted at the source under the Income Tax Act which Canadian tax-payers did not claim in 1963-64?
2.	What is the procedure followed by the Minister of National Revenue with regard to the utilization of the amounts deducted at the source under the Income Tax Act which remain unclaimed?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. For the taxation year ending in the 1963-64 fiscal year, deductions at source from salaries and wages for taxes under the Income Tax Act and the Old Age Security Act which remain unclaimed by taxpayers amount to $45,871,907.74. This does not include deductions at source under the nine provincial income tax statutes administered by the Department of National Revenue which remain unclaimed. The amount of deductions at source remaining unclaimed for the same period in respect of these provincial statutes is $6,273,563.96.
2. Unclaimed deductions at source under the Income Tax Act and the Old Age Security Act are included in consolidated revenue. Unclaimed deductions at source under the provincial statutes are paid to the respective provinces pursuant to the tax collection agreements with these provinces.



DRAFTSMAN'S TRADES, AIR FORCE AND ARMY

Mr. Madill: 1.	Will the draftsman's trade A.E.M., R.C.A.F. disappear with the integration of the armed
services?
2.	Will the draftsman's trade R.E.M.E. of the army trade disappear with integration of the armed services?
3.	Will civilian tradesmen be hired for this work if these trades are removed from the R.C.A.F. and army?

March 2, 1966
Questions


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1, 2 and 3. The functions of the air force trade of draftsman aeronautical, electrical and mechanical, and the Army-trade of draftsman electrical and mechanical (RCEME) will continue to be a requirement in the Canadian forces.
Studies are being conducted to determine whether these duties should be performed by service personnel and whether to have a single unified trade called draftsman. Within this trade, men would be specialized in specific fields of aeronautical or electrical and mechanical drafting.



TAX EXEMPTION OF MUNICIPAL COUNCILLORS

Mr. Sallsman: 1.	Has Hie Minister of National Revenue received representations from the Ontario municipal association requesting increased tax exemption on remuneration paid to municipal councillors?
2.	If so, what action is contemplated by the minister with respect to this request?


Edgar John Benson: 1. Yes.
2. It has been referred to the honourable the Minister of Finance for consideration in the course of preparing for the budget.



GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES BRANCH

Mr. McCutcheon: 1.	What dollar volume of new business was placed on the books by the government annuities branch in 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965?
2.	What is the annual cost to taxpayers for operation of this branch in the years mentioned?
3.	How many persons in Canada are receiving annuity payments from the government annuities branch?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 1.
Fiscal Year
1960-	61
1961-	62
1962-	63
1963-	64
1964-	65
1965-	66
Value at Maturity of annuity $177,134,000
140,151,000
89.413.000
67.160.000
58.846.000
56.580.000	(estimated)
[Mt. Madill.]
2.
Fiscal Year
1960- 61	$
1961-	62
1962-	63
1963-	64
1964-	65
1965-	66
1,161,924
1,191,114
1,199,387
1,159,096
1,207,143
1,150,000 (estimated)
3. As at March 31, 1965, 93,342 annuities were being paid.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Mandziuk: 1.	Has the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources purchased farm land from the resident farmers south of the Riding Mountain national park since 1957?
2.	If so, what is the legal description of each parcel, the date of purchase, consideration paid, and the name of each vendor?
3.	What are the reasons for these purchases?
4.	What annual grants has the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources paid to the resident administrator since 1957 as compensation for the loss of tax revenue to the municipality?
5.	What portion, if any, of the said grant is earmarked for school purposes?
6.	How long will these grants be continued?
Return tabled.


RECLASSIFICATION OF LABOUR DEPARTMENT STAFF
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Were any members of the staff of the Department of Labour reclassified, during 1964, 1965 and 1966 to date, following a study of their duties and performances?
2.	If so (a) how many persons were so classified in each branch of the said department (b) were members of the staff of the National Employment Service required to qualify by written test for reclassification and for what reason?
3.	Were any protestations from the staff of the NES received during 1965 by the Department of Labour or any official thereof concerning the requirement to write a qualifying examination to determine eligibility to enter the employment service officer class and, if so, what were these recommendations, to whom were they made, and what action, if any, was taken thereon?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: The remaining questions
stand.
March 2, 1966


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, before we allow the remainder of the questions to stand I should like to draw your attention to question No. 5 which has been standing on the order paper since the first day of the session.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Robert Carman Coates: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member should so state when he rises.


Robert Carman Coates: Question No. 5 has been on the order paper since January 18, the day this session began. It is not a complicated or difficult question. Question No. 163 has been on the order paper since January 21; question No. 210 has been on the order paper since January 24. All these questions should have been answered far sooner than March of this year. I urge that the government provide us with answers as quickly as possible.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I also rise on a question of privilege arising out of the answer to question No. 681, in which I asked how many grain merchants or dealers purchased wheat from the wheat board since January 1, 1965 and what were the names of such purchasers. The reason of the wheat board for refusing to give this information is one that is untenable. Parliament has a right to this information which in no way reveals the competitive situation of the several merchants but it will reveal facts that ought to be known by the Canadian people.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary-Secretary to Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. 95 is acceptable to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that notice of motion No. 95 be passed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions Nos. 96, 98 and 99 are acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations regarding classified documents and subject to the approval of the provincial authorities
Motions for Papers
concerned. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions stand.

Motion No. 95-Mr. Orlikow:



ADMISSION TO CANADA OF FOREIGN DOCTORS

[Stage Direction]
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence during the past three years between the federal government and the Canadian Medical Association, the Ontario Medical Association, the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons, or any other organization representing the medical profession, regarding the admission of foreign doctors to Canada and the standards of their education which might affect their right to practice medicine in Canada or any of the provinces.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 96-Mr. Douglas:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence and other documents between the federal Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and the federal Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys and the Minister of Recreation for British Columbia since April 8, 1963, concerning Garibaldi park in British Columbia becoming a national park.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 98-Mr. Caron:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the federal government and the governments of Ontario and Quebec, with regard to the proposed construction of a bridge from Hull to Ottawa, across Lemieux island.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 99-Mr. Caron:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence or communications exchanged between the federal government, the Department of Public Works, the national capital commission and the Premier of Quebec, the minister of public works of Quebec or any government body, with regard to the development of highways Nos. 8 and 11 to Hull.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: May I
ask, in connection with notice of motion No. 21 that this be transferred for debate? I asked the question in January and it still appears in March.

March 2. 1960
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order; it has to be called before the hon. member can ask that it be transferred for debate.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to direct the attention of the Prime Minister to a request made to him yesterday in an appeal by the Minister of Justice of the province of Quebec, asking for the appointment of a royal commission on organized crime. In dealing with the state of emergency during the course of his statement he said that the crime lords of Canada are known but there must be full co-operation if their nefarious wrongdoing is to be made known, and only through a royal commission would it be possible to ferret out the serious infiltration of these crime lords into Canadian life.
I ask this question of the Prime Minister because this further statement by a reliable man such as the Minister of Justice of Quebec indicates what the condition is. What does the Prime Minister intend to do about setting up a commission of federal and provincial representatives?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I said in reply to a similar question by my right hon. friend the other day that the matter would be considered by the government. Such preliminary consideration was given at our meeting of cabinet on Tuesday, at which unfortunately the Minister of Justice was not able to be present. This consideration will be continued tomorrow at cabinet when the Minister of Justice will be present, and when a decision is reached it will be announced in the house.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In the light of the increasing demand for a thorough study of crime in Canada, is the government considering issuing, perhaps, a white paper that will report on the situation with respect to crime and security in this country, so the general public can at least have some knowledge and some assurance that this particularly important aspect of our society will be looked into properly?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to consider that suggestion. However, I ought to remind my hon. friend that not many weeks ago a conference was held between the attorneys general of the provinces and the federal government on this very subject, at the end of which a statement was issued. I shall be glad to see if a supplementary white paper could be of value and of some use.


Robert Norman Thompson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does not the Prime Minister believe that the very outcome of the conference with the attorneys general of the provinces would be the basis for such a report?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is put in the form of a debate. The hon. member asks whether the Prime Minister believes this or something else. I suggest that that question is not properly worded.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister or the government house leader. In view of the understanding that when the present estimates are disposed of a supply motion will be brought in to open up ten departments, and these departmental estimates will then be sent to the various committees, I want to ask whether consideration would be given to having a meeting of house leaders with a view to allocating time so we could clear up all the present estimates by the end of Friday's sitting. It seems to me this would be possible if some allocation of time could be arranged. We would be agreeable to such an arrangement.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful for the suggestion which has been made by the hon. member, and I will certainly be glad to convene a meeting of the house leaders.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in regard to the matter which has now been raised. The Conservative opposition in the House of Commons has made at least two suggestions as to how best-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Oh.
March 2, 1966


Michael Starr: The Prime Minister need not say "Oh!"; all he has to do is confer with the house leader, who will verify the fact that we have brought forward certain suggestions which have facilitated the estimates of certain departments. We are willing to sit. This is how far away the Prime Minister is from keeping in touch with the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before we get into a debate on this matter I might remind hon. members that Wednesday is a short day with only 30 minutes allowed for questions. Therefore I doubt whether hon. members would want to spend 30 minutes, or a substantial part of it, discussing the matter which has been raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. It may be that after we have completed the question period a point of order might be raised, and I suggest this would be the proper way to proceed.


Michael Starr: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to say this about the remarks made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. It is the house leader of that party who has not been able to give firm commitments-


Mr. Lewis:: Oh, come on.


Michael Starr: That is right-in order to allocate time. That is the case.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, may I just thank my hon. friend for his ready agreement to the proposal that we should allocate time as a result of a meeting of the house leaders, which will facilitate introduction of the proposals which will be coming before the house after we get the estimates through.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, it is the house leader for the N.D.P. who does not speak for his members, and he should keep that in mind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been able to back up my commitments just as much as the hon. member for Ontario has been able to back up his, if not more so.


Michael Starr: Far from it, and you know it.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, may I just take a moment or two of the question period
Inquiries of the Ministry to say that we had every evidence yesterday of excellent co-operation from the official opposition. I will be very happy to convene a meeting of the house leaders to see what can be done to best serve the interests of all hon. members of parliament so we will not only have a full discussion of the estimates, but with the secondary purpose in mind of trying to complete this year's estimates on Friday night.
I do not want to get into any discussion of what was said at house leaders' meetings, but I do want to make it clear that I am appreciative of the co-operation I have had from the leaders of all parties opposite.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Speaker, there was an excellent example of obstruction last night on the part of the N.D.P.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caoueite (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, we are going to change the subject and revert to questions. My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister receive, yesterday or today, a delegation or representations from a group of professors and university students concerning the support the Canadian government is giving American military operations in Viet Nam? Is the Prime Minster in a position to tell us what answer he gave to such a delegation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not receive this delegation. It was received by the Secretary of State for External Affairs this morning.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs give us an answer?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I received the delegation this morning and considered its representations. I told the delegates we were doing everything in our power to promote negotiations as a member of the

March 2. 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry control commission. I hope that I have impressed the delegates.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put another question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who said he impressed the delegation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hope so.


David Réal Caouette: The Secretary of State for External Affairs may not be aware that, according to some delegates, the delegation is in complete disagreement with the present attitude of the government toward Viet Nam.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Though the Prime Minister informed us earlier that he had not received the delegation with regard to peace protests on Viet Nam, and since all of us I am sure have received a lengthy letter in this regard, with the recommendation that there should be a full debate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should put his question.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Is the Prime Minister giving consideration to an immediate discussion of this matter in the external affairs committee?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is, of course, the right and privilege of any member of that committee to raise any subject for discussion, and I have no doubt this particular one will be raised.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I was going to ask this a little earlier. Is the minister in a position to inform the house whether there has been any further progress in the attempts by himself and others to start discussions toward a conference on peace in Viet Nam?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think I can say there has been some progress. I cannot report that there has been any final agreement. There has been an indication by the

government of India that it would be prepared to join with Canada in the use of the commission for the purpose which was discussed with the Secretary General of the United Nations. India has taken the position, and I think correctly, that before the commission can act it must have the agreement of all three member states.
The third member is seriously and sincerely engaged in discussions with us on this matter. All three countries are doing whatever they can, having in mind their respective obligations to other countries, to try to reach a decision which would place this instrument, which the Canadian government believes now to be a potentially effective instrument, in a position to bring the parties together in this regrettable dispute.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: My question, Mr. Speaker, is directed to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, and has to do with a speech he made in Montreal yesterday. As reported in Le Devoir he said that as far as he was concerned a written constitution is not worth the paper it is written on. Is that the view of the minister; and did he, in uttering those words which are quoted in several newspapers, express the views of the government in that regard?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, it is well recognized by constitutionalists all over the world that a written constitution is only one of many elements entering into the formation of the real constitutional system of any country. The British North America Act is only part of the Canadian constitutional system. The conventions of the constitution are important. Legal interpretation is also important. Ordinary laws with constitutional contents passed in this house are also important.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has some doubt whether the question was in order in the first place. Perhaps the answer was not in order either. There is a discussion of a constitutional point between the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and the minister. My understanding of the rules is that
March 2, 1966
perhaps the right hon. Leader of the Opposition might ask the Prime Minister whether a statement made outside the house by the minister represents the policy of the government.


John George Diefenbaker: I asked the minister a question. I asked him whether he made such a preposterous statement, and his reply was not to answer the question. I ask him again. There is no other direct quotation in the statement except that the constitution is not worth the paper it is written on. Then the newspaper went on to say that the minister was going to resign unless he got what he wanted.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I was not talking about that when I said I might resign, I was talking about bilingualism in the civil service.


Michael Starr: You might end up in the salt mines.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the recent announcement that the production of gold dropped by some 11 per cent in the last year, and in view of the announcement this morning that two more gold mines will be closed down with a third one to be closed in six months, will the minister tell the house whether the government has any plan or policy that is going to prevent the complete extinction of the gold mining industry in this country?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the hon. member is asking a question in very general terms, requiring a statement of general policy, which cannot be asked at this time.



MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED AT CANADA-U.S. MINISTERIAL MEETING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I was unable to find the occasion on yesterday's estimates to obtain an answer to a question I directed to the Minister of Finance on Tuesday. I wonder if I might be permitted to ask my question again. It deals with the agenda of the ministers' meetings at Washington, concerning the relations between the Securities Exchange Commission in the
Inquiries of the Ministry U.S. and the potential national securities exchange commission here, also the relationship between the federal power commission and the National Energy Board. Will these matters be on the agenda on this week end's meetings?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the first of the items mentioned by the hon. member will be on the agenda. At that meeting we shall be protesting against the extension of U.S'. security regulations to Canada. We shall be pointing out to the United States authorities that arrangements are already in hand by the federal government to promote more adequate securities regulations in Canada. I believe these two questions are quite closely related, and so does the government.
With respect to the second item raised by the hon. member, that matter is not on the agenda.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Is it also the intention of the Canadian ministers who will be attending the conference in Washington to make any protests regarding some of the other aspects of the U.S. guide lines policy.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that there will be the fullest discussion of all these questions. I am sure the representatives of the U.S. cabinet who will be attending these meetings are very well aware indeed of Canadian views on this subject.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek additional information. Would the minister consider raising the second matter, possibly on an informal basis, with his counterpart in the U.S., with particular reference to the hearings now being held before the F.P.C. on the gas transmission line from the west to the east in Canada via the U.S.A. because I think this has implications concerning our national sovereignty.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest to the hon. gentleman that I do not think an independent judicial tribunal in the United States would welcome intervention by the Canadian government, any more than we would welcome intervention by the United States government before a board like the National Energy Board, and I feel it would be inappropriate for us to raise that sort of question at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: About Canada's sovereignty?

2054	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hai):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Finance a supplementary question with reference to the questions asked by the hon. members for Qu'Appelle and Burnaby-Coquitlam on United States guide lines. Is the minister aware that the Chrysler Corporation has announced plans to raise $15 million outside the United States, and is he aware whether any portion of this is going to be raised in Canada for the corporation's capital requirements outside Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of these facts, but I shall be very happy to make inquiries.



MEMBERSHIP OF MISSION TO JAPAN AND KOREA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Moore (Weiaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in connection with a news release from his department yesterday which stated:
A seven man federal trade mission will leave Canada on March 11 to spend about two weeks promoting the sale of Canadian livestock, particularly Holstein-Friesians. in Japan and Korea.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. Would the hon. member put his question.


Harry Andrew Moore: Yes. I notice that all the members of the mission were chosen from Ontario and Quebec. Why was there no representative from other parts of Canada, in particular western Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt if this question is in order at this time, because the hon. gentleman is dealing with something that has happened. I suggest he might place his protest on the order paper.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. It arises out of an answer he gave yesterday to a question directed to him by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan). In view of the minister's statement that all four Atlantic provinces are part of Canada, will the minister inform the house when the discriminatory regulation which denies the right of herring seiners to operate on the New

DEBATES	March 2, 1966
Brunswick side of the bay of Fundy, on a year round basis, will be lifted?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, this question is very important to Nova Scotia and maritime fishermen in general, and I think the minister should answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question has not been put in a proper way. That is why it has not been accepted by the Chair.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker, the minister stated yesterday that all four Atlantic provinces are part of Canada. I ask the minister, when is he going to start treating all fishermen in the Atlantic provinces on an equal basis?



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister received a wire from the Regina Chamber of Commerce expressing concern at the report of possible discontinuance of intercity air service by TransAir; and will he assure the prairie cities of his intention to see that this air service, or some similar service, is continued?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question might be placed on the order paper.


James Ernest Pascoe: With all respect to you, sir, this is a very pressing question to the people out there. It is something which is coming up very shortly. I gave the minister notice, and I think he should answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, if the minister feels the question is of such urgency that it should not be placed on the order paper but answered now, certainly the Chair has no objection.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in this particular case since the hon. gentleman did me the courtesy of giving me notice I think I should answer. Further, I think this matter is urgent because there was a quite erroneous statement-I am not blaming anybody-in the press this morning about the matter.
It is true that the Air Transport Board has permitted TransAir to suspend the service between Yorkton and Saskatoon within the
March 2, 1966
COMMONS DEBATE*
next ten days or so, but so far as an application for suspension of the rest of the prairie services is concerned, the board has decided to hold a hearing on this matter, and the services will not be suspended until a hearing has been held and a decision rendered.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. In view of the serious imbalance of trade between Canada and the United States, and the information just released today by the D.B.S. people stating that for the first nine months


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member cannot give an observation or information. He should ask for information by posing a question.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I will rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the serious imbalance of trade between Canada and the United States, what steps does the minister propose to take to halt the fantastic rise in the importation of automobiles into Canada which took place during the first nine months of the operation of the free trade deal? The statistics show that the increase is 50 per cent.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I may give a very short answer-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest the hon. member should place his question on the order paper.



MONTREAL-ASSISTANCE IN GETTING 1972 OLYMPIC GAMES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare or his parliamentary secretary. Would the minister tell us whether the mayor of Montreal has requested assistance from the federal government in his attempt to obtain the 1972 Olympics for Montreal?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question should be placed on the order paper.
Inquiries of the Ministry UNITED NATIONS



EAST GERMANY-CANADIAN ATTITUDE TOWARD MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of yesterday's announcement that East Germany has applied for membership in the United Nations, could the minister say what will be the attitude of the Canadian Government toward that application?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that would go first before the Security Council. Canada is not a member of the Security Council, so we would not now have the opportunity of expressing our judgment, but I suspect that, because there is no peace treaty, UN membership for East Germany is something we may not readily expect.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Justice whether he has received any recent communication from Victor Spencer which would constitute further evidence in support of a judicial hearing, as has been demanded by the opposition in this house?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he has received any recent communication from Victor Spencer which would constitute further evidence in support of a judicial hearing into this matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will be disappointed when I say no.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Yukon, and is directed to the Prime Minister. During the course of the investigation and during the last few months has the government of Canada received a letter from Spencer setting forth his side of the case and, in that letter, giving a great deal of information?
2056	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada has received a communication from Mr. Spencer, signed by him, explaining-


Erik Nielsen: Exactly.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This was many months
ago-explaining the nature of his own improper conduct. The government also received a communication from Mr. Spencer some weeks ago-"To Whom It May Concern"-thanking the R.C.M.P. and others who have been with him during these difficult months for the courtesy and consideration he received.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, now having the interpretation of these two letters, I ask the Prime Minister to table them. Let us get the facts.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Justice. Can he tell us if an hon. member has approached him with a view to meeting Mr. Spencer?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from Vancouver and I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister. I made inquiries of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Vancouver from eleven o'clock Monday morning until five o'clock Monday afternoon. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police informed me they did not know where Mr. Spencer was. Will the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice tell me whether they know where Mr. Spencer is?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, if I may answer that question, I might say I understand that the hon. member for Vancouver East spoke to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police about seeing Mr. Spencer-


Harold Edward Winch: How did you know?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: -and that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police gave the member for Vancouver East the address of Mr. Spencer-I am sorry-gave Mr. Spencer the address of the hon. member for Vancouver East and said that if Mr. Spencer wanted to communicate with the hon. member for Vancouver East he was certainly free to do so.

DEBATES	March 2, 1966
There was also a further question. The hon. member for Vancouver East was advised that Mr. Spencer might in fact want to see him, and the hon. member said he was going to Ottawa and that if Mr. Spencer wanted to see him he should write him a letter.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. In what has just been stated by the minister you will have noticed how the minister had to correct himself. I was at no time given the address or a telephone number. All this is most important on my question of privilege. I telephoned the only place I thought I could phone, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, because I felt it was important to Mr. Spencer. For six hours I received no definitive answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member kindly resume his seat. I have to advise the hon. member that I do not think there is a question of privilege at all in what he is saying now. He asked a question of the minister and a reply was given. I do not see how the exchange could have given rise to a question of privilege in any way. If there are other facts which the hon. member feels give rise to a question of privilege it is not my intention to deny him the right to raise such a question, but certainly to this point there is nothing to indicate there is such a question.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we might allow the hon. member for Vancouver East, who seems to think there are additional arguments to bring forward, the opportunity to do so, so the Chair can give the matter further thought.


Harold Edward Winch: I will do so right now, Mr. Speaker. This is a most important matter. The information given by the Minister of Justice is not correct in respect of my endeavours to get in contact with Mr. Spencer in Vancouver. I tried to get in contact with him at ten minutes to eleven on Monday morning. After going through sub-inspectors and sub-inspectors I finally received an answer at 14 minutes after five o'clock at which time I was told that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were not able to get in touch with this man under surveillance to tell him that I wanted to see him. At 14 minutes after five o'clock on Monday I said "Will you then convey a message to him that I am trying to get in touch with him, because I am leaving
March 2, 1966

for Ottawa at 9.15 tomorrow morning and he can contact me by phone or by mail". Sir, for six hours the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, having this man under surveillance, said they could not get in touch with him to convey my message.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is still no question of privilege. The question period has expired.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Administration-
1. Departmental administration, including the Canadian agricultural services co-ordinating committee, contributions to the commonwealth agricultural bureaux and a special contribution not exceeding $62,000 to the agricultural economics research council, subject to approval by the treasury board, $4,186,600.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, these being the first and I sincerely hope not the last estimates I shall have the honour to present before this committee I should like to say that as these estimates are the estimates of the past year I hope hon. members will not think it inappropriate if I do not have too much to say by way of an opening statement in respect of them. I am sure hon. members opposite are waiting with bated breath for my words of wisdom in this regard. I do think, however, that it might be best, in as much as these estimates are the estimates of the minister who preceded me, if I do not say too much in opening except to say I would be pleased to try to answer any questions which hon. members may have.
Very briefly in opening I think I should thank hon. members on both sides of the house for the great courtesy they have shown me since my appointment and for the help 1 have received on all sides of the house. I trust that during my tenure as minister we will be able, with the co-operation of members of the house, to evolve policies and measures which will be in the interests of the farm community generally.
I think we all rejoice in the fact of the good prices which generally have been enjoyed in the agricultural community in the past few months and in the past year. I know that this does not mean in any way that the job is done. It is far from being completed. I think there is still a great deal to be done. Certainly on the question of farm income, relative to that enjoyed in the industrial 23033-1301
Supply-Agriculture
community in this period of boom and expansion there is a great deal yet to be accomplished.
I think the D.B.S. statistics, if I recollect them correctly, indicate that in the year 1951 farm income was of the same general level as industrial income. Today, I think probably by virtue of the great boom and expansion in the industrial community, farm income generally is now something like 30 per cent below the average income enjoyed by working men and women in the industrial community.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
As long as this state of affairs exists I believe there is a great challenge to us who are interested in or responsible for the interests of the agricultural community generally. I hope that the government measures announced in the Throne Speech for the purpose of improving the situation will be efficacious and successful. I certainly pledge myself and the department to the end that this discrepancy will be removed. As hon. members know, the general policy of the government is to the effect that family farm incomes will be, through the use and application of effective measures, generally of the same proportion as incomes enjoyed in the industrial communities. In the past year or two the average industrial income has been somewhere between $4,500 to $5,000 per year. Certainly the policies of the government are geared to the end that the minimal income of the viable economic farm unit will be of the same measure, of the same nature and in the same economic bracket.
With those brief words, Mr. Chairman, and with the hope that our policies will be successful and that we will get the co-operation of the house, as I know we will, in bringing about these effective policies when they are before us. I can only say that during my tenure of office I hope we can achieve improvement in the farm economy generally and that with the passage of our legislation as it comes forth there will be an improvement in the farm economy across the whole of this great country.


Mr. Danforlh:: Mr. Chairman, first I should like to thank the minister for the courtesy he has shown in making a statement. On behalf of the opposition I should like to thank him particularly for his deliberate course of action in staying completely away from the partisan political role. I am sure he will find that,

March 2. 1966
Supply-Agriculture
because of his determined course in this respect his estimates will receive ready acceptance from this side of the house.
One of the important aspects in the agricultural field in the last few years relates to a feeling by the farmers of this great nation that partisan politics have been creeping into the department in such a way that its efficiency can be crippled to some degree. I am not going to elaborate on this in a partisan manner because I hope to stay absolutely away from partisanship, but I do wish to point out three examples where this was very evident.
In Ontario the sugar beet growers were very much disturbed last fall by the fact that subsidy cheques which they had earned and which were owing to them were delayed for many weeks. All interrogation of the minister and the department by members on this side of the house failed to procure any kind of statement why this situation existed. Is it not strange that on the Saturday preceding the last election, after weeks of delay, thousands of dollars in subsidy cheques poured into the hands of the sugar beet growers not because of the benevolence of the government but because the money was owing to these farmers. This cannot be regarded as a coincidence because the cheques did not arrive on the usual staggered basis but were directed to all mail routes so that they arrived simultaneously.
The farmers of the area concerned took a very dim view of this because they felt that not only were partisan politics involved but pressure had also been brought to bear on the Department of Agriculture to make such a course of action possible. I want to congratulate the minister, however, because he stayed out of party politics, which was not the course of action followed by his predecessor. I am sure one little incident will bear out what I mean in this regard.
I posed a question in the house to the previous minister of agriculture and he took the question as notice. I had no objection to that because it was his privilege to do so. However, I object very strenuously to the fact that having taken my question as notice his office telephoned the next morning to the local Liberal M.L.A. and gave him the answer before it had even been given to me in the house. That gentleman then telephoned the local radio station which in turn made it available to everyone over the air. Surely that is partisan politics.
I should like to outline one more incident of this type and then leave this subject. I was

most unhappy and disturbed when I visited a great farm community group who wished to present their views to the government as to what should be done in the field of agriculture because it appeared to me that at that meeting they were combing their membership for known government party workers to present their brief. They did not feel their views would be listened to unless they were presented by known party workers. That is a sad state of affairs.
1 wish now to congratulate the minister on his appointment to office. Following his appointment there were two questions which arose in the minds of farmers across the country. The first related to the fact that the hon. gentleman appointed to the ministry was a member of the House of Commons for an eastern constituency. What was the reaction to that appointment? I am delighted to say that the reaction so far as I was concerned, and as far as I could ascertain from a large group of farmers, was that they had no concern at all whether the minister was from the east or from the west as long as he delivered the goods, because that is what they are interested in.
The next question was related to his background. Was he a farmer? The farmers did not care whether or not he was a farmer. Farmers today are interested in what is ahead of them and what is to come. They want to know how the minister will receive their delegations, whether he will be sympathetic and what action he will take. They want to know whether he will direct the Department of Agriculture to assist them. That is the interest of the farmers of this country, not whether he is a farmer. I am very pleased that they are not interested in that aspect.
We could not of course expect the minister, who is new to one of the greatest departments of government and no doubt has a tremendous amount to learn, to make a policy statement today, especially in view of the fact he is dealing with the estimates of his predecessor. However, one of the things that has troubled us about the Department of Agriculture during the last three years is that there has never been a definite statement of policy made by the minister of agriculture, the Prime Minister or anyone on that side of the house.
Today there was no indication of appreciation of or concern for some of the main problems that face the agricultural industry
March 2, 1966

at this time. We were hoping that the minister would give some indication of government thinking in this regard. One of the big problems in the agricultural field today relates to the dairy industry. What lies ahead for that industry? The new year, so far as the dairy industry is concerned, is just ahead of it. What action does the government contemplate and where is it going in this area? I do not choose to deal with dairy problems because speakers who will follow me will do so in some detail but I wanted to point out that there is a problem in this regard.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Another problem is the extreme poverty that exists in some rural areas today. Farmers are faced, as are all other Canadian citizens today, with a tremendous increase in the cost of living that far exceeds the increase in their incomes. They are also faced with the ever-increasing cost of farm machinery and have to contend with this problem. Another problem that is becoming increasingly important and vital to the farmers is the lack of skilled, semi-skilled or even day labour to assist them. The lack of farm labour has very serious implications.
We are also concerned about the lack of any evidence of an over-all agricultural policy on the part of the government. I do not intend to spend the time allocated to me in dwelling on what the Conservative party did when it was in office. We made attempts in two basic areas. We started on a deliberate dairy policy for the nation as a whole. There are some indications that the government is carrying this policy even farther. We established through ARDA and other programs a policy designed to aid farmers, especially those in the more rural areas where poverty has become so evident.
We set up ARDA for this purpose, and there are indications that the government is carrying this project even farther. But we on this side of the house are concerned about the fact that most of the policies of the government have been based on policies that we established. They increased farm income; they increased farm loans; they increased Farm Credit Corporation loans; they made it possible through syndicates to buy more machinery. We had worked on these policies which were set up to help farmers.
However, Mr. Chairman, unfortunately conditions have changed to such a degree that in many instances these measures have created hardship. Increasing the amount of farm
Supp ly-A griculture
loans did three things. First, it did not solve anything. It put farmers deeper in debt because their obligations were increased. Second, since it gave young farmers more money with which to buy land a greater demand for farm land developed and its price increased. Third, when the machinery companies found that farmers had more money to spend, they took advantage of this fact and raised the price of farm machinery to some extent. So this policy did not settle anything. It did not meet any of the main problems it was designed to meet.
We in the opposition believe that the policy which was designed to help farmers in their distress in 1955, 1956 and 1957, and which we feel was successful, is not an absolute policy and should not be followed today. Conditions have changed vastly since that time and we believe a new policy should be introduced that will meet the conditions of farming today.
Hon. members on both sides of the house have to rely to a marked degree on recommendations made by farm groups which make a study of basic conditions in the industry. The farm groups have made recommendations. The Standing Committee on Agriculture listened to these groups. The groups made recommendations to the committee and the committee made a report to the government last March, but not one single policy advocated in the report has up to this time been introduced by the government.
One recommendation very dear to the hearts of the farmers in my area was that the feed subsidy paid by the government on the freighting of western feed grain into eastern Canada be paid in respect of feed grains moving from Ontario into traditional markets in the east. This was asked for and was recommended by the committee but it was turned down by the government. No doubt it was turned down by the government for what they felt to be good and sufficient reason, but I do not understand their reason and I hope at a later date to have the opportunity to debate this very important matter.
We are also very concerned about the Department of Agriculture as a department. Our great Department of Agriculture is made up of men who for the most part have spent all their lives in some field of agriculture. The Department of Agriculture has through the years established an international reputation not only with regard to assessing problems in agriculture on a day to day basis but

March 2, 1966
Supply-Agriculture
in assessing the future of agriculture and providing measures to meet tomorrow's situations.
The department has evolved various agricultural projects which have made farming so successful. We have increased production and have adopted new practices, thanks to the Department of Agriculture. We have extended the areas in which various crops can be grown, thanks to the work of the Department of Agriculture.
But what alarms us very much today is the fact that the government has taken the Department of Agriculture and divided it into several departments which have been placed under different ministers. This is of extreme concern to those of us who are so vitally concerned with agriculture, because it is directly contrary to the action of the Department of National Defence which has said that by amalgamation it has been able to cut down expense and increase efficiency. We want to know whether splitting up the Department of Agriculture will increase expense and cut down efficiency. Surely this does not work both ways. We believe we shall have to take a long look at this problem and find out exactly what the reaction is across the country to the division of the department. If the division of the Department of Agriculture will increase efficiency and help farmers and farm organizations, then we in the opposition will give credit to the government for its action, but until we have some tangible proof that it will have this effect we shall view the whole operation with suspicion.
We hope that the government will live up to its intention of placing before the Standing Committee on Agriculture the estimates of the Department of Agriculture for the next fiscal year. We shall ask the minister whether this is the intention of the government because we want departmental officials to appear before the committee in order that we may ask them questions. We do not want to persecute them but to find out if they are hampered in any way in their activities. We want to know whether they feel they have enough money for research in agriculture, which is so important today and so necessary for the future of the industry. We want to know whether they have the facilities with which to work. We want to know whether they are given the opportunity to attend agricultural functions and meetings throughout the world because agriculture is of world wide importance now and is not limited to Canada. We want to find out just what the

policy of the government is, in what direction they are going and whether they are providing the necessary funds and opportunities to carry out this policy.
We have been alarmed during the last two years when ministers of agriculture have stood in their place and announced that action had been taken in regard to agriculture which would result in the saving of millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money. We all like to save money, but anyone engaged in the industry knows that drastic cut-backs by the government in this field mean that some section of the industry has to suffer an economic squeeze. We do not want to see this happen.
There is one other matter I should like to bring to the attention of the minister in regard to the position of agriculture today. I wish to commend some of the provincial governments for taking an absolutely new look at the problems of agriculture and approaching them from a new angle. Some provincial governments are approaching these problems from the viewpoint that agriculture should encompass every phase of food production and use from the producer to the consumer and should be under one department. I am one of those who feel this is a step in the right direction.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Surely we should know if the consumer is paying too much for a commodity. We should know if the primary producer is receiving too little for a commodity. We should know the amount of money it costs to take primary products from the farmer to the ultimate consumer. If all this information were available within the Department of Agriculture, we would then be in a position to look at the entire picture and perhaps not only make food more readily available to the consumer but through efficiency make our farmers more competitive in world markets. Perhaps we could reduce some expenses that are hurting the primary producer.
There are two other aspects of agriculture that I feel are in dire trouble. I do not believe the government is approaching them from the right angle. We have heard of the government proposition to buy submarginal farm land, convert it and sell it back to farmers. I do not believe this approach is feasible. I think it is too costly and I do not believe it will achieve the result desired.
When we look at the program to help farmers we must realize that today there is a
March 2, 1966

new type of farmer who is increasing in numbers. I refer to the farmer who makes only part of his living from the land where his home is situated and part of his living working in industry or from some other position. In other words, he is a part time farmer. We must realize that such farmers are not only here but are entitled to the opportunity to earn a living in this way. They are entitled to help. We must recognize that this type of farmer is a growing part of our agricultural picture and must receive every consideration.
Surely there must be some other way of helping a farmer than buying his land and moving him away. Perhaps another method would be the building of new roads into certain inaccessible areas, thus bringing in tourists, people who would build new cottages and create a need for more labour. A new motel, a new marina or a fishing resort might be developed. This is the sort of thing into which we should be looking now rather than curtailing the activities of the man who is making a living off the farm.
There is another change taking place which I do not believe most men engaged in agriculture expected. I refer to the dire plight of the large mechanized farmer, the man who has specialized or taken part in vertical integration. These large operators need help badly because they cannot find men to operate their extensive holdings. They have made tremendous capital expenditures on machinery but because of the labour picture are unable to obtain labourers to run the machines which are becoming ever more complicated. In addition, these large operators find they can no longer engage competent managers. As a result there is great inefficiency and a tremendous rise in costs. They thought they would make money because of their large production but they find the reverse is true and because of the extensiveness of their holdings they are suffering even greater hardship.
These are the things into which we should be looking. What can we do to help these men? More farm labour is going to have to be brought into this country in order to plant and harvest the large crops. We are going to have to comb every place in Canada where there is an excess of labour and try to engage these people on a seasonal basis for those areas where labour is needed. I feel that this method alone will not provide the answer to our labour problems. Other steps will have to be taken. I am encouraged to know that we
Supply-Agriculture
are not alone in our concern. Members in all parts of the house are not only concerned about the situation but are taking concerted action to do something about it.
Finally I should like to say this to the minister. He is from eastern Canada and is therefore in a position to assess and be familiar with the problems of eastern Canada. He is a new minister without an agricultural background and probably has the advantage of having no preconceived ideas. He can listen to the officials of his department and take the advice of the great farm delegations that come here periodically. He can assess the tremendous needs of agriculture today and by directives can formulate a policy that will once more put the agricultural industry of Canada into a position of being envied throughout the world as once was the case.
Unfortunately this image has been fading lately because we are not delivering the goods. In my honest opinion, one of the great areas in which this country is falling behind is in the field of research development and sale of agricultural products throughout the world. Tremendous steps are being taken in this direction by other countries. There have been tremendous developments in the production of food. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Chairman, in the next few years we in this country will see the time when food and clean water will be as valuable as many of the base metals. We might just as well face this fact now and try to take steps to take advantage of the situation by keeping our water clean and providing the necessary agricultural commodities that will sell throughout the world. We can only do this by planning and by the work of our agricultural technicians. I have visited establishments that are only waiting for the word to go and they will give us the necessary products to sell. If we do not sell our products, if we do not make them competitive, we are going to find ourselves in the position where the nations of this world, by the use of carbon and other base materials, will possess synthetic foods produced through chemical processes and will not need our products to the degree they do today.
Let us provide the products they need. We have such a golden opportunity. Many millions of people in the world are starving to death because of a lack of protein and carbohydrates, two essential food elements which we have in excess in this country. Some success has been achieved in processing

March 2, 1966
Supply-Agriculture
these elements in a form in which they can be shipped to all needy countries. We are going to have to have a program, we are going to have to barter, we are going to have to exchange goods for goods. This is the sort of program the Department of Agriculture should be adopting. The department should ascertain what we need from these countries. Let us trade with these countries. They do not want extended credit; they want to trade. Certainly they have some things we can use.
I feel the time has come when we should move into this field. Let us find out what they can use. Let us provide it for them at a price they can afford.
This government has used subsidies and marketing schemes as a means of answering farm problems. Previous governments have done the same thing. This is a common practice of provincial administrations in the field of agriculture. The men who are engaged in agriculture have come to the definite conclusion that subsidies and marketing schemes do aid in times of dire trouble but that they are not an answer to all agricultural problems today. We have to take a new look at these problems. We have to move into new fields. Agriculture is an industry with tremendous horizons. Now is the time to move into new fields. The only way we can do this is to go to our technicians in the industry who, I say with utter conviction, are second to none in this world, and give them an opportunity to place Canada in the forefront. Let them tell us what the problems are. Let them suggest solutions and let us back them with our support and taxpayers' money. I assure you it is my conviction that this approach will be cheaper to the taxpayer in the long run.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I realize the minister has been very brief in his remarks in introducing the estimates of his predecessor and I do not blame him for this for two reasons. First of all, the money is pretty well gone and, second, there is really nothing creditable in the operations and stewardship of the previous minister of agriculture. None of the problems he faced originally were solved and the condition of agriculture now is no better than when he was first appointed minister.
Whether or not the new minister from eastern Canada will change this state of affairs I do not know, but let him remember that if he fails he may be pensioned off to the

other place, which perhaps would not be a bad thing either. However, the Canadian public are looking to the federal government for assistance which they have not been getting and I personally am looking to the new Minister of Agriculture to consider some of the problems he now faces.
I was very pleased to hear him be so brash as to say that much of the responsibility for the problem in moving grain in western Canada rested entirely upon the shoulders of the management of the Canadian Pacific Railway, who had failed to provide box cars for the movement of wheat when requested to do so. The fact that he is not going to do anything about it is not necessarily his fault but the fault of his friends in the cabinet who are failing to take the necessary steps so apparent to the new minister who knows the problem and sees the solution. When the officials advise him that you cannot force the Canadian Pacific Railway to provide box cars and that you cannot provide larger quotas for some of the points shipping grain, then they make the problem even more difficult for the minister. However, I hope he will be able to continue taking that fresh look which he apparently took of some of the problems which have faced us over the years in western Canada which though not yet solved are not without solution.
In speaking on the estimates last year I made reference to a problem which had developed in Ontario and in particular in my part of Ontario. It is one which last year caused a disaster. I have on the order paper a bill to introduce legislation to govern, license and regulate the operation of rainmaking machines. No doubt each hon. member has his own opinion whether or not rainmaking machines do produce rain, but in any case both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Forestry are aware of the fact that a superabundance of rain fell last year in the northern part of Ontario creating a problem completely foreign to the Minister of Agriculture who comes from an area which suffered to about the same degree for exactly the opposite reason.
The farmers in my area believe that the rainmaking equipment used by the Ontario Department of Lands and Forests, the Ontario Hydro and by private pulp and paper companies had a great deal to do with the fact that it rained almost every day last year and destroyed a large percentage of the hay and grain crop in my area as well as almost
March 2, 1966

all the seed produced in the area which amounts to about half the total production in Ontario. It is interesting to note that the Ontario government spent a quarter of a million dollars on the installation of rainmaking equipment in the minister's riding last year to produce rain. Whether or not there can be compatibility in the use of such equipment in different areas is a moot point and one which will be kicked around at farmers' meetings probably for the next couple of years.
I believe that the Department of Agriculture should give some consideration to the various aspects of rainmaking and should investigate the potential of this operation. If it works in areas where there is a drought it would be advantageous. If it works in areas which have an abundance of rain, then I suggest that probably some compensation should be made available to the farmers. In my area between 50 per cent to 80 per cent of the hay crop was submarginal. This was not because we did not have a good crop. We had a bumper crop. The same was true of grain. However, it rained all through the haying season and most of the hay that was cut stayed on the ground. Also, a lot of it was not even cut and much of it put into the barns was not fit to feed to stock and in many cases was dangerous as feed owing to its condition.
A somewhat similar situation exists with regard to grain. I estimate that in Timis-kaming the farmers received something less than a 50 per cent return on their grain. In the Cochrane district they probably received less than 30 per cent.
The reason I raise this matter is that the federal government has been interested over the years in crop insurance. They have also been interested in natural disasters. They introduced the prairie farm rehabilitation scheme and have given assistance in cases of disaster for some time. In Ontario assistance is given with the co-operation of the provincial government but for the last few years the Ontario government has not looked farther than the edge of Toronto. If the grass is green on the lawn of the parliament buildings, then agriculture in the province must be in fairly good shape.
How little attention is paid to northern Ontario is seen by the fact that the situation to which I have referred became so acute that it was made an election issue, and the Prime Minister of Canada became involved and made all sorts of silly promises, as did 23033-131
Supply-Agriculture
others. The Ontario department decided to apply the same drought program in my area as was applied in the Renfrew area, which means that coupons were issued to the farmers to enable them to buy grain and hay. Assistance is provided up to $30 per ton for feed grain and $15 per ton for hay. The difficulty is that no hay is available. Most of the farmers have insufficient money to make up the difference in the cost of grain, which is about $30 to $35 per ton in addition to the government subsidy. I think the minister will agree that this is not good legislation. I think he will agree that further assistance must be given to these farmers.
I had hoped that the Minister of Agriculture would be from the province of Quebec. While many people have spoken of backward conditions over the years in the province of Quebec, anyone who looks at Quebec today will find that agriculture in the province is much more advanced so far as assistance to farmers is concerned and certainly more advanced than agriculture in the province of Ontario, of which I have some knowledge. I was quite surprised and pleased to find that in the last throne speech in the province of Quebec another $9 million was allocated to the Lake St. John disaster area to meet the situation that arose in 1964-65, whereas in Ontario the government is willing to make only a 50 per cent contribution to the livestock program to keep cows alive during the winter so they can go on pasture in the spring. It is an animal-humanitarian type of program which really does not do much to help the farmers stay in business.
When the Prime Minister visited my area during the election campaign I was surprised to find him talking about the fact that the government was going to buy a number of farms in different areas, take them over and operate them for a while and when they became operating units sell them back to the farmers. I suggest that perhaps the crop disasters in my area have helped the government considerably because it looks as though a lot of these farms will become available without the government having to buy them.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
It is a type of crisis prevalent throughout the country and particularly in my area. In Canada we are faced with a type of agricultural disaster. Farmers are no longer able to carry on for any period of time because they are working on a very close margin. I am sure the minister knows these facts. I am not

March 2, 1966
Supp ly-A gricul ture
sure what he is going to do about his officials when he brings farm problems to their attention. I believe that with very few exceptions there will be very little change so long as the officials of the department have their present attitude, which seems to be a fairly political one, as a result of which they act in such a manner that they will just get by.
I think that many officials in the Department of Agriculture will have to look at the effects of redistribution because from that will come changes that the officials will have to take into consideration. There will be a great shake-up in the Department of Agriculture when there is no support for the program which they have been carrying on for some time. I repeat that agriculture is in a very serious crisis. It is in a state of crisis not only respecting disasters, because the department helps nobody in disasters, but is in a state of crisis in many other areas.
I spoke to a man the other day who indicated that he had gone over the books of a young farmer who had spent considerable money in the buying of a large farm unit in which he had combined a number of smaller farms. He had gone into the meat production field, found himself in serious difficulty because of the lack of crop last year, had sold his cattle at a very large loss, had extended himself into the dairy products field, and now finds that he is plagued with the same problems as other dairy farmers are. Those problems arise from the lack of a dairy program in Ontario. Consequently he finds that he is selling about 25 per cent of his production on a quota giving him $25 a hundred while three quarters of his production is going at the surplus price of $2.85 which is considerably below his cost of production.
This farmer is going to be out of business very shortly unless something is done. We have talked of $4 milk in the house. A dairy commission has now been established in the province of Ontario and I am hopeful, as are the farmers, that the result in a short time will be the establishment of a unit price of $4 across the province so that all dairy producers will receive this price. I think assistance from the federal government will be required. If the program I have referred to is not successful then you will find we will have sr situation with considerable competition across the borders between provinces and surplus milk being dumped from one province into another and so on. For instance, it might be found that casein is being dumped in one
[Mr. Peters.l
province and fluid milk in another, or it might be found that butter is being dumped in one province and cheese is being moved in the opposite direction.
It is interesting to note that the provincial government of Quebec has a 25 cent subsidy that has helped to create a problem with respect to movements of milk across the border. This, I think, is a field to which the minister will have to give consideration.
If agriculture as a whole is to survive, then the prices of agricultural products must rise. The cost squeeze on farmers must be reduced. At the same time there is another point that farmers are not taking into consideration but that the minister and the government must take into consideration. I refer to the unholy rise in the price of every commodity that people eat. Almost all these commodities are agricultural products. In this country we could very easily get into a position where consumers would not be able to buy the commodities that are produced, no matter how high the subsidy is. In this country as in the United States, we could find ourselves in a predicament where the government will have to provide subsidies to keep land out of production. If that were to happen, I think the failure of the federal Department of Agriculture would be known to everyone and it would be almost complete.
The farmers will agree, I think, that if the country has to pay a subsidy to keep land out of production something must be badly wrong with the whole scheme of things. Something must be wrong when you deny starving peoples of the world the commodities which would have been grown had land not been taken out of production.
Many problems face Canada today in the agricultural field. I am not one of those who particularly want the agricultural estimates to go before the agricultural committee this year. I am not interested in farm machinery prices being discussed before the agricultural committee. I say that because I have not, nor has any other member of the house, any assurance that anything will happen with respect to any thing discussed before that committee. In my office I have a thick file of documents containing facts, figures and statistics from an inquiry which we made not more than two or three years ago into the reasons for rising prices of farm machinery. This government and the previous government did absolutely nothing about that even
March 2, 1S6B

after the committee had made several recommendations that any government could have implemented if it had wanted to.
Unless the minister gives an assurance that he is prepared to do somthing about farm problems there is absolutely no point in the farmers of Canada thinking that anything will be accomplished by agricultural matters being referred to the agricultural committee. When I find that the Minister of Agriculture is not the least bit interested in what is going on in the agricultural committee I am always concerned. I am concerned when the minister sends his parliamentary secretary to see that the committee does not do anything and does not step out of line. His department even sends a sort of adviser to make sure that nothing happens, to make sure that a quorum can be maintained and to see that nothing is slipped in which might accomplish something.
I may be unfair in thinking that previous ministers have not really wanted to do anything about agriculture. I am quite sure that the last two ministers have not really wanted to do anything about agricultural problems. In fact, I thought that the last minister did not understand the problems. A million dollar farmer is not the average farmer that I represent. The problems of the million dollar farmer really do not interest the farmers I am associated with. Their problem is to try to live on $3,500 a year, a level which in some cases they are not even successful in reaching. This is the type of farmer about whom I think we must be concerned. To be successful in dealing with the small farmer's problems we shall have to consider all possible potential means to solve his problems.
The other night I discussed some of the problems facing ARDA. ARDA is not a matter that should come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Forestry. Its problems concern the Minister of Agriculture. The minister is well aware of the long term potential of the ARDA program because in the long run it offers a solution for agriculture. The minister is as well aware as I am that many farmers in Renfrew and Timiskaming should not be on the farms they occupy today. Our problem is to find a solution to get them off the farms without bringing about the bad effects of great dislocations in communities and among the people who are going to be displaced. The solution to this problem will have to be considered over a long term. Standards will have to be set. Surveys will have to be made in the national interest to find out in what areas these displacements must take place.
23033-13U
Supp ly-A griculture
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
This has not been done. Over the years we have given lip service to the ARDA program but we have not really implemented it. We have used it as a patronage machine in Ontario where the provincial government is getting the advantage of the patronage for which the federal government provides the cash. Everyone here knows this is true. That cannot be changed unless the federal government provides leadership in setting out the type of proposals that should be implemented, surveying large areas, and deciding what changes should be made.
At present a member of the provincial legislature can say, It would be very nice to have a little park here and a duck pond there; the federal government will give the money for them and I will get the credit. This is happening everywhere in Ontario. Is this our long term approach to agriculture? I say that if we do not do anything about the long term problem there is no use doing anything about the short term problem because it in fact is dying off.
The average age of farmers in Ontario is well over 50 years. They cannot hire extra labour. Seasonal help is a necessity. The United States government allows transient workers to enter that country from Mexico but as the season advances and those workers reach our borders we do not allow them into Canada because the federal Department of Agriculture has never introduced legislation to allow them to enter on a temporary basis. If we do allow these workers to enter Canada we shall have to make sure our farmers provide them with proper accommodation and wages, but tobacco harvesting, berry picking and other types of seasonal agriculture are capable of providing fairly reasonable salaries.
We have been very interested in the political manipulation of the eastern feed grain agency. I do not know where it stands now but the farm organizations are in favour of it. There is resentment in western Canada about an agency that is going to buy and sell, but the committee which studied this matter took that into consideration. It was quite prepared to have western representatives on the eastern feed grain board to see that an advantage was not established in eastern Canada which would be detrimental to the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board in western Canada.
I do not believe the eastern farmers are interested in gaining an advantage. All they

March 2, 1966
Supply-Agriculture
want is to be protected against the discrimination which hurts them now because of storage problems and the vast difference in the cost of feed grain in eastern Canada compared with the cost in western Canada. There is the cost of moving the grain but the federal government pays for its storage. Yet the grain costs $15 to $20 a ton more during the winter months than in the summer months. The feed grain policy is already established.
I suggest that both the farm machinery problem and the feed grain agency problem will have to be settled by the minister himself. If he refers them to a committee nothing will be done this year and nothing may ever be done about them. Our committee on farm machinery prices sat for four or five months and took a lot of my time and the time of other hon. members but it resulted in absolutely nothing. I may be unfair in saying that because for a four or five month period the farm machinery companies were cautious about raising their prices. However, they made up that time lag once they found out we really did not intend to do anything about the problem except have an inquiry.
The workers of Canada, the white collar people of Canada and even those on pension have decided that the income they receive must be reasonable enough to maintain a decent standard of living. When we find the automobile industry in trouble we give it a $50 million handout. When we find the old age pensioners in trouble we try to give them an extra handout of $25. We are seized of the problems facing most other areas of production in Canada but not in the agricultural area.
We can provide subsidies. I was very interested in the motion moved the other night by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale but I did not participate in the debate because I wanted to see it come to a vote and pass. However, a member from Vancouver, with no knowledge of agriculture at all, spoke on the motion and talked it out. I had hoped it would pass because it would provide an extra 5 or 6 cents a dozen for eggs in western Canada. There, eggs are selling for 17 and 18 cents a dozen, but people in eastern Canada have to pay 75 cents a dozen. Surely we can do something to equalize that situation and see that the producers get a fair percentage of the retail price. However, the motion was talked out.
In my opinion subsidies are not the answer but unless we can devise a better system we

shall have to provide subsidies. If we do there should be a limit so that we do not end up with a vertically integrated industry that will be only a financial operation. If we provide subsidies it should only be done for farmers who are operating efficiently and the subsidies should only be enough to help keep them in production.
We also have need of national marketing legislation because if we introduce a subsidy program and build up production to a reasonable level we are likely to create surpluses and national marketing legislation will be necessary to dispose of them. There is really no surplus agricultural production in the world today. There is a deficit. There is a great need for agricultural products all over the world. Yet Canada and the United States are faced with the problem of providing a decent level of income for the farm community and we have a surplus problem.
We had a surplus problem with wheat which to some extent has been solved. We did not solve it in the old manner of having people come here and buy it. We went out and sold it. It is true there have been disasters throughout the world. It is true the large sale to Russia a couple of years ago was a Godsend to wheat farmers. But people who have been in Russia say that country will need wheat for some years to come and we must do our best to maintain that market.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
This year we will probably not have surpluses in agricultural commodities except with respect to two products. It is hinted that by fall we will have a deficit in butter production and that it may be necessary again to import butter into Canada. If we have to do this, it is an indication that we have not been providing the proper support for the dairy industry; otherwise we would not have found ourselves in this position. There is a potential for almost double the production in the dairy industry if that industry is assured of a market for its products. The support will have to be national in scope because there is a problem between provinces in matters of trade with one province cutting the throat of an adjacent province. This is quite evident in eastern Canada.
There are many other problems in agriculture which we will have to face. In my opinion, before his estimates are passed the minister will have to make a statement in respect of what he intends to do. While he is not really responsible for these estimates, let
March 2, 1966

us not knock them because they did get the former minister of agriculture a seat in the other place. However, I think the minister has an obligation to outline what kind of legislation he proposes because it is not good enough to send the estimates to the standing committee if we are not sure what the minister wants to accomplish. I hope we will have a report from the minister indicating the solutions he has in mind which he hopes parliament will approve in respect of Canada's agricultural problems.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, I shall not speak at length on these estimates, since these are last year's estimates and, moreover, it is not even the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) who took part in the implementation of this policy. Therefore, we cannot praise or even less blame him for the deficiencies that might have existed under the former minister.
I shall therefore confine myself to putting a few questions to the minister and telling him that we set all our hopes on him and that we are anxious to take cognizance of his next estimates as soon as possible. I urge all members of the house to pass the remaining estimates of the Minister of Agriculture, so that we may go on to more urgent matters.
Mr. Chairman, if these estimates were to be given the same treatment as those of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cardin), it would be a second disaster, because it is obvious that the Minister of Justice is now in a dilemma due to the time wasted so as to prevent the house from undertaking more serious work.
Mr. Chairman, I ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) if he will bring forward legislation establishing a Canadian dairy commission this year, in 1966.
We, in Quebec, have long been asking for a Canadian farm products commission for the east. The minister indicated that such legislation is intended. To my mind, this is the first step toward granting us what we have so often been asking for in this house. We ask him to go further in his efforts in this connection, so as to cover not only the dairy industry-I am referring especially to Quebec and the eastern part of the province-but all the various farm products of the province of Quebec, in order that they too may benefit.
For many years western farmers have been benefiting from the advantages offered by the Canadian wheat board. Wheat is their main product, and we are glad for them. On
Supp ly-A griculture
the other hand, the time has come for us, in 1966, to be able to congratulate a Minister of Agriculture who will put before us an act for the setting up of an eastern farm products board.
I told the minister that I would be brief. I shall summarize, because I do not want to take up too much of the time of the house. The second item I wish to deal with is the dairy policy which guarantees a maximum price of $4 per cwt. excluding transportation costs, to all sectors.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Well, there is also a paragraph which must get the minister's attention. Because of the failure last year to add "excluding transportation costs", our Quebec farmers sustained a loss of 20 cents, 22 cents, 23 cents, 24 cents per cwt. of milk, when the government had just decreed a price of $3.50 per cwt. of milk. Therefore, when $4 is mentioned, let it be clear that that $4 will be paid in addition to transportation costs.
In fact, last year, it was realized that the farmer did not get $3.50 any more, but only $3.22, $3.21 and even $3.20, depending on transportation costs. I see the minister making notes. I know that he will take the necessary measures to ensure a fair treatment for all farmers. Some farmers will get $4, while others, not so well located from the transportation point of view, will not get it.
The third point, Mr. Chairman, deals with the Crop Insurance Act, in which we take a strong interest. The government expressed its desire to amend this act, and we are confident that it will be amended so as to allow Quebec farmers to have their share of the benefits of crop insurance which, up to now, has helped only western provinces. I am not blaming the western provinces. On the other hand, one would say that this act was created and intended for western farmers and with a view to western production. Now, in my opinion, this is the reason why this act cannot apply to all Quebec farmers. I did not have any discussion with the Quebec authorities to ascertain why they had not sought to have the benefits of the Crop Insurance Act extended to their farmers, but I think that the Quebec farmers were not included because of the shortcomings of the act.
I point out, at this time, that the act should be amended so as to include not only dairy production and grain, but all crops.
I remind the minister that the Quebec farmers are asking that all the crops be

March 2, 1966
Supply-Agriculture
included in that legislation and also that the indemnity for loss be set at 90 per cent, whatever the cause of the loss.
We know of several causes and, as mentioned a while ago by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), we also learned last year about the rainmaking machines. At first, when we talked about rainmaking machines in the house, most hon. members thought it was funny; those who did not laugh refrained from doing so only because they felt a little sorry for us; others did not believe us at all. Today, all hon. members are convinced that such machines exist and have been operating full time for ten years during the summer. Consequently, it is easier for us today to ask the minister to do something about those rainmaking machines.
When I talk about rainmaking machines, I mean both kinds. As a matter of fact, there are the rainmaking machines on land. They are set up in forests, on farms, on farmers' plots. I am not asking you to legislate about those, because that matter comes under the jurisdiction of the provincial government. But with regard to the seeding of clouds by plane, the federal government must assume its responsibility. In that case, it is a matter of air pollution by plane. I do not know if the federal government can call on some legislation to deal severely with that case. It would have to be very harsh, because some companies would have us walk in swamps to serve bigger interests and not the people.
I previously mentioned in the house some of those interests, particularly the Quebec Hydro which has been letting rain fall on our heads for three years, because it must fill its Manic I, Manic II, Manic III, Manic IV, Manic V dams with 40 per cent of artificial rain. I say that the welfare of the people must come before financial interests, that the health of the people must come before financial health and that our government would do well to pass a law to control the seeding of clouds by plane.
I would also like to deal for a few minutes with the health of animals. Brucellosis has been endemic in our region for two or three years. Well, that epidemic carried away approximately a third of our dairy herds. The government did give the people some compensation but I believe that act is some 20 years old. It is no longer appropriate in view of the current price for stock. In fact, $140 is still given for a purebred dairy cow, whereas a farmer cannot buy one for less than $300; and $70 is given for a cross-breed.

I am therefore humbly suggesting to the minister that the act be amended in order to give $100 for a cross-breed and at least $200 for a purebred dairy cow. It seems to me that would not be exaggerating at all, considering the farmer whose herd is being depleted by that disease. I have seen herds of 50 to 55 heads having to be completely done away with.
And so, if the government gives $200, and the farmer sells the meat of the animal for probably $100 to $125 to a slaughter-house, this will allow the farmer to get $300 and renew his herd without suffering heavy losses. On the other hand, because of all those changes, he will surely not be able to produce before five or six months and he will have to take a loss anyway.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
There is also the question of the farmer's income tax and property taxes. I also want to bring this to the attention of the minister. I have always found it odd, for instance, that paper companies-I mention paper companies because I am more familiar with them-are exempted from the tax on stationary machinery while farm land is taxed to the hilt. This is absurd, because if there is anything stationary in the province of Quebec, and in the country as a whole, it is farm land. Before exempting those big companies from the machinery tax, farm land should be exempted, because, for the farmer, his land is definitely an instrument.
I do not consider the land so much as a real value for the farmer, because if his farm is productive, it is because he cultivates it. Let the farmer leave his farm, as occurs in 40 per cent of the farms in our area abandoned in the last 10, 15 or 20 years, and that farm loses all its value. It can actually be bought for $300 or $400, whereas when the farmer cultivated it, it was valued at $7,000 or $8,000. This shows that the land is only the farmer's tool and that it should be tax-exempt. Let the income be taxed, but stop taxing the landed property which is comparable to the heavy plant of big companies.
I now wish to say a few words about farm credit. If the minister studies the present Farm Credit Act, he will find that it is not at all consistent with the needs of our area.
I do not know what is wrong; I do not know whether this is due to the administrative staff or whether our area is different from the others, but our farmers have a hard time securing a loan under the Farm Credit
March 2, 1966

Act. I think the Minister of Agriculture should investigate.
I found out last year, one case among others, about a farmer, in a position to use easily from $40,000 to $45,000. He has nine lots under cultivation with the most up-to-date machinery. After fighting for a year, do you know how much he got? Ten thousand dollars. Ten thousand dollars were promised to him to build a barn in which milk cows could move about freely. He was given a loan of $10,000 but, a year later, he has yet to receive a cent. I do not know where the trouble lies or whether the federal government is to blame. I do not wish to accuse the minister, because he is new to his job and I know that he wants to improve his department. We saw less of his predecessor and I know that we will see this minister more often. The former minister was thanked by his fellow-citizens because they did not send him back but he was promoted to the Senate by the Liberals. I hope the present minister will start an inquiry. I do noc know whether this depends on the government of the province of Quebec; I do not know what is wrong, but the loans that should be available cannot be obtained in our region.
Those underhand practices must cease. I say "underhand practices" because I hear too much talk on all sides; there is no smoke without fire.
I merely wish to draw to the minister's attention to the Farm Credit Act. If there is a change to be made, an amendment to be brought in, it should be done so that that act can finally be adapted to our area and to the province of Quebec, where farmers who have 300, 400, 600 or 800 acres of cultivated land cannot benefit from the advantages of the act as it now stands.
Once again, I should like to bring to the minister's attention the 25 cents premium per cwt. for the transportation of milk. At the present time, the act provides that the premium may be granted for a minimum production of 10,000 lbs. of producers' milk. I suggest that this is rather high as far as some Quebec producers are concerned. We have some who are producing consumer milk, fluid milk, and others manufacturing milk. They always ship the balance of their manufacturing milk and there are times when they do not have 10,000 lbs. of milk. So they lose the premium on that amount.
Those responsible for paying this premium called me some two or three hours ago to tell
Supply-Agriculture
me that with 9,986 lbs. one could not obtain the subsidy. In my opinion, a slight adjustment to the act would allow all farmers to be treated as fairly as the milk producers.
All in all, those were the remarks I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman.
The member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) said a while ago that there was an agricultural crisis. That is quite true, but I feel it is mainly a crisis of adjustment. Quebec agriculture is going through a period of readjustment, and legislation will simply have to be passed to enable it to adapt itself to the new developments in the farming industry.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief because I want to continue the co-operation that our party has shown in trying to get the estimates for 1965-66 through the committee as quickly as possible. I also know we will have an opportunity very soon, or at least I hope so, to question the Minister of Agriculture in the standing committee. At that time we will have an opportunity of discussing with him many of the policies and new programs which I hope he will be bringing in as government policy in keeping with some of the comments the minister made in his opening statement. I want to say also that I congratulate and commend the minister for what I regard as getting right to the nub of the problem in agriculture in that part of his opening statement wherein he suggested that the greatest problem in agriculture is the net income of farmers relative to the incomes of people in other sectors of our economy.
I should like the minister to know that we in this party will give him every co-operation in setting up new policies and programs that will achieve the very desirable end result about which he talked. I say to him as well that when he made his tour of western Canada in early January a number of the statements which the minister made, according to the press, were very well received by western farmers. I know there were some attempts to criticize him and other members of the cabinet after he arrived back in Ottawa in that perhaps he had been a little extreme in his criticism of the railroads with regard to their performance respecting the movement of grain.
I want the minister to know that we in this party support for the most part the criticism he made because we are convinced that here again he got right to the heart of the matter and put his finger on the real problem in so

March 2. 1966
Supply-Agriculture
far as the movement of grain in western Canada is concerned. I shall not go into that matter in great detail today because it was discussed yesterday and on a number of other occasions. But I certainly hope the minister will not be discouraged from pursuing the same line in the future in the interests of the grain producers on the prairies. I would say too, that I believe there was some immediate improvement after these statements were made by a responsible minister of the federal government.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I remember that when the minister made his "some turkey, some plucking" speech in the House of Commons he drew the attention of members to the fact there was an improvement from some 325 or 330 car unloadings in Vancouver per day to 600 per day. I think the Canadian Pacific particularly but the railways generally understand the language of federal ministers when they express their concern in this way. They understand that they need to make an additional effort. I commend the minister for that and, as I said, I hope he will not be discouraged from making other statements of this kind when he sees the need.
I say to the minister with respect to this matter that everyone can understand that during the very short time he was in western Canada he would not have had time to make a personal inspection of the problems and the bottlenecks in the movement of grain. Therefore I think what he was doing was listening to many responsible men in western Canada who are intimately involved in the movement of grain such as the Canadian Wheat Board, the leaders of the wheat pools, the line elevator companies, the heads of terminals and so on.
I believe what the minister was doing was engaging in the same kind of reflection and thinking as these very responsible men and I think this was a good thing. I hope the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Finance to some extent are unable to squelch that kind of attitude.
There are one or two questions I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture because there is some apprehension in the country-perhaps "apprehension" is not the right word-some question in the minds of people about whether or not some of the policies commenced under his predecessor are going to be continued or if some of the plans which

appeared to be under way are going to be carried forward into policies and programs.
One of the questions, is the almost complete reclassification of the various classes at exhibitions so far as prize money is concerned and what the new classes will be. I am not going to go into detail on that now but we would like to know if the present minister intends to carry forward these plans which appeared to be under way. As a matter of fact, there were some changes but all of the changes that were planned had not been made. I understand that there was a meeting in Ottawa within the last few days or the last week at which there was some further discussion. I should like to know what the plans are for the future.
One other thing we would like to know is whether or not the minister intends proceeding with plans to set up a fund from which exhibition corporations can borrow money on a long term basis for the purpose of constructing multiple purpose buildings. There are quite a number of exhibition companies across the country, including the Medicine Hat Exhibition and Stampede Company, who are particularly interested in this plan, and we are still waiting to see whether the federal government is going to set up this fund and make money available on a long term and perhaps low interest basis.
I do not want to keep the committee very long but I want to say to the minister that we in this party believe that the major problem facing Canadian agriculture and all of those who are engaged in it is that our whole price structure is too low and that some policies need to be evolved to improve the structure. We believe that this can probably best be done by an all-party committee that can go into some of these matters in the planning stages rather than always waiting until the government has considered these things and comes before the house with final plans completely worked out. I believe this can be done very effectively if all parties are less interested in who gets the political credit for the actual result of bringing these new policies into effect.
I commend the minister for pointing to this problem in his opening statement and also the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) who spoke and intimated-at least I took this to be so from what he said-that his party was willing to give the kind of co-operation necessary to work out policies so that the whole price structure can be raised. I know that the
March 2, 1S66

Canadian Federation of Agriculture, for example, only a few days ago stated in its brief to the cabinet that even well established farmers are having problems in meeting the so-called cost squeeze. In other words, costs of operation are going up but the receipts are not going up accordingly. This is something that many of us who are well acquainted with agriculture in our constituencies have known for a very long time. Many well established farmers have come to me within the last few months, more than at any time in the past, complaining about the cost-price squeeze. Therefore anything that we in this party can do in co-operation with the government and other opposition parties which will change this situation we certainly intend to do. We believe that some very positive steps can and should be taken respecting a national sugar policy. We also believe that some steps ought to be taken to set up a two price policy for wheat. There seems to be some measure of support for this kind of a program in all corners of this house. We want to co-operate with the minister in completing a new dairy policy for Canada.
I believe that if any plan to raise the whole price structure for farmers is going to succeed it is also going to require some tariff amendments. I do not say that we need them for the purpose of restricting trade but we need some co-operation from the Department of Trade and Commerce and from the government, through instructions to the Tariff Board and so on, to insulate our own domestic markets from the influence of the prices of dumped or surplus products from other countries. This is particularly evident in the price of sugar, turkeys and lamb from time to time as well as potatoes and many other things. We have some legislation at the present time but it is not effective because some of the dumped or surplus products can and do in fact from time to time break down our whole price structure. They affect our whole price structure in a way that bears no relationship to supply and demand within Canada in so far as our own production is concerned.
Therefore it is not a matter of entering into a new round of tariff changes which would be designed to restrict trade but simply a case of protecting our own domestic producers in our own home markets. I think it is fair to say that many of the other countries in the so-called western world have already done this and there would be no problem by
S upply-A griculture
way of retaliatory action from other countries if we did the same thing in self-defence.
In closing I should also like to ask the minister to provide the house with a clearcut statement of policy respecting cost-shared emergency assistance programs in so far as the federal government is concerned. The minister has taken some criticism on the floor of the house respecting this matter during this session. As I said, I do not want to take a lot of time now but there are some provincial governments across the country, particularly Alberta in recent weeks, who seem to think, and I believe with some justification, that the federal government does not have a policy or at least does not have a policy that is consistent for all the provinces. We believe that there should be some statement so the provinces will know what to expect by way of response from the federal government.
We were under the impression for many months that at any time a province set up an emergency assistance program toward which it was prepared to pay 50 per cent of the cost the federal government would match that percentage. We believed this because it had been stated over and over again in the House of Commons by the former minister of agriculture and I think by the Prime Minister on more than one occasion. Therefore we think there is some discrimination on the part of the federal government as to which request it accepts and which it does not. I would ask the minister to provide us with a statement of policy and to apply that policy to all provinces on the same basis.
I am going to conclude my remarks with this very brief statement. I inform the minister that he can expect full co-operation from us in his determination to bring agricultural incomes into line with those in other sectors of our economy. He can also expect co-operation in the Standing Committee on Agriculture if he will come to that committee with his plans and discuss them before they become hard and fast government policy. So far as we are concerned we do not care whether the government or the opposition gets the political credit as long as we do something positive soon to meet the cost-price squeeze which at this time is hurting even well established farmers.


Mr. Laiulippe:: Mr. Chairman, I will not be long, for I have only a few remarks to make on agriculture.

March 2. 1966
Supply-Agriculture
Mr. Chairman, in view oi the fact that the constituency which I represent is almost exclusively agricultural, I am of the opinion that if agriculture is to prosper, then we must see to it that it be given a framework within which it can endure. A framework must be established for agriculture and it is the government's responsibility to set it up.
I know that the matter of farming is of both provincial and federal jurisdiction, but I also know that the federal government has a large part in it.
When speaking about assisting apgricul-ture, the first thing to do is to establish budgets. I have examined the budget of the Department of Agriculture for the year 1965-66, which totals $121,815,100.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
To distribute among the farmers their share of this budget, considering the cost of administration, we see that there is not much left for the farmer. Almost everything is spent on administration. It is a budget of $125 million, and I will tell you in a few moments how little is spent on agriculture itself.
For instance, if you look at the details of vote No. 1, you will see:
Civil salaries and wages, $54,461,200; Civil Allowances, $169,500; Professional and Special services, $2,607,700; Travelling and Removal expenses, $3,522,100; Freight, Express and Cartage, $228,400; Postage, $124,800; Telephones, Telegrams and other Communications media, $458,600; Publication of Reports and other Material, $520,000; Exhibit Material, Advertising, Films, Radio and Displays, $150,400; Office Stationery, Supplies and Equipment, $1,276,500; Materials and Supplies, $3,626,300; Construction or Acquisition of Buildings and Works, including lands, $31,602,000; Construction or Acquisition of Equipment, $2,698,900; Repairs and Upkeep, $932,600; Rental, $97,700; Town Services, $1,019,400;
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it cost nearly $100 million to distribute $121,815,100; there remains $15 million for agricultural purposes.
Can agriculture really be assisted, with such an administration? The minister will have to look into the cost of administration. The trouble, in all this, is administration. The cost of administration is tremendous. If it cost $100 million to distribute $15 million, 1 say to the Minister of Agriculture-I know very well that it is not his fault because he has not always been there-that it is his responsibility to correct this anomaly in administration.
If it is going to cost $100 million to distribute $14 million to the farmers, I think that other ways would cost much less. Right now, it does not make sense.
[Mr. Latulippe.l
If agriculture is going to be organized, money must first be distributed to farmers.
In my riding, for instance, 60 per cent of farm loans are turned down; all those who ask for $5,000, $10,000, $8,000, $4,000, cannot obtain them; all are refused. Many loans of $15,000, $18,000, $20,000, are also refused.
There is no money left to help the farmer; all is spent on administration.
When agricultural reform is mentioned, we are referred to ARDA which covers another area. ARDA was supposed to solve every problem, but ARDA has not solved anything up to now. If I had the figures with me on ARDA administration, you would be surprised at the cost of administering this organization from which farmers hardly get any benefit.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
We are being told that in the province of Quebec, the farm income is 30 per cent lower than in other provinces. This is ridiculous. Steps will have to be taken by all means so that farmers may take advantage of their production or derive a profit from it. The farmer would not need the government so much if he had an income, but he has not. He manufactures for less than the cost price and he is not the one who prices his products. Most of the time, when he has a product to sell, its price is established by other organizations beyond his control.
With regard to feed grain, I must say that I have been sitting in the house for three years and during this period, farmers have been submitting briefs to us and asking us to see to it that they obtain feed grain at a reasonable price. The price of feed grain is too high; the implementation of the program is too costly. The farmer does not benefit from it, because he pays too much for the feed grain he needs.
They recently presented a brief in which they request the setting up of an eastern feed board and ask the minister if anything has been done in that respect. I do not know if it will do any good. If the administration costs are as high as in all the other departments, it will not be worth anything. On the other hand, if costs are kept down to a minimum, it might be useful to the farmer.
In their brief, the farmers also say that Canada will be short 500 million pounds of milk this year.
Farmers are giving up the land and dairy herds because there is no money in it. They are asking for a cost price of $4 per cwt. of industrial milk.
March 2, 1966

When we ask questions in the house, we are told to put them on the order paper, because they are of a general character. Therefore, today I will ask the Minister of Agriculture a question. Is he willing to see to it that the farmers will get the price they are asking for, that is $4 per cwt., to allow them to make a small profit, to encourage them and to enable them to meet their needs?
I would like to deal with all kinds of things, but I do not want to take too much time.
With regard to the cost of machinery, farmers are complaining that it is too expensive, that there are too many taxes on machinery. I ask the Minister of Agriculture to consult with his colleagues, especially the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), to see if a way can be found to manufacture farm machinery cheaply. The first thing to do is to remove all taxes on that machinery.
The government should also be asked for subsidies to help the farmers. If it really wants to do something for the farmers, it should grant subsidies on farm machinery. It would cost less to finance farm machinery than defence equipment. A tank costs a million dollars, if not more. With the price of a tank, several pieces of farm equipment and tractors could be manufactured; they would help agriculture and be useful. It would be much less expensive for the government to manufacture farm machinery than cannons, tanks or war equipment which will never serve.
If we want to fight poverty, we must not forget that poverty prevails in farming. If we make farming prosperous, all the other classes of society, as well as the country's economy in general, will be prosperous. The farmer is the greatest consumer in Canada. He buys all sorts of things and has varied needs . The farmer is an important factor-the most important one-of Canadian industry. Let agriculture prosper and so will Canada's economy.
The Minister of Agriculture should press the Minister of Finance to abolish the famous 11 per cent tax on the farmer's building materials. Farmers are always building. They need all sorts of buildings. They build "terrible" buildings, and this tax is put on their building materials. The farmers are in a state of stagnation. Let the necessary pressures be applied in order to abolish this famous 11 per cent tax.
Supply-Agriculture
Mr. Chairman, I could say a lot more. For example, I mentioned earlier the agricultural loans which are refused. There is much to be done in this respect. Inquiries must be made. That would not be difficult because the farm loan board does not have too many offices in the province of Quebec and in Canada. The minister has only to ask those officers if he wants to find out the percentage of loans that were refused.
There are many farmers who, thanks to a small loan of $5,000, $6,000 or $10,000, could buy more land, improve their farm buildings and remain there for quite a while yet. But they abandon their farms because they are refused such a loan.
In the last five years, 60 per cent of the farms have been abandoned in a certain part of my riding. Every day, those who remain are like the bird in the tree. They want to go because they are not making any money. It does not pay.
We expect a lot from the minister. We realize he is new at the job, but we know he is eager to help. I wish to congratulate him and thank him for the interest and goodwill he has shown towards the farm people. I am sure he will do his duty and provide agriculture with services that will really help the farmer while promoting the growth of the farming industry.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Mr. Vincent:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this first opportunity to offer my most sincere congratulations to the new Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) on his appointment. As he has found, we, on this side of the house, have no objection to the Minister of Agriculture coming from either the east or the west, from the province of Quebec or the Maritimes. What we want is a Minister of Agriculture who keeps his eyes open, cocks his ears and is ready to accept suggestions from members of rural constituencies in this house.
Therefore, we are proud to have, at the head of the Department of Agriculture, a minister from the east, but I should like at the same time to tell the Minister of Agriculture to ask his colleagues, particularly some of them, not to indulge in partisan politics and not to place too much reliance of the fact that we have an eastern Minister of Agriculture who speaks French-I congratulate the Minister on this-in order to believe

March 2. 1966
Supply-Agriculture
that they will win the support of all the farmers in eastern Canada.
I do not want to refer in any way to certain words of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette). It is not enough to have a Minister of Agriculture from the east who speaks French, we also need a Minister of Agriculture who can take in hand the future of agriculture in Canada.
The Minister of Agriculture told us some moments ago, at the start of his few remarks, that we must rejoice for the good prices of farm products in Canada. In this connection, I will simply tell him that, as far as the dairy industry is concerned, this is not the opinion of dairy producers and that, as far as wheat producers are concerned, they do not share his opinion, for they suffered a price reduction recently.
The minister should not start making statements that prices are good and that problems are going to be settled. I would not like the present minister to go along the lines of his predecessor, who stated that, with six cows and two hogs, a farmer could earn an annual income of $2,400 and that that was enough.


Mr. Choquette:: He did not say that.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Chairman, I was precisely expecting the intervention of the hon. member for Lotbiniere. I have here some statements of the former Minister of Agriculture and of the hon. member for Lotbiniere, but I will have another opportunity to quote them, for I do not think we have time this afternoon to place, on the official report, statements which have actually been made a year or two ago.
The minister told the house a few moments ago-and we are ready to repeat it ourselves -that we were going to give him our co-operation in putting through legislation very advantageous for Canadian farmers. He is already assured of our co-operation now, and we are also going to ask him for his, because if we take a look at the order paper, we find that there is nothing about agriculture or his department.
I would like to talk about some priorities, including the setting up of a Canadian dairy commission, the setting up of a livestock feed agency for eastern Canada and the crop insurance program which will complete the present one.
There is no resolution on today's order paper and I would ask the minister, at least as far as his department is concerned, to

table his resolutions as soon as possible, to enable us to advise him, and also to elaborate that policy without delay.
With regard to feed grain, I will have the opportunity to come back to that when we study the resolution of the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve). For months now, even years, the Minister of Forestry has been talking about a feed grain agency and I admit that I am beginning to question his sincerity. I have kept a rather extensive record of his statements, in the house and outside, and I hope to be able very soon to ask him many questions on that subject.
With regard to the new dairy policy which is to become effective within a few days, that is next April 1, I would like the minister to tell us when he intends to announce it. I have here the dates of the announcements made about the dairy policy since April 1958, and I think that the last day on which the minister could announce the new program for the dairy year which will start next April 1, would be March 10, that is 20 days before the start of the new dairy year which was put forward a month last year.
I would also like to ask the minister to tell us immediately if he intends, under the new program he will announce, to guarantee a minimum price of $4 a cwt. for industrial milk.
You know, Mr. Chairman, that the dairy industry in eastern Canada is of vital importance not only to the farm economy throughout the country but also to the eastern farmers' income which is already too low.
The minister must do all he can so that the new dairy program will set a minimum price of $4 per cwt. of milk.
I would also like to ask the minister if he consulted with representatives of the dairy producers with regard to the elaboration of that program, if it is not too late. I would ask the minister to do so because it would allow him to find out what the milk producers' views are before bringing in the new program, and to avoid the unpleasantness which occurred last year or two years ago when his predecessor brought in a program which was criticized by almost all Canadian milk producers.
Finally, as it will probably be impossible for the Committee on agriculture, forestry and rural development to study this new policy, I would ask the minister to allow hon. members to meet him informally to express their views on this dairy program.
March 2, 1966

Mr. Chairman, before resinning my seat, I should like to say a few words about the Canadian dairy commission. Last year, the Minister of Agriculture announced that the Canadian government would, at the first opportunity-this was on March 26, 1965-introduce a bill to establish a Canadian dairy commission. According to the minister, the commission would work in co-operation with the provinces and look after general relations between the government and the dairy industry.
Mr. Chairman, that was on March 26, 1965, and the government was then getting the bill ready for early presentation; this is March 2, 1966, and it has not been introduced yet.
Questions are being raised and I shall put them myself to the minister. Will this Canadian dairy commission to be able to ensure to milk producers a uniform price for milk? In other words, will the milk producer who has no possibility whatsoever to make cheese, powdered milk or butter with his milk, be able to obtain the same price as the one who ships his milk to another factory? This is very important. Whether it be a producer who ships his milk to a cheese factory, a butter factory or a processing plant, or a farmer who manufactures milk powder, skim milk or casein, I feel that such farmer should be paid the same price as the other farmers in his area.
So, I ask the minister: Will the Canadian dairy commission ensure that all milk producers in Canada will receive a uniform price?
My second question: Will the Canadian dairy commission exert a deep influence on milk quality?
I have only a few words to say on this, Mr. Chairman. You have, for instance, a farmer who ships his milk and does all he can to have a clean and excellent milk production. If his neighbour or second neighbour produces an inferior milk, the price of this good farmer will decrease because his neighbour or second neighbour produces milk of an inferior quality.
Will the proposed Canadian dairy commission try to diversify production as much as possible all year round to encourage farmers to produce more milk during the winter months? That is very important for the future of the Canadian dairy industry.
Fourth question:	Will the commission
definitively deal with this question of milk transportation?
Supply-Agriculture
In my province, as I believe is the case in other provinces in Canada, milk is widely transported.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
There is milk that is carried 100, 200 and 300 miles every day. In the province of Quebec, you have milk which leaves Sherbrooke to be sold in Montreal and from there it goes to Trois-Rivieres and then on to Quebec city. Milk goes from one place to another just like that and who is paying? Once again, it is the farmer.
The Canadian dairy commission will have to co-ordinate milk transportation to ensure that the producer will get the highest possible income and that 25 or 35 cents per cwt. will not be spent for nothing.
Fifth question regarding the Canadian dairy commission: Will it make a lot of publicity to promote dairy product consumption?
Sixth question: Will the commission deal with dairy product exports?
In 1900, 1901 and 1902, Canada exported more than 100 million pounds of cheese annually to England, and the minister can check these figures if he wants to. Today, Canada is producing about 130 million pounds of cheese and exports only 30 million pounds. Now, cheese really sells at a good price in England.
Seventh question: Will the Canadian dairy commission have a part to play in the importation of milk products in Canada, such as the cheese being imported at present, and also in the case of butter which will eventually have to be imported within a few months or a year, because butter will probably be scarce in Canada?
Those are questions which we are asking and to which we should like to get answers.
We should like to know whether the Canadian dairy commission will try to find answers to those seven specific questions I have raised.
Mr. Chairman, I shall now conclude my remarks by reminding the minister that the dairy industry is of the greatest importance to eastern farmers. It is imperative, this year, that we get for our dairy producers, who are insisting upon it-and it is only normal-a minimum price of $4 per cwt. for all industrial milk.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, I feel I must rise after the hon. member for the constituency next to mine, because we represent the

March 2. 1966
Supply-Agriculture
two most beautiful rural ridings in the province of Quebec. I do not wish to quarrel with the hon. member-


The Chairman:: Order, please. Is the hon. gentleman rising to ask a question?


Auguste Choquette: No, Mr. Chairman; I am just making a short speech. I should like to ask a very short question of the minister.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What is this? A filibuster?


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, I was simply saying I did not wish to disagree with the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska. I always enjoy talking about farming and I would suggest that we have a televised discussion to settle this controversy that has been going on between us for three years-station 13 would be an ideal place.
Here is my question to the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Chairman, because I am anxious about crop insurance. Thus, I will show the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska that I can look quite objectively at my government's policy.
One thing worries me with regard to the famous Crop Insurance Act. I put a question to the Minister the other day, arising out of the federal-provincial consultations at the civil servant level. As we know, at the time the problem which seemed ticklish for Quebec provincial authorities was this one: would fodder production, or what is still commonly known as field-crops be covered by the new provisions of the Crop Insurance Act so that Quebec farmers might be able to benefit from it?
But I see things seem to drag, and the Quebec Minister of Agriculture does not have much to say. I should like to know if arrangements are being made, if consultations are being held with the Quebec authorities so that we might keep our promise to our electors, to the effect that we would implement a Crop Insurance Act for the benefit of the farmers of the province of Quebec.
I am simply letting the minister know about my anxiety in this connection, and I would like to know if there is any progress.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I am going to speak for only two or three minutes because I know all parties in the house want to see these estimates completed as soon as possible.

I am also a member of the Committee on Agriculture, Forestry, and Rural Development and will have plenty of opportunity to ask questions later. I should like to. congratulate the minister on his appointment. We are all looking forward hopefully to his administration of the department because we believe his heart is in the right place and we think that with experience he will know what the farmers of this country want.
I also should like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary who is an alumnus of the same college I attended. In addition I should like to congratulate the officials of the department. When I look at the row of handsome officials I am reminded of pigeons sitting on a hemlock bough, but they carry on a very important work which is largely unrecognized by the daily press of this country, although they do recognize the divorces of movie stars and things of that sort. The officials of the department do very important work in the administration of our economy. When I look at them I am inclined to think of two lines from Gray's "Elegy In A Country Churchyard":
Full many a flower is bom to blush unseen,
And waste its sweetness on the desert air.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the farm unions, the British Columbia Fruit Growers Federation and other agricultural producers have presented their briefs to the government and in most cases to the various caucuses of the parties of this house. I will not deal with them at this time. As I see it, we have immediate problems and long term problems. I would say the immediate problems which the committee has to study first of all are the questions of farm costs, farm taxes, the cost of farm machinery, manpower policy with regard to farm production, the application of unemployment insurance to the agricultural industry, and crop insurance. Those, I think, are the immediate problems that will be facing the agricultural committee.
The long term problems are research with regard to an inventory of our soil and water resources, because we know that food is a major concern of all the people in the world today, research with regard to diseases and pests and biological control of pests, and research with regard to an economic survey of our national and international needs so far as food is concerned. Out of the considerations of the committee and the agricultural organizations and the contributions made by members of the house I hope the government
March 2, 1966

will then be able to evolve a logical, long term agricultural policy.
With those few remarks I will resume my seat in the hope that the committee will have an opportunity to inquire into the important questions I have just mentioned.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, at this time I would ask only that the minister in his closing remarks make reference to one particular matter raised by my colleague from Medicine Hat, namely, loans or grants to agricultural fairs. The minister knows 1 raised this matter on another occasion and also attempted to put a question the other day which was ruled out of order. We are particularly concerned about this matter. A meeting was held last week and I should like the minister to make reference to that meeting and the results which we may expect to flow from those discussions.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, if I might answer that question since it has been asked by two or three members, I might say that, as the hon. member knows, I was anxious to see what the breeders association and the exhibitors and exhibition associations felt both in respect of the livestock prize program and the policy regarding loans and grants. Accordingly we invited the interested parties here for a meeting last week. At this meeting we had a full day's discussion with regard to these programs.
With regard to loans and grants I do not think I would be out of place in giving the gist of the discussions. Hon. members will be pleased to know that a great number of these gentlemen who came to this meeting from all over Canada were in favour of both loans and grants and were not going to turn down either if they were available. This is the general view. I can only say with regard to our own local program that there has been no change in respect of the government's position in this regard.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
When the loan bill is ready it will be presented to the house, but it will show no change in policy. Since I took office there has been no change in policy in regard to long term loans for multipurposes. I think that is what the hon. gentleman was interested in. When legislation comes before the house in due course there will be ample opportunity to discuss these ramifications at that time.
In regard to grants under the prior program, and the maximum of $100,000 on a
Supp ly-Agriculture
50-50 basis, as hon. members know this program was curtailed under the austerity measures of 1962. It has never been revived and up to the present time the government has nothing further to announce. The re-establishment of this program is being reviewed and I will certainly bring the views of the representatives at our meeting last week to the attention of my colleagues. Those views were in favour of the reinstatement of the program, in its two aspects. First, there were the representations of those who have not yet received a grant under this program and, second, the representations of those who had received a grant but want another bite at the program if and when it is reinstated.
I do not think there is anything further to announce with regard to whether the program will be reinstated. I want to be perfectly honest with the committee in this regard. As the committee knows, the reinstitution of such a program would affect the government's general spending plans in the area of construction. As hon. members know, there are inflationary pressures upon our economy and programs of this kind particularly geared to construction may have to be considered in the light of the general economy of the whole country. With that exception the loans program has not been changed in any way and the question of reinstating grants for construction is under current review by the cabinet.


Mr. Nesbiii:: Mr. Chairman, I see that it is nearly six o'clock and I realize that there is a desire to put these estimates through. I had some extended remarks I wished to make on this occasion but I have cut them down considerably. I will speak in greater detail on another occasion. I would not even make these brief remarks except for one thing and that is the situation facing dairy farmers in the province of Ontario.
I know the minister is very sympathetic to this subject and I am sure he will do what he can to influence his colleagues to take some action. Putting it very briefly and bluntly, the dairy farmers of Ontario must in some way or other be guaranteed a minimum of $4 per hundred pounds for their milk regardless of where that milk goes. This is essential because the income of all other groups in the community, including labour, management, service jobs and the professions, has gone up. I know that some of the government members from Toronto and Montreal will suggest that they are paying more for milk and that

March 2. 1966
Supply-Agriculture
may be true, but it is the large dairies such as Bordens and others which are receiving the extra amount of money rather than the dairy farmers.
Another popular misconception is that the farmers who have fluid milk contracts-for the benefit of city members, that refers to milk used for drinking-receive $5 per hundred pounds of milk. That is true in respect of the amount of milk they sell for fluid purposes but for much of their milk they receive only about $2.60 per hundred pounds because the amount of milk produced over and above their fluid contracts goes for manufacturing purposes.
There is one other thing I should like to say for the record. As has been pointed out in some newspapers, farm income for 1963 was up 13 per cent. That is true, if statistics can prove anything, but not true in respect of all farmers. I may say that statistics would indicate that the income of farmers on the prairies has increased 30.5 per cent. That is fine and we are all delighted to see that the people in the west are doing so well because in past years they had the tough end of the stick, but so far as Ontario farmers are concerned their income in 1964 was down 7.1 per cent from 1963. I think if we remove specialized crops from that figure, such as tobacco and fruits, we will find that the income of the Ontario dairy farmer was down even more than 7.1 per cent.
It is up to any government to make sure that the various groups in our society get their fair share of our buoyant prosperity, but the dairy farmers are not receiving their share. In fact, they are losing money. In this regard I am sure the minister is aware of a most dangerous situation, namely, that dairy farmers are giving up, selling their herds and getting off the farms altogether because they cannot make ends meet. Unless something is done soon-perhaps deficiency payments may be the best answer-to increase to $4 per hundred pounds of milk the price paid to Ontario dairy farmers, there will develop a serious situation. I think something in this regard must be done by the minister, his colleagues and his administrative staff as soon as possible.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Chairman, the point I have to make can be made very briefly. On March 31 of last year this house, or its predecessor, ordered the production of papers dealing with matters between the agricultural stabilization board and W. J. Lafave and Sons Limited of Montreal. This return was never

made. On June 22 of last year I wrote the minister's predecessor but received no answer. I inquired of the parliamentary returns office, but despite the order of this house these documents have not been filed. I gave the minister plenty of time to get accustomed to his work and I wrote him on February 11 asking him to look into this matter. I now ask him again to look into it personally to find out why these papers have not been produced as the house ordered. I assure him that if they are not produced fairly soon my suspicions will begin to grow.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Production and marketing-
15. Administration, operation and maintenance including the administration of the Agricultural Stabilization Act, contributions to assist in the marketing of agricultural products subject to the approval of Treasury Board and payment of expenses not exceeding $100,000 for a travelling Canadian livestock and seed exhibition outside Canada, $2,110,100.
Mr. Baldwin:: I understand this is the vote having to do with the P.F.A.A. and that is what I wish to discuss. Perhaps I could do so under item 35 which deals with grants and subsidies, if the minister will not take exception to that. I am prepared to defer my remarks until we reach that item on the understanding that the minister will not object at that time.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, we have asked the minister a number of questions which I think should be answered. I want to know what the minister's intention is in regard to several matters and I do not think it is sufficient to say that next year's estimates will be referred to the committee on agriculture. It is important to know what the minister intends will be the work of that committee. One of the major problems brought to our attention by farm organizations is that relating to the establishment of national marketing agencies, particularly in respect of products where surpluses are apt to develop and have developed. This raises the whole question of the Agricultural Stabilization Act and the government's intention.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
I also want to know specifically why the government objected to the proposal put forward the other day by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale in respect of regional payments. The hon. member named two commodities, hogs and eggs, with regard to which regional stabilization payments should be made on a district and also an area
March 2, 1966

basis. This would benefit these producers and would fit into a national marketing policy to solve these problems. There is already quite a problem developing in the dairy industry of Ontario which has received some consideration through the establishment of a dairy commission. I would imagine this is a forerunner of trying to establish a price of $4 for milk in Ontario which if it is not matched by and related to other provinces will cause a considerable displacement in terms of the marketing of products.
These problems have been raised over the years and have not received any consideration. I personally, and I think most members of the house will agree with me, am not as interested in having the estimates go before the committee as in having the minister make a decision with regard to what he wants the committee to do. We should have some foreknowledge in this respect.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, I think I should briefly answer the hon. member in this regard. In so far as national marketing policies are concerned, in the short time I have been with the department I have found it to be one of the areas of very grave difficulty because, as the hon. member knows, the Privy Council in the 1930's decided that agricultural marketing was a provincial and not a federal matter. I think that in the east in particular farmers are very much taken with the example of the wheat board and feel that if they could market on a national basis in a manner analogous to what the wheat board has been able to do for the western wheat producer, their marketing procedures would be more effective and beneficial.
Bearing in mind the constitutional difficulties, I am very hopeful that the approach of a national dairy commission, which I think will be a successful advent in regard to marketing in this area, will lead to a solution of this problem. This can only be done in conjunction with provincial agencies such as the Ontario Milk Marketing Board which was set up last fall. As the hon. member may have noticed, in the speech from the throne in the province of Quebec it was announced that they are going to set up a provincial milk marketing board.
It would be my hope that this general pattern of provincial boards working in conjunction with and under the aegis of a federal board could achieve all the benefits of national marketing. But there would have to be a provincial-federal meeting of minds in this area before it could become possible. I
Supply-Agriculture
am very hopeful that in the dairy industry we will be able to achieve this and that a national dairy commission working in conjunction with provincial marketing agencies will set the pattern for national marketing to which I believe my hon. friend is referring. It may be that if this pattern is successful it could well be continued in other spheres and areas of agricultural products to give the agricultural producer the kind of stability and certainty of price that he needs if he is to be able to afford to form the sort of economically viable unit which will be productive and rewarding in the future.
With respect to the committee's consideration in these areas I think, with respect, it would be presumptuous of me to tell the committee what to do, what studies to make or the areas in which they should involve themselves. I can only assure the hon. member and the committee that certainly I and my officials will be only too pleased to appear before the committee and discuss any of these matters that the committee wishes to discuss, subject always to the rules which prevent our disclosing legislation that is in the mill. I may say that I hope to have some of these items on the order paper in the not too distant future. If there is one thing I have learned in a very short time it is that if the wheels of justice grind exceeding slow, so do the wheels of legislation.


Gerald William Baldwin: You have not got Spencer though as the Department of Justice has.


John James Greene: We may have legislation in mind and announce it on the election platform as being party policy but it still takes a great deal of administrative work to get the bills ready, through the Department of Justice and so on and present them on the order paper for the consideration of hon. members. I can assure the committee that I will push these measures that are in the mill in the agricultural area to the best of my ability and hope they will be before the house in short order so that members may consider the bills in committee. At that time they will be open for suggestion and consideration.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Chairman, may I direct a brief question to the minister? Is the minister in a position today to tell us when he thinks he will be able to announce the new dairy program?


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member has very properly pointed out, the time is rapidly drawing nigh. He rather

March 2. 1966
Supply-Agriculture
frightened me when he mentioned the date of March 10. I do not know whether it is essential or possible to have the program announced by that date but certainly it will have to be announced very shortly. I might point out that one of the difficulties timewise with regard to an approach such as I outlined earlier with respect to a national dairy commission and a national dairy policy working through and in co-operation and conjunction with these provincial agencies is the length of time necessary for negotiation and discussion with the various provincial agencies, which slows down the wheels of progress to some degree. It may be this is one of the reasons we have not yet been able to announce the policy. I can only say to my hon. friend that I certainly hope to place it before the house very shortly.


Clément Vincent: I have just one other question, Mr. Chairman. Is the minister in a position to tell us today whether he can give us any hope that this program will be directed at ensuring a price of $4 for milk, or more if he thinks this would be better?


John James Greene: I can only give my hon. friend the assurance that I will do my very utmost with any humble abilities I may have to persuade my colleagues in the government to do what is in 'the best interests of the farmers.


Robert Carman Coates: On the same point, Mr. Chairman, I should like to suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that we in this parliament, as in the previous parliament, have listened for a long period of time to the government telling us that the legislation is ready and there were no problems at all. We went through two election campaigns discussing these subjects. There is no problem apparently except that when we pick up the order paper we find there is nothing there. The minister says that perhaps March 10 is too early to expect to have this legislation on the order paper. I do not know why it should be too early. It was supposed to be ready for the order paper in the last parliament. If the minister envisages some new concepts which should be included in the legislation and which the previous minister did not envisage, I can understand some further slight delay being necessary.


John James Greene: I do not think the dairy policy requires legislation; it can be announced. I believe this is what the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska was referring to when he mentioned the date March 10. It will not require legislation.


Robert Carman Coates: In so far as legislative items are concerned, what is the reason for the delay in putting them on the order paper? If they are not put on the order paper they cannot be passed by parliament. The matter that concerns me more, however, is that we are told we will have banking legislation and railway legislation and the ministers involved in those matters are quite senior to my good friend. I realize the minister has a great deal of persuasive ability. I hope this ability is effective and he is able to get his agricultural legislation before the house. He will certainly receive the co-operation of this party if he places it before the house so we may take some action in regard to it.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
In order to give the minister an example, if he is not already aware of it I should like to quote from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of February 28 in which this statement is made:
Cash farm income in Nova Scotia for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1965 dropped below the previous year's total, but was on the road to recovery.
This is a quotation from the annual report of the marketing branch of the department of agriculture of that province. This is a sad state of affairs when you find your province going backward in the field of agriculture and when you are told that everything else is going forward. Certainly one of the reasons for the situation is the fact that we have not had the kind of legislation which we had ready in 1962 and which your party prevented us from bringing into effect because they were more interested in going to the people than they were in legislation that would be of assistance to the people.
Something has to be done to eliminate the backward trend in agriculture in Nova Scotia. I am sure the minister appreciates that the government of Nova Scotia, the Department of Agriculture and ARDA are doing everything they possibly can to put agriculture on the right track. I have been told that in so far as the ARDA legislation is concerned Nova Scotia has taken greater advantage of the benefits available from that legislation than any other province in Canada. They are doing everything they can within the confines of their financial resources. However, what we depend on most in Nova Scotia is the right kind of policies coming forward from Ottawa. Surely the situation indicates that the legislation which was envisaged in the Speech from the Throne in this parliament, in the previous parliament and by our
March 2, 1966

party in the parliament previous to that is the kind of legislation that will get us out of our difficulties. I ask the Minister of Agriculture not to let his senior colleagues push him around. He comes from one of the areas in Canada that badly need this legislation. If we hope to give farmers an opportunity to progress the way they should along with other sectors of the economy of this country, then we have to have this legislation and we have to have it very soon.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I just have a friendly reminder for the Minister of Agriculture. I understand that this week end he is going to attend a ministerial conference with his counterpart in the United States. I hope he is prepared to put up a good argument against the ridiculous quota of 600,000 pounds of cheese allowed entry into the United States while the United States is permitted to ship unlimited quantities into Canada.


Mr. Loney:: I should like to ask the minister under this item why there is such confusion in connection with stabilization payments to dairy producers. I think the minister is well aware of the fact that it is almost one year since this policy was announced, March 26, 1965 to be exact. In that announcement the minister stated that complete details of the program were being developed by the Agricultural Stabilization Board and would be made known to producers and the trade at the appropriate time.
Representations have been made to me in the past year to the effect that this has proven to be wrong. There was another announcement on June 4, 1965, which stated that claim forms for supplementary payments provided under the new interim dairy policy were being mailed the week of June 4 to some 200,000 registered shippers of manufactured milk and cream. I should like to draw to the minister's attention that even at this stage some dairy producers in my riding have not received their application forms, let alone their payments. This same announcement said the claim forms should be mailed by July 31 to ensure consideration. If there are dairy producers who have not yet received their application forms I would ask the minister to take this into consideration.
On August 30, 1965 the minister announced that the first cheques for supplementary payments to farmers under the new federal policy had been mailed. It was stated also that approximately 205,000 of these claims were being settled at the rate of 1,000 claims
Supply-Agriculture
per day. I know there is an awareness within the department that in many cases the dairy producer misunderstands or misinterprets the instructions but surely something can be done to rectify this situation and to ensure that simple instructions will go out to the producer and to the buyer of his product.
There is another situation I should like to bring to the minister's attention under this item and that is the fact that when this program was instigated many of the buyers began making subsidy payments to the producers. They continued this for several months until they made application to the stabilization board for reimbursement cheques. At that time they found that some producers to whom they had been making these payments were not fully accredited; they were not yet registered. In some cases repayment was asked of the buyer or the amount was deducted from the buyer's next cheque. In some cases the payment was refused. I asked the minister to give some consideration to reimbursing these buyers of dairy products so they will not have to bear the loss which in the case of one creamery amounted to roughly $900.
In fairness to the officials of the stabilization board I must say they are making some effort to rectify this situation. However, I did wish to bring this to the minister's attention at this time. A moment ago I said there were many dairy producers within the riding I represent who have not received their stabilization payment. Again, in fairness to the officials of the department, may I say that where representations have been made every effort possible has been made by these officials to rectify the situation.
I referred initially to the delay and confusion but I should like the minister to bear in mind that I am still receiving letters. I will not take the time of the committee to quote from these letters. I was receiving them as far back as September, October and November. Here is one letter dated November 24, 1965, which is typical. The writer says he has not yet received any supplementary payment from the stabilization board. He goes on to ask me to make representations. In this case I did. I understand the stabilization payment has now been received but it took about six weeks.
Here is a letter dated December 17 in which it is stated the producer wrote to the stabilization board three weeks ago and has not yet received an answer. I have many

March 2, 1966
Supp ly-A griculture
more letters like these. Then we come to 1966, January and February. Here is a letter which I should like to bring to the Minister's attention dated February 27. Reference is made to the fact that an application for a stabilization payment was made in July, 1965, but no payment has been received even though the producer has written twice to the data office. These are some of the situations which have arisen and I ask the minister to take this matter under consideration to see what he can do to rectify it.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)


Harry Andrew Moore: Mr. Chairman, before I mention my question I should like to support what the hon. member for Bruce has said about delay and confusion. I believe this exists in all areas of Canada. I must say that we get letters every day of the week asking, where is my money? Many of these people say that they wrote to the Department of Agriculture some time ago but did not receive a reply.
My question to the minister deals with the stabilization price of hogs. The present guaranteed price of hogs, I understand, is $23.65 a hundredweight for A hogs at Toronto. This is out of line with the present price of hogs which is close to 40 cents a pound at this time. You might say that because of that there is no problem, but why have a stabilization price if it does not protect the hog producer? The cost of production makes the present stabilization price of $23.65 seem rather ridiculous. I think the minister should take another look at this problem and consider a price of say 29 cents. If market prices ever went down as low as $23.65 for A hogs at Toronto the hog producers would be forced out of business.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, in his reply to me the minister indicated that he could not direct the committee as to what they should discuss. My understanding is that the government does do this. It is they who move matters for consideration by the committee. I had hoped the minister would say that he was willing to put some of these matters before the committee rather than just the estimates. As I see it, the committee would not be able to go into all these matters on its own, but if the minister would refer some of these problems to the committee the committee would be seized of them. Some of the specific problems are the dairy industry and farm machinery prices, and I am sure the
[Mr. Loney.l
minister is also concerned about crop insurance.
The second matter referred to by the minister was marketing legislation. In the past provision has been made under the stabilization act to dispose on a national basis of products bought by the government when their price dropped below a certain level. Things accumulated and the government dumped them or disposed of them.
Very shortly the dairy industry will have discussions with the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec in relation to butter, cheese, fluid milk and other dairy products. If this matter could be referred to the committee and an over-all policy decided upon from the point of view of the federal government, then the difficulty of bringing together the two provincial governments, would not seem a very large one.
I hope, though I will not press the matter at this late hour, that the minister and the department will set forth some of the problems which they are willing to ask the cooperation of the members of the committee to solve. These items could fall into three basic categories, namely, the marketing of dairy products, farm machinery prices and security of farm prices. I suggest that the minister has more responsibility in this regard than he may have assumed. The committee does not decide what it wants to do. The house puts before the committee what it wishes it to do and in the final analysis I believe the minister would be the one to give leadership in this field.


Mr. Nasserden:: May I ask the minister whether the stabilization act will be brought before the committee this year? Last year I brought this question up on a number of occasions but the minister and the government gave us the run around each time.
This act has been in operation now for a number of years. When it was brought forward in the first instance the thought of the government at the time was that it was not perfect and would need revision as time went on. After the period of years that it has been in operation I think parliament is now in a good position to study the act and to make the necessary revisions to ensure it is really workable for the Canadian farmer.


Edison John Clayton Loney: I have just one further matter on item 15, Mr. Chairman. What consideration has the minister's department given to some type of freight assistance to Ontario
March 2, 1966

grown grains moving to the eastern provinces? I have in mind Ontario wintergrown wheat and Ontario corn.
The reason I ask the question is that we are well aware of the fact that these Ontario grown cash crops are in direct competition with grain moving in from the west which receives freight assistance at the Lakehead. The producers of the grain in Ontario also compete directly with United States storage corn, and under their system the producers in the United States can move it into Canada a lot cheaper than we can produce it. Our cash crop dealers are facing direct competition in this field.
I should like the minister to take into consideration a request which was made in a statement issued by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture which I should like to put on the record. The statement recommended that Ontario wheat shipped to any destination in Quebec and the Maritimes receive freight assistance at a comparable rate to that of western wheat moving to the same destination. This would permit the Ontario wheat producers marketing board to move surplus stocks of winter wheat into feeding areas on a competitive basis with feed wheat from western Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Animal and animal products-
25. Grants, contributions and subsidies in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the sub-vote titles listed in the details of estimates, $11,829,400.
Mr. Scott (Victoria (Onl.):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to congratulate the minister on his appointment. I am sure he will find it very challenging and I wish him the very best of luck. At this time I will make my remarks brief. I should like to impress on the minister that consideration must be given to our agricultural fairs. Ten million people in Canada attend these fairs each year. It is the greatest agricultural show window of our nation. But today most of our societies are suffering from a lack of accommodation, with no facilities to display their goods.
Fairs are an institution in this country and are much older than Confederation. They have always been, as they are today, a great social as well as an economic factor in our way of life. In Ontario alone there are approximately 265 agricultural societies, 57 of which are class A or class B fairs, the rest being class C. The distinguishing factor is that a class C fair does not spend $3,000 or
Supply-Agriculture
more on its prize lists for what are classed as agricultural purposes for three consecutive years; yet it may contribute as much or more to agriculture than some of the class B fairs.
It is the opinion of people connected with agricultural fairs that the ceiling of $3,000 on prize money for class C fairs should be lowered to $2,000 in prize money paid for agricultural purposes. We would also ask for a reinstatement of the major capital improvement grant to class A and class B fairs. We head the minister say that he had received representations some time ago to this effect and we beg the minister's department to consider this.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
We also insist that the minister give further consideration to a long term loan policy for class A and class B fairs, with an interpretation broad enough to embrace community activities, the money to be provided at a reasonable rate of interest and with a forgiveness clause. Some of the smaller country fairs have done more to improve agriculture with respect to livestock and agricultural products through their 4H clubs than have many larger institutions. We must remember that if all the tributaries flowing into our great lakes were suddenly to cease the lakes would dry up. Do not let this happen to our own show, the agricultural show.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Saltsman:: Mr. Chairman, I will take only a few moments to state my position and to endorse some of the statements which have been made by people primarily from agricultural regions. I should like to ask the minister, as other members of the house have today, to reinstate the capital grants for fair construction purposes. In 1960 the government spend $460,000, in 1961, $500,000, and in 1962, $665,000 for this purpose.
I would submit to the minister that that was probably some of the best spent money that the Canadian government ever spent. For a relatively small sum of money the Canadian government enabled many communities to improve not only facilities devoted to agricultural interests but community facilities as well.
The city of Galt is one of the communities interested in improving its facilities for agricultural interests. It also wishes to combine those facilities with a recreational centre that would serve the interests of all citizens. I ask the minister to give this matter serious

March 2, 1966
Supply-Agriculture
consideration and to reinstate the grant program. I feel that such federal initiative would be widely welcomed throughout the whole country.


Harry Andrew Moore: Mr. Chairman, with the new dairy policy coming up, and with the promise of possibly $4 per hundred pounds for manufactured milk to be considered, I should like to mention the plight in which these provisions might leave the fluid milk shipper, especially in view of the fact that at the present time there is no subsidy on surplus milk to the shipper. Any subsidy on surplus fluid milk was taken off during the term of the previous minister who said that it was taken off to save money. Quite possibly money was saved. However, I think we have to take a look now at the position the fluid milk shipper will be in if manufactured milk goes up to $4 a hundred pounds. The prices now paid to the shipper for fluid milk range from possibly $4.95 a hundred pounds to $5 and over per hundred pounds. As anybody knows, the fluid milk shipper is on a quota, sometimes small, sometimes large. He cannot survive without producing surplus milk. In order to maintain a quota, which he must maintain if he is not to lose part of it, he must produce surplus milk. When his cows go out to grass in the summer they produce it on their own.
It may well be that the fluid milk shipper will be receiving a lower average price per hundred pounds of milk than is paid to the shippers to manufacturing plants. In my own home town one shipper is already in this position, an it is a ridiculous position in which to place a fluid milk shipper. His costs of operation are so much higher than those of any other dairy producer. Costs must of necessity be higher because the regulations are very stringent. The producer must produce good milk of a very high quality or go under. I hope that the minister and his department will take a close look at the particular problem that may come up when and if prices rise.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the item carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Plant and plant products-
35d. Grants, contributions and subsidies as detailed in the estimates, $10,450,000.
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I have no apology for keeping the committee a few minutes longer. I have just come back from

having spent three days in my constituency. Having seen the condition of several thousand people there and as a result of my studies and discussions during the last three days I have been reinforced in the view that I should be derelict in my duty if I did not make one more to persuade the government and the minister to change their rejection of the request of the Alberta government to co-operate in providing financial assistance to the people of my constituency.
I speak to the minister more in sorrow than in anger. I think his heart is in the right place. I realize his difficulties lie in trying to persuade his colleagues, as he said a few minutes ago, to view the whole problem in a palatable light. Hercules in cleaning up the Aegean stables perhaps had no more difficulty than has the minister in trying to paint his colleagues to appear in an attractive light with respect to agriculture in Canada.
When the minister spoke on January 26 he put his case for rejection specifically and quite fairly on two grounds. The minister said that there was a constitutional barrier which prevented his giving effect to the request that had been made. He also indicated that for the federal government to make payments in co-operation with the province to help farmers in the Peace River area and other parts of Alberta who are in distress because of unusual weather conditions, might create a precedent. I want to deal with this matter briefly because I do not want the impression to remain on the record that such a statement was made and not answered.
With regard to the constitutional barrier I suggest to the minister that the British North America Act gives a concurrent jurisdiction to both federal and provincial governments. That provision is in the same section giving jurisdiction with respect to immigration. No one that I know of has ever questioned the sole right of the federal' government to deal with matters affecting immigration. The program and policy here indicated is not one of welfare. It is a policy related to agricultural problems and linked with crop insurance and Prairie Farm Assistance Act programs. It is a supplementary payment by way of assistance to farmers. I think it comes squarely within the four corners of section 95.
I will leave it at that. I do suggest that there is no right on the part of the government to offer as an excuse that there is a constitutional barrier to the implementing of the program I have referred to. There was a
March 2, 1966

precedent in 1959 when P.F.A.A. paid millions of dollars to farmers in western Canada who had sustained losses because of crop conditions at that time.
In further proof of what I say and to indicate what was in the minds of members of the minister's party I wish to refer to a passage taken from the Fairview Post of January 27, 1966.
Unsuccessful Liberal candidate in the Nov. 8 federal election, Charles MacDonell of Grande Prairie says he is bewildered by refusal of federal authorities to sanction any crop assistance to many needy farmers in the Peace. Following is a statement by the Grande Prairie barrister:
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
The refusal of the federal Minister of Agriculture to participate in provision of this assistance is a direct reversal of the federal policy which was in existence during the election campaign. At that time the policy was to participate on an equal basis with the province in any program which the province was willing to formulate and administer.
Then he goes on to suggest what should be done, with protest meetings, marches to Ottawa and so on. There is no question about it. This was the understanding at the time, and there was every right for the people of Peace River and myself to believe that when, and if, the provincial government did undertake to make payment, and to ask the federal government for assistance, that request would be met.
Urgency arises because the provincial government has agreed to proceed with its program. It has made available about $1$ million. Applications have been taken from farmers. These applications have been processed, and when I was in the north I found that already some cheques were starting to come out. The question of urgency is that these people will require the full amount in order for them to carry on in an effective way during the coming crop year.
I know this is a long distance away. I have heard the suggestion that it may be all for the good of these people that they should leave this land and find a means of making a livelihood elsewhere. But many of them are farmers who came up under the homestead program. They have been there, three, four, five and six years. They are soldiers in a front-line settlement. They are farming the same kind of land I saw people farming 30 years ago-gray wood soil. It needs careful intensive cultivation. There are some 10 million to 12 million acres of this type of land, and I suggest that a continued refusal by the
Supp ly-A griculture
federal government to participate in this scheme will not drive these people away, but that it will constitute a rank injustice, an inequity. I appeal to the minister to review the situation with his colleagues.
If there is a barrier to bringing the program under P.F.A.A. possibly the minister might consult with his colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare, with respect to the unemployment assistance program, which is very wide in scope. There is ample opportunity for this to be done. One must keep in mind the statement made by the Liberal candidate up there. After all, this was election time-and I think somebody said old age cannot wither nor custom stale the campaign wiles of the Liberals. I do not want to dwell on that at this moment, but I do urge the minister to review the whole program, consult with his colleagues and see if ways and means cannot be found to provide assistance on an equal share basis with the province of Alberta. I urge him to do this, having in mind the principles involved, having in mind that several thousands of people are involved, and having in mind the feeling that there has been discrimination against them.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, I think this deserves an answer. The hon. member has brought up the question previously and I believe I should clear the record. First of all, I understand there has been some controversy in the Alberta press as to the series of events in this matter, and I think I should clear that up in view of the contradictions that have appeared.
First of all, the minister of agriculture of the province of Alberta did request in December that we share in this program, but there has apparently been some misunderstanding in that regard. In answer to several questions in the house I have announced that there has never been any subsequent request for any method of approach which would be anything but supplementary payments over and above the P.F.A.A. payments. I can in no way blame my colleagues in this matter. The decision has been my own and I must stand on it. Contrary to what hon. members opposite may believe, my colleagues in the cabinet are kindly, benign, delightful gentlemen, and I can assure you they would do anything they could to help anyone in trouble.
I do not deny for one moment the grave difficulties in which these people are finding themselves. I appreciate the deep sincerity of the hon. member for Peace River, and of the

March 2, 1966
Supply-Agriculture
hon. member for Medicine Hat, who also has drawn this matter to my attention. My difficulty is simply that here is an area under P.F.A.A., in which some people have received P.F.A.A. payments. They have received P.F.A.A. because of the fact that they have had three bad years in a row; but I would like to point out that other P.F.A.A. areas have received P.F.A.A. payments as many as 25 out of 26 years. How then can we justify preferring one area under P.F.A.A. and saying to the people there, "You will not only receive your P.F.A.A. payments, but we are also going to give you an extra $1 million or $2 million of federal money"? This is the quandary in which I find myself.
In 1959, with due respect, the whole of the prairie provinces suffered from early frost or snow so that bins could not be counted and P.F.A.A. could not be brought into effect. Therefore the entire P.F.A.A. area was covered by emergency payments. There was no preferring of one area over another, and I might point out that in the province of Manitoba, in their administration of the 1959 program, they specifically did not pay anyone who had received P.F.A.A. They took exactly the same view as we find we must take in this case.
I have repeatedly sought a way-and I point no finger at anyone because I have been no wiser than anyone else in this regard-to see if we could make a contribution without in fact preferring several P.F.A.A. areas over the rest of the P.F.A.A. areas, many of which had also suffered losses for more than three years in a row. This is the quandary with which I am faced and I have not been able to find a way around it.
Many of the questions asked have been to this effect: Has there been any request from the provincial government for aid in this emergency which would not in fact be a payment supplementary to P.F.A.A. payments, thus preferring one, two or three P.F.A.A. areas over others? I have had no request in line with this approach. Had we had such requests, so that in fact it was not a preferring of some P.F.A.A. areas over others, and if there was some other method of handling it, then it might well be we could participate; but I do not see how we can discriminate against certain P.F.A.A. areas as compared with others.
If we are going to have emergency payments for the Peace River area over and above P.F.A.A., then surely we must do the same for other P.F.A.A. areas which have

suffered for more than the three years. This is a quandary. I appreciate very much the hon. member's sincerity, and I only regret I have not been able to figure a way around the problem.


Gerald William Baldwin: Will the minister take into consideration the suggestion I made about the possibility of extension of unemployment assistance? I make that request having in mind that much of the land involved is in the frontier area, and there have been many cases where farmers have been able to break and bring under cultivation only 80, 100 or 120 acres. As the minister knows there is a limit under P.F.A.A..-half the cultivated acreage-and the minister can readily see how half of 80 or 100 acres, at a payment of only $2 an acre, does not provide much. The amount of money is not to be considered in the same sense as larger areas in the western provinces where farmers have much more cultivated acreage and the payments they get can come up to the maximum of $800. There is a clear distinction to be made in that regard, and it is in that sense that the provincial government approved the program. I think the minister should look at it in that light.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)


Harry Andrew Moore: Mr. Chairman, I was going to make the same plea that has been made by the member for Peace River in respect of the farmers in west central Alberta. The problems are very similar. Since the minister gave a very considered answer, I do not have to go into it in detail. I would however like to make one comment. He spoke about the technicalities, and I can understand his problem. I know he is sincere in this; but these technicalities will not bring gas, oil and seed to these farmers who have no other way to obtain them.
I think that, if you look at the P.F.A.A. payments you will find in certain areas they are either very small or are not in existence at all. I receive letters from many people who say they are not covered by P.F.A.A. and are in difficulty. I beg the minister to look into this further. Possibly some assistance in providing interest free loans to buy oil, gas and seed might be a solution; I do not know.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, there are just one or two points I have in mind at this time for clarification. I would like the Minister of Agriculture to know that I do not want to misinterpret what he says, but what I believe he said was that the minister of agriculture for the Province of Alberta had asked for
March 2, 1966

supplementary P.F.A.A. payments. That is not the context in which the request was made.
The request was not for supplementary payments above the regular P.F.A.A. payments that might have been made in these two specific areas. What was asked for was a 50 per cent sharing of the cost of the emergency assistance program set up for two specific areas for what they considered to be good and sufficient reasons. The technicalities and problems that the Minister of Agriculture discusses here, so far as I and the minister of agriculture for Alberta are concerned, are superimposed difficulties because they try to hang it on P.F.A.A. I know the view of the provincial government in Alberta is that there should be no relationship whatsoever between the request for a cost sharing program and P.F.A.A. I wish to clarify this because I think that is the intent of the minister of agriculture for Alberta, and I think perhaps on reflection of the federal Minister of Agriculture.


John James Greene: This is perfectly correct. If I left the impression that the aid was requested specifically as being supplementary to P.F.A.A. payments, it is not so; it is exactly as the hon. member has stated. It was requested for a specific area, but in fact these were P.F.A.A. areas and, therefore, our conclusion was that this would have resulted in supplementary payments for those P.F.A.A. areas in particular. However, the request did not come from the minister specifically on the basis of being supplementary to P.F.A.A. The hon. member is quite correct.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might ask a question. I know the item under which this question should have been asked is passed. Would the minister be gracious enough to afford me the privilege of asking the question? I am referring particularly to class B fairs and the suspended grants. Is the policy being changed, and when does the minister expect to change that policy in order to extend those grants again to the class B fairs.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, the policy of payment which was suspended in 1962 was reactivated. I can tell the hon. member that both the grants program and the new loans suggested by my predecessor are under consideration and I hope we will have a decision from the cabinet in this regard in the not too distant future.
2303a-132
Supp ly-A griculture


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I have a supplementary question. Does that mean that the loans program will be substituted for the grants program, or will there be both?


John James Greene: Both are being considered; there is no decision. At the meeting with the fairs people the contention, strangely enough, was that they all were in favour of both; they were not going to turn down either the grants or the loans, if they were going to be available from the federal government.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister, while we are on this item, whether he would indicate briefly to the house what the situation is in respect of the golden nematode invasion on Vancouver Island. I know a situation was developing there where some of the producers were going to face considerable difficulty because of the embargo placed on the marketing of their potato crop. I am wondering where this matter stands at the moment, so far as the federal Department of Agriculture is concerned.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, a rather complex program is in effect. If the hon. member would permit me, I would be pleased either to write him about it or discuss it with him personally, because it is lengthy. However, briefly I can say that there is a program of relief in effect.
When I was in Victoria in January I had a meeting with these people. It was a lengthy, and I think worth-while meeting. The details and administration of the program were discussed fully with them. I do not think there is going to be an easy or facile solution. I am sure it is a very complex problem. To date I think the program has been working satisfactorily; but I feel certain there will be problems as we go along, and I can only hope that we will be able to meet them to the satisfaction of the persons involved. However it is a very difficult problem to solve, because there are several aspects to it.
First of all, I think the question of paying for crops that had been destroyed-crops of various kinds, including nursery stock-is one problem that is not too difficult to remedy. I think there is the matter of the compensation for land which must be taken out of production for a certain length of time, and again there is the third category of land which must be taken out of production for a much greater length of time and perhaps virtually permanently. Compensation in those areas is not an easy thing to determine.

March 2, 1966
Sup p ly-A gricul ture
We are attempting, and I hope successfully, to negotiate settlements which are satisfactory to the individual farmers, and if we can do this, that will be the end of it. I hope we can do so. If not, some method will have to be evolved whereby we can assess compensation upon some equitable basis.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: There is one particular aspect of the problem which has not been touched upon; that is the situation of the growers who were outside of the immediately affected area and who were not going to be able to market their crop, such as seed potatoes, because of the embargo on exports from the area. Is the minister satisfied, so far as his department is concerned, that the present program is working in a manner which will prevent such farmers being in a situation of hardship?


John James Greene: I think this is one of the difficult areas in which to assess fair and just compensation, in order to be fair to the taxpayer whose money it is we are dealing with, and at the same time be fair to the affected grower. However, to the best of my knowledge the program is working satisfactorily and certainly is being reviewed from time to time. If any of the growers who are concerned are not happy with it, I would be only too pleased to hear from them in order to see whether we can work out solutions which are satisfactory to them. To the best of my knowledge the program is working satisfactorily.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: We will write to ask for a full explanation.


Edison John Clayton Loney: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister whether further consideration has been given to the numerous requests by members on this side of the house in respect of some means to bring about a way to alleviate the serious crop loss as a result of early frost and early snow this past fall. I refer, Mr. Chairman, to those areas in western Ontario which are not among the 22 townships which were designated, and particularly the townships in the county of Bruce.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member is aware of the fact that the initiation for such a program must come from the province. We have had no requests from the province of Ontario for contributions, to any of the communities to which he referred.
[Mr. Greened


Edison John Clayton Loney: I have a supplementary question. We are all aware of the representations which have been made by various members of this house and organizations concerned with the future of agriculture in this province. My question is prompted by a reply which appeared in Hansard on February 28 to a question asked by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, which set out in detail a reply given to the Farmers Union of Ontario. In this regard, has the minister met recently with the vice president of that union, Mr. Walter Miller, to discuss crop losses in western Ontario? Perhaps the minister can also tell the house what promises were made to Mr. Miller. I am not asking the minister to betray any confidence because, following that meeting with the minister the vice president met with members of the Conservative party who are concerned about crop losses in the areas they represent and intimated that certain promises had been made along the lines just stated by the minister, that the initiative should come from the province of Ontario. He also intimated that the only way to handle this government was by opposition members putting pressure on them to take action.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall item 35d carry?


Edison John Clayton Loney: Mr. Chairman, may we have a reply from the minister?


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, I can assure the hon. member that I have at no time encouraged anyone on the premise that it was a good idea for the opposition to put pressure on the minister to do anything. I hope the opposition will approve of the fine policies brought forth by the minister to the extent that they will co-operate with him. I can assure the hon. gentleman that if such a representation were made, it was not consistent with the facts.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health of animals-
40. Administration, operation and maintenance including Canada's fee for membership in the Office International des Epizooties, and authority, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year from packers requiring special services, $12,756,000.
Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, in respect of vote 40, I appreciate that the minister cannot provide answers to the questions I wish to pose at this time, but I want him to give us an undertaking before this item passes that he will attempt to provide me with these answers. I refer to the mystery or rumour
March 2, 1966

which from time to time surrounds the importation of cattle from Charolais, France, where there is some concern about an outbreak of hoof and mouth disease. Can the minister provide the house with an undertaking that this program as it is being carried out will be explained in detail, giving the specific number of animals involved, the quarantine steps and the names of the purchasers?
I am concerned about two things in this regard, Mr. Chairman. I should not like to see this become an avenue for the circumvention of restrictions on importations from foreign countries. There might well be a great deal of speculation in this regard and I am very concerned about it. Is this to be an operation which will benefit the cattlemen of Canada and North America? If so, I am very desirous to see that it proceeds. On the other hand I should like to make sure that precaution is taken to prevent any disruption in respect of the importation of cattle to this country and to our neighbour to the south. I am sure the minister is concerned in this regard, and perhaps he will give a complete picture of this program in order to allay the suspicions which have been aroused. This would give the members of this house an opportunity to consider this program, which I personally feel has some merit.
My second concern is about the program instituted by the previous minister relating to the provision of dairy products and beef from the same cattle. I am sure the minister is familiar with this program. I would like to obtain more details in this regard. Perhaps the minister at a later date could provide a complete outline of this program.
Mr. Chairman, I am also concerned about the travelling livestock show. I think there is a great deal of interest in this subject, and perhaps the minister could give us a complete outline and understanding of its purpose, setting out the type of animals involved, and its scope. If the minister will give me an undertaking regarding the three items I have mentioned I am perfectly prepared to let this item pass.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, I want to be certain as to procedure before answering, but I should think the best time to deal with the first two items mentioned is when the estimates for the current year are being examined by the committee. If that is satisfactory I am pleased to undertake to provide the details requested.
23033-132J
Supply-Agriculture
Regarding the third item, let me point out that the travelling livestock exhibit comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Trade and Commerce and, for that reason, I do not know how or in what way I could present the information requested. I would be very pleased to give the hon. member a written report. However if that is not satisfactory I will try to find the best way of making that information public so that the hon. member will have access to it. As I said, the first two items can be best dealt with when estimates for the current year come before the committee.
Board of Grain Commissioners-*
50. Administration, operation and maintenance including authority to purchase screenings, $6,610,700.


Mr. Watson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the minister on his appointment to the agricultural portfolio, and his trip throughout western Canada, during which time certain statements were made to the effect that it was unfortunate the government had no representation in the province of Saskatchewan.
Let me assure the minister that I will co-operate with him at all times in attempting to improve the agricultural situation in the province of Saskatchewan. Specifically I should like to deal with the matter of terminal elevators in western Canada. Many of these elevators are sitting empty. I have placed several questions on the order paper pertaining to this elevator operation, and I had hoped that some of these questions might have been answered before now. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture is interested in the items to which I have referred in my questions.
In the western part of this country we refer to these elevators as great white elephants. As an example of why this is so, let me refer to an empty elevator in my riding with a capacity of 5,500,000 bushels, which has modern drying and cleaning facilities. This is the type of thing which leads us to refer to these elevators in the way I have indicated.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take up much of the minister's time, but I do suggest he look into this situation and use his influence to correct it. I know the minister realizes that the farmers must get their wheat off their land on quotas, and can do so only by putting pressure on the wheat board and the railways to move it from these elevators. When this happens we always get the runaround and are told that for this or that

March 2. 1966
Supply-Agriculture
reason it cannot be done. I urge the minister to take a good look at the situation with regard to these terminal elevators. Let us make some use of them. We pay large staffs to sit there and do very little if anything. I realize these people have to be kept on but the elevators should be used for the purpose for which whey were intended, that is storage.
I realize also that other questions enter into this matter. There is the question of drop-off charges, and so on. These charges are given as an excuse for the final payment in regard to wheat being something similar to that paid last year, which constituted a drop of 10 or 15 cents a bushel. I maintain that we are paying a permanent staff to operate these elevators, the facilities are there and they should be used. These are Canadian government elevators and if the grain was put into them and no charge was made for storage the situation would be no different than it is at present, when employees are sitting there year after year and no grain is going through the elevators.
I am not saying this is the situation in all elevators but it is the situation in two or three elevators which I have investigated and which are empty at the present time. Last year when the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre and myself put some pressure on the government to have some grain put into them at the end of July, 238,000 bushels of wheat were put into one of the elevators but it was taken out again within two or three weeks. At the present time we have a 5J million bushel capacity elevator in the city of Moose Jaw that does not have a bushel of grain in it. I do not say this situation exists in regard to other elevators because I have not the figures before me, but if it is the case I think the Minister of Agriculture should take a good, hard look at this situation and see what can be done about it.
I would draw another matter to the attention of the minister. It may not come under this item but perhaps the minister would bear with me for a moment. I would ask the minister to use his influence with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue in this regard. I am referring again to the question of storage. Under a bill that was passed last year-this came under the

eastern feed grain policy, I believe-a farmer who built storage facilities was eligible for a 25 per cent write-off on them if they were built between May 1, 1965, and December 31, 1966. The Minister of Agriculture should take a good, hard look at this situation and use his influence with his colleagues in the cabinet to have this program put on a permanent basis. I am sure it would help all the farmers of Canada a great deal.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. The committee will now proceed to the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys.


William Arnold Peters: Six o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could remind members of the committee that my hon. friend the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys is one of those ministers who are expected to be in Washington tomorrow. I would point out that the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, who will be here, is in a position to deal with what I think will be one of the most interesting subjects to be discussed under these estimates, namely the question of water. There would be no technical restriction put upon the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources in dealing with these estimates.
In view of the fact that the minister will have another set of estimates to put through for the forthcoming year, and that there are several other departments to deal with, I wonder whether the committee would consider dealing rather briefly with the minister's estimates and doing it today.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, we have been trying to co-operate in passing these estimates. It was only the day before yesterday that the house leader approached us and said it had just been brought to his attention that these five ministers had to be in Washington to attend the joint United States-Canadian committee, and consequently we co-operated in passing the estimates.
Unfortunately, even though we sat long hours yesterday and we are doing so again today, the estimates of one of those depart-
March 2, 1966



ments have not been passed. In view of the fact that many members on our side have co-operated by withholding their remarks on the first item of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture in order to expedite the passage of those estimates, and that there are four or five at least, possibly six, members who feel very strongly about certain matters relating to the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys and wish to express their views and find it difficult to forgo this opportunity. I would suggest that the minister go to Washington-while he is there he could probably re-write the constitution-and in his absence another minister, possibly the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, as the Minister of Transport suggested, could pilot his estimates through committee. I believe there are the estimates of nine more departments to be considered, and we have Thursday, Friday and possibly Monday to consider them. It would be agreeable to us if this procedure were followed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to disagree with the hon. member for Ontario but I wonder whether I might make a suggestion for consideration. If it is possible for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to deal with any of the issues that might arise, could there be an understanding that we pass the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys without any debate, without taking any time, on the understanding that we may ask any questions about that department when the estimates of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources are before us?


Michael Starr: I think we have made our position quite clear. There are a number of members who feel very strongly about certain aspects of these estimates and on which they wish to say a few words. For some hon. members there are matters of particular significance in this department. Under those circumstances, if the government would take the course that I suggested we would appreciate it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I know that the members who are here are not able to bind those who are not here, but I wonder if they would be satisfied in the circumstances, since the government has no authority to go
Supply-Agriculture
on if hon. members do not wish to do so-we are suppliants in this regard-if the acting minister did pilot the estimates for the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, in order that the minister could keep this engagement with regard to a matter which is in the opinion of the government, and I think in the opinion of the house, of great importance to both countries.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It is not a constitutional matter, though.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, it is an extraconstitutional matter; it is an unwritten constitution.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the suggestion made by the Minister of Transport, I speak only for myself but I would be perfectly willing to follow the course he suggested, with one proviso. As I mentioned, I have a very important stake in this matter and if the government would undertake to have the Minister of National Health and Welfare act on behalf of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, I would be satisfied.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, we would have to abide by the rules, and I think the only minister who would have the right to act for the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys would be the acting minister.


Gordon Minto Churchill: So long as it is not the Minister of Transport, because he talks too much.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)


Donald MacInnis: Would the Minister of Transport indicate who that acting minister would be?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand that the acting minister-I have not looked at the list-is the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.


Donald MacInnis: To get
back to our own particular problem, I cannot foresee the possibility of carrying on with the estimates of the mines department unless the minister himself is here-or the minister who took so much responsibility in the last few months, so far as we are concerned, the Minister of National Health and Welfare.

March 2. 1966
Supply-Agriculture


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: So far as we are concerned we would agree to go ahead with these estimates tomorrow with the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources taking them in his capacity as acting minister. Inasmuch as there are a number of members who want to make some inquiries, whether or not they get full answers, I do not think it would be a good idea to pass these estimates without debate, even with the reservation that we could ask some questions.
There is only one problem with having the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and that is that after some of the statements he has made recently we would be tempted to talk about parks, and we would be here for a long time. As a matter of fact, the meeting in Washington is very important and we think the minister who will have the responsibility for energy and water resources ought to be there, in spite of the fact that we know he has been in Winnipeg recently discussing some of the things in which we are particularly interested. However, we would excuse him while he carries on the business of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We would have liked to have the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys here for his estimates. However, we think the suggestion is a good one and we wish him godspeed on his trip to Washington.


Michael Starr: May I ask the Minister of Transport if he would agree that, in addition to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, the Minister of National Health and Welfare will be present also during the discussion of these estimates?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I cannot imagine, sir, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, if it were humanly possible for him to be here, would deny himself the pleasure of listening to the hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Donald MacInnis: Since the Minister of Transport wants to pinpoint this matter, I can be just as stubborn as the next fellow and insist that if the minister wants to look after the business of Canada, the best place to do it is in Canada. We have a particular problem here. We have been denied the opportunity of asking questions since the house opened, and denied that opportunity in a most peculiar way. We have

been denied the privilege of asking the Minister of National Health and Welfare questions, as the minister from Nova Scotia; yet there are thousands of precedents for such questions. This type of question has been asked for years. So far as we are concerned, the Minister of National Health and Welfare is the man who has the answers in respect of our own particular problem. If we do not get the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, we want the Minister of National Health and Welfare who is responsible for the kind of statements that were made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will undertake to let the Minister of National Health and Welfare know of the desire of the hon. gentleman. I feel quite sure he will be here if it is humanly possible.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: If I may make a compromise suggestion, I am inclined to agree with my colleague the hon. member for Cape Breton South, but I am sure the acting house leader, despite his offhanded remarks at times, realizes this is a most important subject, namely coal mining and assistance to coal mining. As a happy compromise, could we not have assurance-I am sure the hon. member for Cape Breton South would agree with me- from the acting house leader that the $25 million that was promised as assistance for the coal mining industry in Nova Scotia would be forthcoming, with no strings attached, and without waiting for Ritchie Donald's report? I am sure the hon. member for Cape Breton South and I would not wish to participate in any debate at all, as long as we knew this money was forthcoming, without any restrictions at all,-just a straight $25 million for assistance to the coal industry. If we could have this assurance from the acting house leader, possibly my colleague would be quite happy and you would not have to listen to either of us.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can assure the hon. gentleman that the undertaking that was given by the government was not given lightly, and that it is the intention of the government to carry it out.


Donald MacInnis: I do
not wish to contradict my colleague, but we already have the assurance of which he is
March 2, 1966

speaking, although we do not have the delivery.


Robert Muir: We want the delivery, without any strings.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall I rise and report progress?


Donald MacInnis: I want a complete understanding from the house leader. Do we have the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys here tomorrow, or don't we?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am only acting for the house leader, who has been here almost all day but who had to carry out another engagement. I understood there were some other departments to be taken up tomorrow and I would not like to say what department would come first tomorrow. I feel the house leader would have to consult with hon. gentlemen opposite because my understanding was that yesterday and today we were going to take these five departments. I do not believe it would be wise for me to commit the government in any way without consultation. I understood we were going back to the Department of Justice tomorrow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If hon. gentlemen would consent to go on with these estimates for half an hour, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys is here right now and could listen to both hon. members from Cape Breton, as well as anyone else who wished to speak. So far as we are concerned on this side of the house, we will go on as long as it is necessary in order to pass these estimates now.
If we do not pass them now, I do not believe I have authority to commit the government as to what order the departments will be called or when the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys will come again. It was for this reason I was hesitant. If the hon. gentleman had asked me about my own conduct, I would not be hesitant. I am hesitant however about committing another minister without consulting him. I think it is quite reasonable to assume that the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond-I refer to him that way for obvious reasons-is just as much interested in the coal problem as any other member. I am sure be will wish to be here when it is discussed, if it is possible for him to be here.
Supply-Agriculture
I wonder if we could not get agreement to go on for another half hour so both members from Cape Breton could make their speeches right now?


Michael Starr: This has always been the trouble. The Minister of Transport speaks too long, uses too many words and he injects into his speech the political feeling he always has inside his body and his mind. There are $8 billion of estimates to be considered. No estimates have been considered in this house for the past year and a half, and now the government says they are willing to sit. We have been sitting here for three weeks and three days, but if the government had carried out its responsibility for governing the country properly last year, instead of calling an election, we would not have found ourselves in this situation.
It is our responsibility, as an opposition in a democratic form of government, to be the watchdog on behalf of the taxpayers of this country. I think the taxpayers expect us to scrutinize these estimates. I do not believe three weeks and three days is too long a time to take to scrutinize carefully $8 billion worth of expenditures.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In order that we can settle this, could there be an understanding that we revert to Justice tomorrow and that the house leaders consult as to what arrangements we may make for the rest of the departments?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think that is the only possible course to take in the circumstances. I will refrain from saying anything, except that I understand the government will have to try to be as agreeable as possible on this matter. I understand it is the general consensus of hon. gentlemen opposite that the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys would be justified, in the national interest, in going to Washington.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, the suggestion of remaining to discuss further the minister's estimates this evening is acceptable to me, though I cannot speak for anybody else. I would remind the minister there is a second lady behind me.
The minister left the impression that we are trying to deny the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys the opportunity of representing Canada abroad. What I am concerned with is the representation made by that minister at home, in Canada. He is talking of

March 2, 1966
Supply-Items Passed
making commitments. He says he does not want to commit the government or any individual member of the government, but what he and the government have done in the last few weeks is to commit all members of parliament. This announcement about five members going to the United States could have been made long before now and preparations made to handle the estimates, instead of waiting until the eleventh hour.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. Shall I rise, report certain resolutions, and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
It being thirty six minutes after seven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply this day:]

[Stage Direction]
Administration-
1. Departmental administration including the
Canadian agricultural services co-ordinating committee, contributions to the Commonwealth agricultural bureaux and a special contribution not exceeding $62,000 to the Agricultural Economic Research Council, subject to approval by Treasury Board, $4,186,600.
Research-
5. Administration, operation and maintenance including Canada's fee for membership in the International Society for Horticultural Science, an amount of $145,000 for grants In aid of agricultural research in universities and other scientific organizations in Canada and the costs of publishing departmental research papers as supplements to the Canadian Entomologist, $25,774,000.
10. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $5,391,000.
Production and Marketing-
Administration-
15. Administration, operation and maintenance including the administration of the Agricultural
Stabilization Act, contributions to assist in the marketing of agricultural products subject to the approval of Treasury Board and payment of expenses not exceeding $100,000 for a travelling Canadian livestock and seed exhibition outside Canada, $2,110,100.
15b. Administration, operation and maintenance including the administration of the Agricultural Stabilization Act-to extend the purposes of Vote 15 of the main estimates for 1965-66 to include administration of the supplementary dairy payment program and to provide a further amount of, $172,000.

15d. Administration, operation and maintenance-* To increase to $132,000 the payment of expenses for a travelling Canadian livestock and seed exhibition outside Canada, $32,000.
17b. Grants, contributions and subsidies in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the sub-vote titles listed in the details of estimates, $21,000,000.
Animal and animal products-
20. Administration, operation and maintenance including Canada's fee for membership in the international dairy federation, $6,510,300.
25. Grants, contributions and subsidies in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the sub-vote titles listed in the details of estimates, $11,829,400.
25b. Grants, contributions and subsidies in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the sub-vote titles listed in the details of estimates, $107,000.
25d. Grants, contributions and subsidies in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the sub-vote titles listed in the details of estimates, $309,000.
Plant and plant products-
30. Administration, operation and maintenance, $6,049,100.
35. Grants, contributions and subsidies as detailed in the estimates, $1,823,900.
35b. Grants, contributions and subsidies as detailed in the estimates, $350,000.
35d. Grants, contributions and subsidies as detailed in the estimates, $10,450,000.
Health of animals-
40. Administration, operation and maintenance including Canada's fee for membership in the Office International des Epizooties, and authority, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year from packers requiring special services, $12,756,000.
40b. Administration, operation and maintenance, $280,000.
45. Grants, contributions and subsidies as detailed in the estimates. $1,698,000.
45d. Grants, contributions and subsidies as detailed in the estimates, $24,500.
Board of Grain Commissioners-
50. Administration, operation and maintenance including authority to purchase screenings, $6,610,700.
50b. Administration, operation and maintenance, $475,000.
Land rehabilitation, irrigation and water storage projects-
Irrigation and water storage projects in the Western provinces including the South Saskatchewan River Project, the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act program, land protection, reclamation and development-
55. Administration, operation and maintenance including Canada's fee for membership in the International Commission on Irrigation and drainage, $8,972,000.
March 2, 1966
[Stage Direction]
55d. Irrigation and water storage projects-To extend the purposes of Agriculture Vote 55 of the main estimates for 1965-66 to authorize expenditures in respect of irrigating drought-stricken farms in Ontario and Quebec, $1.
60. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $28,034,000.
Supply-Items Passed
Loans, investments and advances-
Lib. To increase to $335,000 the amount that may be charged at any time to the revolving fund established by Vote 539 of the Appropriation Act No. 3, 1953 for the purpose of financing the purchase of stores for use in the construction, maintenance and operation of projects under the direction of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration; additional amount required. $135,000.
2097
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 3, 1966