Mr. Argue:

But the government ceased to be operational.

Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):

Unfortunately that was the case and for 22 years this country suffered without us.

The third point concerned community pastures. There will be no change in that respect except for an increase in the pace of our activities. The provincial ministers indicate they are quite willing to go along with a rapid extension of community pastures.

Mr. Argue:

I have just one question in connection with the extension of community pastures. Will the extension of community

pastures on the prairies be undertaken in the immediate future under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act or under this legislation? Again, I thank the minister for having made the intention of the government clearer than it has been at any time since this discussion commenced.

Before we conclude the discussion on the resolution I want to warn the minister and the government against taking away any of the benefits that now exist under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.

(Translation):

Mr. Racine:

Mr. Chairman, we listened very closely to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) this afternoon. In reply to a question of mine, he said he hoped the bill ensuing from this resolution would be brought before the house around May 1, if there was no filibuster on the part of the opposition. He actually used the term "filibuster".

This afternoon, we, members of the opposition, refrained from speaking because we endorse the object of the resolution under discussion. However, I cannot say so much for government members and f must point out particularly that the delay in passing this resolution is entirely due to the government members themselves.

As I was saying, we endorse the object of this resolution which deals, for instance, with the alternative uses of lands of low productivity. Among other aims mentioned are the development of income and employment opportunities in rural agricultural areas and the development and conservation of the soil and water resources in Canada.

I was particularly interested in hearing the minister state this afternoon that in my own province, 47 per cent of the farms will be able to take advantage of this legislation.

We have been hearing about this legislation before, and if we refer, for instance, to page 3869 of Hansard for May 13, 1960, we note that the predecessor of the present Minister of Agriculture said this:

(Text):

I do not think we can over-emphasize the importance of the introduction of a rural redevelopment scheme in Canada. We have been working on this now for the last year and a half to two years and we hope to be in a position some time before the end of this year to be able to make some definite proposals as far as instituting a rural development scheme in Canada which would be adapted to Canadian conditions.

(Translation):

Those words were spoken by the predecessor of the Minister of Agriculture on May 13, 1960.

Marginal Lands

I should not want to blame the minister too much for having delayed the introduction of his resolution until today. He told us himself this afternoon that he had hoped to introduce the resolution before the Christmas recess.

I assume that unforeseen circumstances forced him to delay the introduction of the measure. Nevertheless, I think we cannot help but be somewhat surprised, especially when we read the editorials in some newspapers. And here I am going to imitate him, for he read editorials this afternoon to back up his resolution. Being the second member from Quebec to speak on this resolution it will be remembered that the publication Terre de Chez Nous blamed Quebec members because too few had taken part in this discussion-I will read to the Minister of Agriculture some of the points raised in am article published in Terre de Chez Nous on March 8, 1961. The article is entitled:

The new rural rehabilitation policy.

And the headlines read:

To be enacted during this session or just before the election?

And there was a question mark. There are more question marks right through the article.

Well, Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the house had the same reaction this afternoon when several government members noticing our co-operation began to filibuster, to use the very word of the minister.

But I am not going to follow the example set by the minister. I will only quote a few excerpts of this article which says among other things:

Since he became federal Minister of Agriculture a few months ago, the Hon. Alvin Hamilton has taken every opportunity to set out the new policy on the utilization of renewable resources and improvement of the rural areas, which is intended to be the main undertaking of his department and even of the government of which he is a member. Everybody welcomed that stand.

And, incidentally, so do we-

And the legislation that was to materialize this was eagerly awaited.

And further on, I find this:

We realize that it takes time to get such a far-reaching program going, but since the situation calls for emergency measures, we had anticipated some initial move in the very near future.

We appreciated the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture. While we congratulate him for wanting to consult provincial authorities and the different agricultural organizations, we regret however, like the

Marginal Lands

minister himself, that this legislation was not introduced before the Christmas recess.

And again following the example set by the minister, I will quote another part of the same article:

It is in fact our impression that the introduction and the passing of this legislation enacting Mr. Hamilton's good intentions will be postponed until the next session.

The minister told us that he intends to introduce the bill based on this resolution about May 1. But we doubt-and I am convinced that we are right-that, in spite of his goodwill and his known co-operation, he will be able to introduce this bill by May 1. Therefore it is most unlikely that the farmers will be able to take advantage of this bill in 1961.

The article goes on:

Otherwise, the bill will be introduced only on the eve of an election ... and that may dangerously delay the beginning of application.

I do not know who wrote that article, but apparently the results of that legislation would be forthcoming only on the eve of an election. Since I am not the Prime Minister's spokesman, it is rather difficult for me to foresee when this legislation will be of any help to the farmers, as I do not know when a general election may be called. And let me add this statement also found in the article in question:

It must be noted however that only one representative from the province of Quebec has taken part in the discussion so far. and he was a member of the opposition.

Mr. Chairman, at this stage I should like to congratulate my colleague the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) who has displayed remarkable intelligence in this debate. If he ever needs a salesman, I suggest that he hire the Minister of Agriculture who, when the occasion arises, proves to be the best salesman of government policies.

I now wish to quote the last part of the article:

Why are some of our representatives in Ottawa, who are so anxious to run down their compatriots and to scorn them as intellectuals, or to attack those of our people who work for agencies such as the C.B.C., so remiss when the future of tens of thousands of our farmers and their families is concerned?

Mr. Chairman, it seems that this debate will be on for some time yet, because, as I understand, members of the government want it that way. I hope several members from Quebec will contribute and lend a helping hand to a just cause, that is, the cause of farmers. As far as I am concerned, I hope that the discussion will be concluded

as soon as possible, in order that the minister may, as he suggested, meet with provincial authorities and farmers' organizations. I wish to say to the credit of the Minister of Agriculture, that this time he has introduced a resolution that will be welcomed by a great many farmers, even though it is a long-term measure. It is not a matter of criticizing the length of the term, but to see whether the legislation will bring the results expected by the farmers.

(Text):

Mr. Jorgenson:

The hon. member read quite extensively from an article. I wonder whether he would give us the name of it.

Mr. Racine:

Yes, Mr. Chairman. I was referring to Terre de Chez Nous, of March 8, 1961.

(Translation):

Mr. Pigeon:

Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Racine) permit a question? When reading the newspaper report, the hon. member mentioned that hon. members did not take an active enough part in the discussion, and he also asked that the resolution be passed as soon as possible. Would he not think that his remarks have delayed the passing of the resolution?

Mr. Racine:

The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) has, to my mind, a quality which I shall recognize, that of opening doors.

I do not believe that by speaking five minutes this evening, I have in any way delayed the resolution. However, having been in the house all afternoon, I realize that the official opposition was ready to pass the resolution, whereas I noticed, as did several of my colleagues, that hon. members on the government benches were drifting away from the matter at hand, and I think I was right in taking five minutes this evening to put things in their proper perspective.

Mr. Ricard:

It should be kept in mind that we have four times as many members as you have.

(Text):

Mr. Peters:

A great deal has been said about the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and its relationship to the present resolution. I am pleased to note from the remarks of the minister that there is to be a continuation of prairie farm rehabilitation, and also that there is a similarity and even the idea of assimilating the two measures to keep them in relationship one with the other.

I am pleased to hear that. It will mean that this assistance which has been given to western farmers in relationship to community pastures will, with the joining of the two programs, be given to farmers in northern Ontario and they will receive some advantage from this legislation.

I should like to ask the minister what is his hope in relationship to the program as it affects the provinces? What is the contemplated contract or agreement with the provinces? Who is going to own the land that is put into reforestation? Is it going to be owned by the municipalities or the provincial governments, as it is owned under the community pasture scheme? Is it going to be leased to the federal government under a similar program?

Is the farmer going to have his own wood lot on the basis of this land being added to his present farm in the form of additional acreage? The minister has said outside the house that it is quite possible there will be an assembly scheme. This was my understanding prior to today. I understood there would be an assembly scheme under which the federal government would assemble a large block of non-productive, agricultural land. This land would be put in charge of the farmer either as an employee of the government or as a person hired for the purpose.

I understood this land would be operated as a unit, the farmer receiving wages or some other compensation until the time the wood lot was self-sustaining. Is that the intention of the minister, or is it the intention to work toward negotiating agreements with the provinces which will mean giving the provinces a sum of money, as has been done in connection with other forms of assistance to the provinces such as the winter works program?

I point out to the minister that I do not think this procedure will be at all satisfactory. Under the winter works program we have asked for winter works to be developed to the amount of $197 million up to December 20. At the same time the contribution by the federal government will amount to only $24 million. I should like to know what the minister contemplates in this regard, because I am not at all in agreement with the idea that the federal government should go to the provinces and ask them what they want to do about it.

I am of the opinion that the federal government should take something upon themselves, under their own initiative, and should make recommendations regarding what they want done. I think the federal government should act as they did in the case of hospital insurance. In that case the government told 90205-6-208

Marginal Lands

the provinces they were willing to go so far if the provinces were willing to meet certain conditions.

I would be very reluctant to accept the type of plan which would allow only those provinces which took the initiative to benefit from this rehabilitation of agricultural land and undertook to do it themselves with federal money and federal support. I am quite sure that provinces such as Ontario, which have been very reluctant to enlarge their conservation programs in other respects, would look at the large timber limits they have already allotted to pulp and paper companies, and at the large timber limits which some of the other companies hold, and would come to the conclusion that if this plan is to be used as a supplement to the forestry industry itself it is not needed in that province. This would defeat the purpose which I think we are trying to accomplish.

It is my opinion that this purpose has been partially aocomplished by measures such as the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. I am sure that if the eastern farm representatives talked about the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act there would be a hue and cry from the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, to say nothing of the maritimes, for a similar type of legislation. If we develop this measure in this manner it may produce a favourable result in the prairies, where the provincial governments are used to co-operating in this type of scheme. However, we have not that history in Ontario and I am afraid that unless the minister outlines exactly what he hopes to accomplish by this measure and gives some information of the stereotype agreement the government is willing to negotiate, this will leave it pretty well to the provinces to decide. In my opinion this would be shirking the duty of the federal government, and I think that more leadership and direction must be given.

Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):

Mr. Chairman, I should like to answer the hon. member briefly. I think some of the hon. member's questions would more properly be asked in committee.

The hon. member asked who is going to own this land. This is one thing you cannot tell until the final agreement is reached. I think there will be four or five different types of ownership. In some cases they will want to revert some of these lands back to crown lands; that is provincial ownership. In other cases there will be county ownership. My own philosophy in this matter is that there should be the maximum private ownership by the individual farmer to increase his income opportunities, rather than ownership by the county or province.

Supply-Agriculture

Mr. Peters:

Am I not correct in presuming that the previous intention of the minister was, to some extent, that certain areas would be assembled? If I remember correctly, on one occasion the minister referred to farms in the Ottawa valley which are not too far from Ottawa and which are not producing anything at all at the moment, where 500 acres, 600 acres or 1,000 acres could be assembled into one unit and a government supervisor could probably operate the land on a salary basis. The federal government would have some control over this area, in somewhat the same respect as the experimental farm itself.

Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):

No, Mr. Chairman; on that example of the Ottawa valley, or I should say the whole ten eastern counties where there are these vacant farms and there are privately owned units of 200 acres, 400 acres, 600 acres or 1,000 acres, my hope is that as far as possible these will be given to a farmer who needs an income opportunity. He will be able to augment his income by looking after these forest areas.

Resolution reported and concurred in.

Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-77, to provide for the rehabilitation of agricultural lands and the development of rural areas in Canada.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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

Mr. Clermont:

Mr. Chairman, I represent a substantially rural constituency, and agricultural production makes up a large portion of our economy. I therefore wish to take the opportunity provided by consideration of the estimates of the Department of Agriculture to comment briefly on the problems facing the farmers in the constituency of Labelle, and in view of the fact that agricultural production is quite diversified in my area, I would say that the same problems exist throughout the province of Quebec.

Mr. Chairman, I find the following statement in the 1959-1960 report of the "Union catholique des cultivateurs du Quebec":

The 1960 crop year will be remembered rather bitterly by many farmers. The downward trend

of agricultural prices took a turn for the worse. Developments in the support price policies with regard to pork and eggs discouraged many producers. The prices of milk products also showed a decline over last year's figure. The constant rise in costs, coupled with a gradual decline in sales prices put the squeeze on the average farmer, through a constant reduction in his net profits per product unit and in his hourly income.

Mr. Chairman, in view of this, I am surprised at the government's lack of concern for agricultural problems. In that connection, I should like to quote the only part of the speech from the throne where reference is made to this serious and important problem.

As an additional step in the national agricultural program, you will also be asked to approve enabling legislation to authorize the federal government to join with provincial authorities and local groups throughout Canada in comprehensive programs of rural rehabilitation and development. My ministers believe that as farming is a basic Canadian industry it must be made more stable and remunerative. Widening the uses of Canada's farm lands and water resources will be necessary for this purpose.

May I now quote from a speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) at Massey hall, Toronto, on April 27, 1957;

We shall see that the farmer gets a fair share of the national income by maintaining a flexible program-

And I stress the word "flexible".

-of price supports, in order to provide him with adequate parity of agricultural prices, based on a fair ratio as between sales prices and costs.

I should now like to quote the preamble of the Agricultural Stabilization Act, passed by parliament in January 1958:

Whereas it is expedient to enact a measure for the purpose of stabilizing the prices of agricultural commodities in order to assist the industry of agriculture to realize fair returns for its labour and investment, and to maintain a fair relationship between prices received by farmers and the costs of the goods and services that they buy, thus to provide farmers with a fair share of the national income.

There is no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that the farmers have not forgotten the words of the Prime Minister or the preamble of the Agricultural Stabilization Act.

However, referring to the latest figures published recently by the dominion bureau of statistics and particularly to the table entitled "Net farmer income from farming operations for each province", I find that in 1960, the net cash income of Canadian farmers was $2,783,753,000 as compared to $2,789,-

348,000 in 1959. In 1958, the figure was $2,794,615,000. Operating and depreciation costs in 1960 showed an increase of $13 million over 1959. Those costs showed an increase of $110 million in 1960 over the 1958 figures.

The total net revenue of Quebec farmers in 1960, according to the preliminary report, was $188,756,000 compared to $189,728,000 in 1959 and $203,699,000 in 1958, a decrease of $1 million between 1959 and 1960 and a decline of $14,900,000 as compared to 1958.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, we have a diversified farm production in La-belle-namely dairying, hog and poultry raising, and the growing of potatoes and other crops.

We have seven farm co-operatives with a very substantial turnover, research centres, farmers' associations and other groups devoted to the farmer's well-being. There is an agricultural college at Mont Laurier.

Much of our farmers' income is derived from dairy products and the farmers are concerned-and rightly so-with the decline in butter consumption from the levels of a few years ago.

Here is a table, Mr. Chairman, showing a stronger decline in butter consumption since 1958:

Per capita consumption

1954 19.19

1955 19.21

1956 19.50

1957 19.38

1958 18.32

1959 17.37

It will probably be less than 17 pounds in 1960.

In a speech he made in Toronto on December 1, 1960, Mr. Pierre Cote, chairman of the national council of milk producers, said that butter supplies on that date, including butter oil, reached 150 million pounds, most of them owned by the government and that at the present rate of consumption, that figure exceeds by some 80 million pounds this country's needs.

He added:

In I960, our consumption will be 36 million pounds less than in 1957. In other words, even if our population has increased by one and a half million since 1957, monthly consumption is down by 3 million pounds compared to that year, while our consumption of butter substitutes in 1960 will exceed that of 1957 by more than 38 million pounds which is a presumed increase of 91 pounds per capita, in so far as butter substitutes in 1960 are concerned.

Considering that butter consumption in Canada had at one time reached 32 pounds per capita and that, in 1948, it was still 26.55 pounds, while it has now gone down to about 16 pounds per capita, while consumption of butter substitutes has increased to the point 90205-6-208J

Supply-Agriculture

of reaching 9h pounds per capita, we readily realize the difficult situation in which the dairy industry was in 1960.

It would seem, Mr. Chairman, that the price of butter is too high for the consumer as compared to that of its substitutes. I am not suggesting any reduction in the price that the producer is now getting for butter fat. On the contrary, I support the request made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, in which it asked the government, in section 24 of its brief, to maintain the support price at 64 cents at production level. I do hope, Mr. Chairman, that it will be possible for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hamilton) to seriously consider the recommendation of the Quebec C.C.U. and of the C.F.A., that is (a) the granting of a subsidy to the consumer so as to bring butter consumption to a proper level; (b) the assurance that such a subsidy would fully benefit the consumer.

I should like to join the farm associations in asking the government to set the support price on Quebec cheese at the same level as in Ontario. Quebec cheese producers are now getting half a cent less per pound than in Ontario.

Mr. Chairman, when the support price on eggs was introduced in 1959, it had a twofold purpose: (a) to stop integration; (b) to allow small producers to remain in business. Under the support price program little more than half of the egg producers have received deficiency payments and they were of so little help to those who got them that the payments did not cause production to increase or decrease.

Various associations have recommended to the government that the support price on eggs be calculated on a regional rather than on a national basis, in order to be fair to producers all over the country. Those associations have also recommended that deficiency payments be paid on grades "A medium" and "A small" eggs; that the quota of each producer be increased accordingly, in order to avoid the substantial losses that farmers are liable to incur as a result of the great price spread between grades getting the payments and those that do not.

The C.F.A. has also asked the government that compensation prices on hogs be calculated on a quarterly rather than a yearly basis, and on a regional or provincial basis,

Supp ly-A gricu Iture

and that the premium for grade A be increased to $4. In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me add that a great many farmers in my constituency have to resort to forest operations to supplement their inadequate income from the sale of farm products.

(Text):

Mr. Forbes:

Mr. Chairman, my first words in speaking on the agricultural estimates are to express my appreciation to the former minister of agriculture for the important legislation that he was responsible for implementing during his term as minister of agriculture. I also wish to compliment the present Minister of Agriculture on his appointment to this important post. It was my pleasure a few years ago to attend a conference with the hon. gentleman and at that time I was intrigued by his knowledge and understanding of the problems facing farmers. I am particularly pleased that he now occupies a position which will enable him to implement some of the ideas he gained from that conference.

My remarks at this time will pertain to the agricultural conditions in western Canada with which I am quite familiar and I hope hon. members will not think that I am being sectional in my outlook because we have hon. members from other areas in Canada who are well qualified to speak of the conditions in the regions they represent. While reference has previously been made to measures taken by this government to reduce the disparity between costs of production and prices received by farmers for their products, I think I could enumerate a few of them again without being accused of boastfulness. For instance, there are the increase in compensation to livestock producers for cattle slaughtered in the control of contagious diseases; cash advances on farm-stored grain free of interest; the amendments to the Veterans' Land Act to enable veterans to obtain increased loans; the greatly improved Farm Credit Act; the long-awaited amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, which have removed many of the inequities in the making of payments and broadened the coverage; the acreage payments to western farmers amounting to over $82 million; and the provision of funds through the Colombo plan on long terms to assist India and Ceylon to purchase wheat and flour.

I feel I should also make reference to the recent sale of wheat to China and the opening of an office in Tokyo, Japan, whose main function it will be to promote the sale of grain; and the announcement by the Prime Minister that jurisdiction over the Canadian

wheat board and the board of grain commissioners be transferred from the Department of Trade and Commerce to the Department of Agriculture. I feel certain that this action on the part of the government will prove to be of inestimable value to grain producers in the coming years owing to the fact that the marketing of grain is so closely associated with the Department of Agriculture.

I have referred to only a few of the items of legislation that have been enacted by this government to assist agriculture. I am certain that western farmers are encouraged by the action of the government to implement a comprehensive agricultural policy that will enable farmers to help themselves. However, farmers are still confronted with the cost-price squeeze. This particular kind of squeeze has come about because the farm industry's costs are rising steadily and the prices which farmers receive for their products are still falling; hence the squeeze. As hon. members know, I have not made many speeches in this chamber and I am only prompted to do so now owing to the inequitable position in which agriculture finds itself. It is reasonable to expect that the financial position of farmers in the federal constituency of Dauphin is similar to that of farmers throughout the prairie provinces.

The present position of agriculture is not one that has developed since this government took office; rather it is the result of steadily increasing costs of production and the low prices for agriculture produce received by farmers since world war II. The problem had its beginning during world war II partly as a result of the British wheat agreement entered into by the Liberal government. A paragraph from the Searle Grain News of May 7, 1958, explains the situation as follows:

The unwinding of the wheat marketing problem in the future is going to require not only the patience, courage and understanding of all concerned, whatever their personal views, but also a willingness on the part of the Canadian taxpayer to accept, if necessary, any temporary financial burden that may arise. Such a burden, since the early days of world war II, has been shouldered by the western wheat grower, for the benefit of the Canadian people at large. Before long, perhaps, it may be necessary for the population as a whole to assume some part of it.

Another problem closely associated with agriculture is that of unemployment which is so frequently mentioned in this chamber. It seems to me that when we are looking for markets for the products of our factories to help the employment situation, we are overlooking our most important market here at home. By increasing the purchasing power of our farmers, we would create employment all

along the line from the mines to the railroads to the factories back to the transportation systems and offices, et cetera.

While farmers are usually regarded as producers, they are also the largest purchasers of goods of all kinds of any segment of our society. As further evidence of the recognition of farmers as an important market, I will quote from a submission made to the government on June 25, 1958 by a delegation of unemployed from Ontario and Quebec. They suggested an imaginative trade policy for moving wheat that would include long term credits to enable such countries as India, Asia and Africa to buy Canadian grain. In their brief they went on to say:

Call it subsidization if you will, but at least it is priming the most necessary pump-our farm economy. Restore purchasing power to the farmers, and you have gone a long way toward restoring it across the nation.

Let me refer to a statement made by the Prime Minister as quoted on page 42 , of Hansard:

Those of us from western Canada know something of what the result was when the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta were devastated when drought hit us to such an extent that there was no purchasing power among the farmers, that there were no jobs in eastern Canada.

The farmer is sometimes underestimated in his value as a market for industrial products which find their way into his operation. According to the economics division of the Canada Department of Agriculture there are more than one million cars, trucks and tractors on Canadian farms and their annual expenses, excluding depreciation and financing, are more than $400 million. About 11,000 tons of pig iron go annually into the making of agricultural implements, and the implement manufacturing industry gives work to more than 10,000 employees, with a payroll of over $42 million. Farmers use $20 million worth of electric power annually and pay nearly $200 million for hired labour. They buy 900,000 tons of fertilizers valued at nearly $70 million, and they use over 600,000 tons of limestone. The cost of pest control each year amounts to $20 million. Farm operating expenditures and depreciation total $1.9 billion annually.

Moreover, an estimated one eighth of the total revenue from motor transport of commodities and about one fifth of the revenue from all carload freight involve agricultural products. The combined revenues total more than $225 million. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent annually on the construction, maintenance and furnishing of half a million homes owned by farmers. With 17 per cent of the population living on farms, additional hundreds of millions are spent for clothing, recreation, health and education.

Supply-Agriculture

In 1958 there were over 9,000 establishments with more than a quarter of a million employees processing products of Canadian farm origin. The value of products from these establishments amounted to more than $4.5 billion, and the payroll of the employees was $763 million. While the number of farms declined from more than 700,000 to fewer than

600,000 between 1924 and 1958, this reduction was about equal to the increase in the number of employees processing or manufacturing products of farm origin. In addition to these, there are about 70,000 engaged in the food wholesaling and retailing.

I mention these statistics in order to indicate to hon. members the potential market we have in Canada if farmers have the purchasing power. I have had a large number of requests from farm organizations during the last few years for the government to take some positive action to reduce the disparity between costs of operation and prices received for agricultural produce. My own experience as a practical farmer indicates to me that these requests are fully justified. We frequently hear complaints about the costs of support for farm produce, and I would suggest to those who complain that the cost of supporting secondary industry in this country is high by protecting industry through tariffs. In a study of tariff costs made by a Yale economist for the Gordon commission on Canada's economic prospects, the cost of tariffs to Canadians was estimated at from $610 million to $735 million annually. When Canadians are willing to spend such a large amount to support industry, they should not complain about the small amount the government spends in assistance to agriculture.

As further evidence of the importance of government assistance to agriculture, I wish to quote at this time a statement by Prime Minister Macmillan of the United Kingdom, on June 21, 1960:

A system of price guarantees is not a subsidy to agriculture. It takes the place of tariffs by which manufacturing industry is helped by the government. British farming prosperity has been built up and will be sustained in the future by price guarantees. No country can be truly prosperous without a strong and healthy agricultural industry.

Let me repeat that there are many signs that the decline in western farm income has been a significant factor in causing the unemployment situation in the rest of Canada. I hope that this government will make whatever provisions are necessary to ensure that adequate returns are received by the farmers in the future in order to enable them to share in the general prosperity of Canada.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a very brief reference to the new system instituted last year in connection with the deficiency payments on hogs and eggs.

Supply-Agriculture

While we realize the difficulties confronting

the government under the offer to purchase method which created surpluses, the deficiency payment method has not provided the stability in western Canada that was expected. At intervals during the year the price would fall below the prescribed price, but owing to the higher price prevailing in eastern Canada the western producer would not qualify for deficiency payments. Now that the deficiency payment method has been in operation for over a year, I would recommend that the minister take a close look at the disparity in prices prevailing in western Canada with a view to working out a more equitable system in establishing floor prices for these products.

Mr. Peters:

Mr. Chairman, during the past year or so some hon. members, particularly those from western Canada, have disparagingly referred to the fact that I personally and others did not represent a farm area; the reference was particularly to me. I was not sure how extensive was the farming area I represented until the other day I decided to send an inquiry to all the farmers in my riding. I found that, rather than representing a very small farming area, I represented one of the very large farming areas of the country and close to 1,400 farmers. Therefore, in the future I shall make no apology whatsoever for the agricultural speeches that I shall be called upon to make.

Sometimes we forget the extent of the agricultural industry in some of the ridings in Ontario which are not normally considered to be agricultural areas. The other day I spoke to a gentleman who was surprised to learn of the topography of northern Ontario. Probably it would be wise to inform the committee at this time of some of the topographical features of northern Ontario. For years some parts of northern Ontario, particularly the Timmins and Timiskaming areas, were represented by representatives of the mining industry, and a great deal was heard of that industry. Particularly from the managers' point of view and from the company operations side of the picture, and very little was said about the farming areas themselves. One of the reasons why I want to mention the topographical features is a desire to interest not only hon. members and the government in a conservation program for my area and for northern Ontario but also to mention the need for certain conservation measures before a condition develops in that area similar to that which has developed in southern Ontario.

The riding of Timiskaming covers almost entirely the little clay belt. This little clay belt contains about a million and a half

acres of probably the best clay agricultural land in Canada. It is a very level area. The little clay belt resulted from the receding waters of a glacial lake which covered the area from James bay almost to the lower end of the Ottawa river valley. The deep part of the lake, which is now called the little clay belt, is an area extending approximately 100 miles from north to south as far as Cobalt where the triangle narrows very greatly to an area from 100 to 125 miles in width. This land is similar to the prairie lands. It is table land which stretches out for many miles with a very slight elevation. You can see from 70 miles to 80 miles from a given point of land. Because the land was created by a lake and later by a river bed it rises in steps which are probably 200 feet high. In this area, as I have said, there are from 1,200 to 1,400 farmers.

There have been many more. Many of the farms in my area are not being operated at all. Many of these farms could be given over to programs such as the one we were discussing a few minutes ago under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and the community pasture program. Hundreds and hundreds of acres of agricultural land which have been cleared at great expense by the original owners are lying idle. This land could be put to use as community pastures because there is an exceptional opportunity in northern Ontario for beef production.

During the last 10 or 12 years the beef industry in Timiskaming has increased greatly. We are now favoured by having several large community sale barns which are providing a great impetus to the increasing beef production. In this respect, I should like to ask the minister if it would not be possible for the department to send a government grader to these sale barns during the time the feeder sales are taking place. In this way a farmer who has bought an expensive bull to improve the standard of his herd could be given an opportunity of obtaining the premium price that should flow from the purchase of the very best animals. The farmers are to be congratulated on the amount of money and effort they have expended in attempting to make this transition from the poor grade of beef that was produced a few years ago, mainly as a result of the disposal of dairy cattle, to the situation we have now where we have some exceptional beef herds. Many of these herds are registered under the pedigree act, and each year they are increasing in stature. I feel that it would be advantageous if the department were to send at least a grader or two to these feeder sales so that the farmer could get the benefit of the premium price for his cattle and the buyers from

southern Ontario would be able to assess the grade of cattle that was being produced in this area.

The numerous dairy farms in this area, Mr. Chairman, supply a market of between

100,000 people and 200,000 people. The market is a limited one, but there is some hope that with new equipment for handling dairy products the market will be extended to include the Sudbury and North Bay areas. In this area we have a creamery that has been operating for 25 years and in every one of those years has received not less than the first grade for all the butter that has been produced. I believe this is an enviable record and one that is difficult to equal or to better. All the other facets of agriculture that go with mixed farming are found in this area. A considerable number of mixed crops are grown in this area. Timiskaming has produced some of the best timothy seed that has been produced in Canada and ribbons and awards can be produced from the various fairs across the country to prove it.

The other seed producers of the area are plagued by the lack of markets and a lack of facilities which should be afforded to seed grain growers for disposing of small seeds. We have a great need for some new thinking in connection with agriculture in my area. The farmers are pleased to note that the government is giving consideration to the extension of woodlot operations and the reclaiming of land to be put into pulpwood production. This is one of the areas in which this type of development can be used to great advantage. The present practices in connection with the disposal of the bulk of the products from these woodlots cause us to be worried about the future. We have found that there has never been any equalizing of the costs of production in so far as the pulp and paper companies and the saw mills themselves are concerned and the prices those companies will pay farmers for their products from the woodlots.

No assistance has been given to farm woodlot operators through research into the utilization of wood products that would come from the farm. As a result, very little secondary industry in the woodworking field has been established in the area. We have seen the disappearance of the large operators in the bush industry, and this leaves only the farmers' woodlots from which to draw these wood products. The lack of a market for these products has led some of our entrepreneurs into the plywood and chipboard industries. These people hope they will be able to utilize the resources of the farming communities, and this would provide the farmer with a cash crop that would be advantageous to him.

Supply-Agriculture

I should like to thank the previous minister of agriculture for answering the call of the people of Timiskaming by treating the outbreak of rabies that plagued the farmers of the district. There was never very much for which I could thank the former minister, but I should like to give him credit for this much. The minister did make the facilities of the department available for the inoculation of pet dogs, cats and other domesticated animals. He made the serum and the facilities available and inoculations were carried out in that area. I am very happy to report that the results have been satisfactory. I would recommend to the new Minister of Agriculture that when there is an outbreak of rabies immediate attention be given to it. A program of inoculation should be carried out by the department in connection with all domesticated animals. I am quite sure the minister will find, as we found in northern Ontario, that the response of the farmers will be very good. Most of the citizens were willing to take their pets for inoculation when it did not cost them anything. This procedure did result in the elimination of the outbreak which could have reached serious epidemic proportions.

It is interesting to note that the outbreak was so serious that more than 40 people in that area had to be treated as a result of contact with animals suspected of having rabies. I understand also that there is some considerable difficulty with rabies in some of the counties of southern Ontario. The federal government is now being asked for some support in paying the claims for some of the animals that were ordered slaughtered as a result of being suspected of having rabies. I would strongly urge the minister to continue this fight to control rabies because it is my opinion that rabies can be controlled if the government shows leadership. During the parliamentary recess I made several trips to Ottawa and discussed the matter with the officials in charge of this department. They were willing to act in this regard and indicated that fewer animals had to be destroyed and that the epidemic was of shorter duration than it would normally have been because of this program.

Timiskaming is famous for many other reasons. The potato king of the world has very often been a man from our area. We have embarked on a program sponsored by local businessmen of inviting farmers from New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island to come to our area to take advantage of the amount of unused land that we have and the favourable climatic conditions for the growing of potatoes. These men from the maritimes are offered plots of 500 acres or 600 acres for their use and are financed by businessmen on a crop share basis. Profits from such a venture

Sup p ly-A griculture

would be split equally between the farmer and the supporter. This program was commenced on a small scale last fall and I understand it was highly successful. It was so successful in fact that I am sure it will continue on a much larger scale this year. As a result of this program I suggest that the Timiskaming area will develop into one of the largest potato growing areas in the country within a very short period of time. I would suggest that this is a very good area for this type of crop because of the existence of facilities, the availability of land, and its closeness to market. For the reasons I have mentioned I feel that Timiskaming will become even better known as a potato producing area.

It has been difficult for individual growers in our area to retain the potato growing championship because of the fact that these individuals have in past years won this championship two or three times in a row. The officials of the exhibit in Chicago will no longer allow those individuals to enter the exhibit. They have suggested that we should allow someone else to win. Perhaps in the near future we can enter this exhibit and win the championship not only on the basis of quality but perhaps on the basis of quantity as well.

I feel that the Timiskaming area is one of the best farming areas in this country. During the past years we have had very favourable climatic conditions and the farmers have always shown an ability to work hard. The growers in this area were blessed at the beginning because of the relatively low cost of land. They were able, as individuals now are, to carve farms out of the bush. As a result, it has been possible for a strong and forceful farming population to grow. However, I should like to invite some of the western farmers to northern Ontario in order to see for themselves the conditions that exist on some of the farms here. I would suggest to the farmers of western Canada that they should not holler so loud because perhaps the farmers in eastern Canada will decide to ask for some of the advantages presently received by those western individuals. I would suggest they show some sympathy for the eastern farmers and their problems. Surely I do not have to remind them that because of this government they enjoy benefits that eastern farmers do not receive.

We have heard fine-sounding arguments regarding woodlots, and other election propaganda of late; but surely we should not put these arguments on that basis because this situation which exists in eastern Canada is a very important one to the farmers of these areas. One need not travel to northern Ontario to see that there are individuals living on farms and working for very small wages in

the villages and towns in order to buy and maintain the equipment needed to carry on with the farming operation.

Mr. Brunsden:

Would the hon. member permit a question?

Mr. Peters:

Certainly.