1954-06-15

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. May I ask whether, in view of the announcement which has just been made that Sir Winston Churchill and Mr. Eden are going to fly to Washington on June 25, the Prime Minister will consider inviting them to come to Ottawa for a discussion of Asian problems, and also for a possible conference of commonwealth ministers to consider problems affecting nations of the commonwealth in common at this time.


Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister):: The matter will receive consideration, Mr. Speaker.



MOTOR VEHICLE TRANSPORT


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (for the Minister of Transport) moved: the third reading of Bill No. 474, respecting extra-provincial motor vehicle transport.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Fleming:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.



NATIONAL PHYSICAL FITNESS ACT


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 475, to repeal the National Physical Fitness Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee and reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Paul Joseph James Martin: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CRIMINAL CODE


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 7, respecting the criminal law.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say just a few words-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe I will change my mind about that. I wish to say just a few words in support of the motion that we concur in the amendments to the Criminal Code which have been made by Their Honours in the other place.
According to Votes and Proceedings for Thursday, June 10, as recorded at pages 732 to 734 Their Honours have proposed a total of 10 amendments. Some of them are purely a matter of renumbering in consequence of other changes made. But I wish to say that, so far as we can ascertain, and so far as they go, all of the changes proposed by the Senate are acceptable to us. Indeed, there are two of the changes we are very pleased Their Honours saw fit to make. And I am glad to note the smile on the face of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). I take it that smile means he is pleased that the Senate made those changes-


Donald Methuen Fleming: It does not mean a thing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -despite the fact that he opposed us when we tried to achieve the same results when the bill was in the House of Commons.
I would refer first to the change with respect to applications for writs of habeas corpus. As the Minister of Justice is aware, this is a matter that was discussed at considerable length in our own committee on which the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis) and the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy)

Criminal Code
were our representatives a year ago. It was their contention, as it was the contention of members from other parties on the committee, that the rule respecting habeas corpus should remain the way it was. The minister succeeded in persuading the majority to go along with the change he proposed, and that change was included in Bill No. 7 when it went from this house to the other place.
By virtue of the ninth of the proposed amendments now before us, the Senate has now put the law respecting habeas corpus back in the position in which it was prior to the introduction of this bill. We think that is a good idea, and we are glad the Senate has made that change. I might also say that the proposal that the question of habeas corpus be reconsidered was the subject of a subamendment moved by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) when we reached third reading of the bill in this house. Therefore I am sure he as well as others will likewise be pleased that this change has been made.
Another change included in these amendments has to do with the reading of the riot act. The third of the ten amendments proposed by the Senate calls for the insertion of certain words after line 42 on page 24 of Bill No. 7. The proposal is that the words "if he is satisfied that a riot is in progress" shall be inserted in clause 68. The effect of that change would make clause 68 read as follows:
A justice, mayor or sheriff or the lawful deputy of a mayor or sheriff who receives notice that, at any place within his jurisdiction, twelve or more persons are unlawfully and riotously assembled together, shall go to that place and, after approaching as near as safely he may do, if he is satisfied that a riot is in progress, shall command silence and thereupon make or cause to be made in a loud voice a proclamation in the following words or to the like effect.
Then follows the formula that has to be read out on such an occasion. As I say, we are glad that that addition is being made, namely, the inserting of the words "if he is satisfied that a riot is in progress".
As we indicated when we were in committee on the bill-I recall particularly the remarks made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis)-we are still not satisfied with the law respecting the riot act in all of its details. We are concerned in particular as to the various persons down the line who can read the riot act; but at any rate this is a slight improvement, and we welcome it as such.
Most of the other changes proposed by the Senate amendments are technical in character, and we see no objection to any of them. Indeed, there are several others that we welcome.

There is another word I wish to say, Mr. Speaker. It is this: 1 am sorry that Their Honours did not pay the same attention to the amendment we moved to third reading in this house as they appear to have paid to the subamendment that was moved at that time. As I indicated a moment ago, there was a subamendment asking for reconsideration of the clauses having to do with habeas corpus. Their Honours have paid attention to that request. But there was also our amendment in this house asking that reconsideration be given to clauses 365 and 372, having to do with criminal breach of contract and with mischief. I regret that Their Honours did not see fit, as a result of their consideration, to recommend changes in those two clauses along the lines that we advocated when the bill was in the house, in order that the rights of labour might be fully protected.
I recognize, Mr. Speaker, and I am reminded of it by the look in your eye, that we cannot at this stage discuss matters beyond the scope of the amendments proposed by Their Honours, and the look in your eye is getting to the point where I realize I must not transgress any further. I merely express my regret that these sections have not been altered as we suggested, but we are pleased to welcome such improvements as Their Honours have made in this bill.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to the one amendment, or the one change, that has been made in the contempt of court proceedings. I do so because there is still an opportunity for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) to deal in committee with a problem that is not solved merely by providing the right of appeal. This subject has been discussed earlier. The right of appeal in itself provides some measure of protection in a field where protection did not exist in the earlier provisions of the code; but I submit that there is still reason to give consideration to the introduction of something that would offer a guide to the courts in determining what shall be contempt in the face of the court or from outside the court, and also some gauge as to what the penalty should be.
Perhaps it is only when we come to discuss a subject of this kind that we find to our surprise that there are still mediaeval survivals of law that we have inherited. The British system of law that was adopted in this country from the long-established practice, and incorporated in the Criminal Code for the whole of Canada, has carried forward not only the provisions of the code itself, but certain other long-established practices. It

is necessary to go back a very long way to find the root of this extremely important question of contempt of court. One might say that before 1066 it was the law of the jungle in many respects. After that date, kings began to appoint lawyers to represent and to adjudicate the issues arising between individuals among the people and also between the crown and the people. Later it was found that grievances against the crown itself needed to be dealt with. This led to the appointment of a lawyer to consider these grievances, and that was the genesis of the chancellery division of the court in the United Kingdom which has given so much to our law. However, those judges in the early days, answerable only to the king and in no sense to parliament, were of necessity compelled to protect the authority of the courts. Since they acted in large measure simply upon their appointment by the crown and not under laws passed by parliament, it was natural that they themselves should be given authority to enforce respect for the courts over which they presided.
In those days it became necessary to devise very stern measures against those who in any way indicated a lack of respect for the authority of the courts. We have inherited that common law practice. Bit by bit some attempt has been made to define different types of contempt of court. As was pointed out on earlier occasions, there have been amendments to the Criminal Code dealing with specific forms of contempt. There is, however, that broad question of contempt of court by the press, by writers, either in the court or outside the court, which is yet undefined by statute and in respect of which we are still carrying on with the inherited common law practices which were adopted in this country and which leave to the judge the responsibility for deciding what the law is, the responsibility for deciding what the penalty will be, as well as deciding whether the person charged is guilty of the offence and subject to punishment for that offence. The right of appeal from such a decision, which will now be accorded if the proposed amendment is adopted in regard to appeal from punishment for contempt of court, will undoubtedly be a substantial improvement. It will undoubtedly offer some opportunity for a second consideration of the circumstances under which the statements were made, and the appropriate penalty which should be imposed.
Nevertheless, I would point out that this is still not consistent with our fundamental principles inherent in the rule of law that every person shall know what the law is, and that before they can be haled into court 83276-378
Criminal Code
and punished there must be some provision which defines the offence and measures the punishment that should be meted out in the event that the person is found guilty.
We still will have no such definition of the law. We still will have no such measure of the penalty. What happens in the case of an appeal is simply that we multiply the number of judges whose discretion will be exercised in determining what the law is and what the penalty should be.
In saying this I am not, nor is any other member of this house, in any way reflecting upon the judgment exercised by the judges of this country, nor is any hon. member of this house questioning the necessity for some procedure by which respect for the authority of our courts can be maintained.
It is obvious that when criminal proceedings are taking place there should be some procedure by which the judge responsible for the fair trial of the individual or individuals being tried for any offence shall be able to assure the fair, impartial, and unprejudiced trial of the individual or individuals affected. I am sure there is not a single hon. member of this house who would not feel it is essential that some such authority exist.
Having said that, can we be satisfied in the face of the evidence before us that we are observing the fundamental principles of the rule of law when we still leave undefined what contempt of court may be in the case either of the press or of individuals in commenting upon some case before the court?
May I emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that it is not only the press, but it may be an individual as well, whose comments might be challenged. I spoke of the press particularly when this subject was before us on an earlier occasion, because there have been a number of cases where contempt of court by the press has been a subject of widespread discussion throughout the country; and particularly, having regard to the fact that the offence is undefined, we are called upon to discuss this subject from a new point of view because of a warning issued by the chief justice of Newfoundland to the effect that there should be no discussion and no publication of the pleadings in civil proceedings.
I pointed out on that occasion that this is a new concept of contempt of court in this country. Ordinarily it is in fact part of the assurance of justice itself that civil proceedings may be published and that the discussion of the civil trial and of everything related to that trial may be carried in the press. This has been regarded as part of

Criminal Code
the open, public, and free trial which assures Canadians that kind of open-handed justice of which we have been so proud.
In the case of the press, which serves to protect the freedom of the individual by reporting trials of this kind, there is a very real necessity for some understanding as to what will or will not constitute contempt of court.
May I say most emphatically that I am not questioning for one moment that in the case of some of those statements published in recent years, which have led to contempt of court proceedings, which were widely discussed throughout Canada, there was some need for restraint on discussions such as then took place.
However, the recent warning issued by the chief justice of Newfoundland-with particular reference to one of the newspapers there and in fact, I believe, to both newspapers in the city of St. John's-leaves the newspapers as well as individuals uncertain as to what may or may not be discussed in regard to civil proceedings, as well as criminal proceedings, which are now before the courts in that province at this time. I am in no way referring to the merits of the issues before the courts. I am referring only to the effect of such a general warning in regard to what should be regarded as the law relating to contempt of court.
If in any one province, under our criminal law and under our inherited law, it is possible to prevent discussion of civil proceedings, then that might very well be followed in other provinces, and the long established practice of fair comment about trials in our courts might be limited to an extent where the security of the individual might conceivably be substantially lessened through the blanket of silence that could now be thrown around trials that have taken place in the past so openly in this country.
We do not want to have the right of any individual before the courts impaired in any way. We do not want the trial of any individual prejudiced. Most certainly in the case of a person charged with some serious criminal offence it is of the most vital importance that nothing shall be said by the press or by anyone else that could conceivably prejudice the jury or lessen the possibilities of a completely fair trial.
Having said that, it is equally part of our long-established judicial proceedings in this country that there shall be an open trial which shall be known to the public so that if in any individual case injustice may be done in the opinion of the public, then reform 
may be proposed to parliament itself, which is the final authority in this case. It is the parliament of Canada which must decide, and I am still earnestly suggesting that at this time the Minister of Justice consider the advisability of defining in some way what contempt of court will be, and place some guide before the judges as to the nature of the penalty that may be imposed.
I repeat that in providing an appeal we shall have provided the opportunity for a second consideration. The appellate court in each province will be able to decide whether, in the collective judgment of the judges of that court, the penalty which was declared and the penalty imposed were fair and just under the circumstances. But now that this subject is before us, in these days when the difference between the rule of law and the rule of complete state authority is perhaps the thing that defines two systems of life as much as anything else, I believe that we should take this occasion to establish the rule of law not only for the advantage of individuals in this country but for the advantage of the judges themselves who are called upon to maintain the dignity and responsibility of the courts.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that before we were asked to adopt these amendments we might perhaps have from the Minister of Justice a word as to whether the government itself concurs in every amendment proposed by the Senate to this bill.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In view of the point which my hon. friend has raised, Mr. Speaker, I may say that the government concurs in every amendment proposed by the Senate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I thank the minister for that information. Of course we are in a position where it is desirable to bring this matter to some final conclusion. The bill has now been in the process of consideration for going on, I suppose, six years altogether. We are now, one would hope, getting towards the end of this session and it would seem perhaps rather pointless to get into a conflict with the Senate over the details of amendments which, as has been suggested, are not in themselves extensive. To make any amendments to these proposed amendments would, of course, involve the possibility of long conferences and might just delay the passage of the bill at this session. I do not think that would be a desirable result. It is therefore not our intention to move any amendments at this stage, although I must say that I would otherwise have been somewhat tempted to do so.
The amendments that, in my opinion, the Senate should be asked to reconsider are

their first and second proposed amendments. But that is something that can be done at a later date, in another year, by a positive motion to amend the Criminal Code. Such a motion would not create the difficulties which otherwise might be created if one were to move these amendments now. I will therefore just indicate the thoughts we have on the matter so that they may perhaps be taken under consideration by the government.
In dealing with the first amendment which covers the subject of contempt of court so admirably summarized by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) a moment ago, may I say that I realize that the Senate has to some extent gone further than this house went when it adopted Bill No. 7. Since this problem of contempt of court is becoming a rather vexed one, and since some judges, I think it is fair to say, have of late shown a high degree of sensitivity as to what constitutes a contempt of court, I would think that we should provide an appeal not only against the punishment but against the conviction, even in the case of a conviction for contempt in the face of the court. The Senate has made this change. As Bill No. 7 went to them, it was necessary to obtain the leave of a judge of the court of appeal to appeal in any event. They have removed that necessity. As we had left it, if that leave to appeal were granted, the convicted person could appeal either the conviction or the sentence, even in the case of contempt in the face of the court. I think it would be desirable-and I think consideration should be given to it for another year-to provide an appeal from the conviction even for contempt in the face of the court. I am prepared to admit that there would not be many cases where such an appeal would be taken or where it would succeed. I suppose, generally speaking, we all know what constitutes a contempt in the face of the court. But in view of what I have called, and after some reflection consider to be, a tendency towards undue sensitivity on the part of some judges with respect to what is actually contempt of court and what is not, I make that observation or suggestion.
Then with respect to the second amendment made by Their Honours, as found at page 733 of our Votes and Proceedings for June 10, I must say-and I say this with due respect, and particularly with respect for the highly qualified lawyers who sat on this matter over there-that their proposed subsection 4 of clause 25 strikes me as being unnecessary and redundant. I am going to 83276-378i
Criminal Code
read to the committee the wording of their proposed subsection 4 which is as follows:
A peace officer who is proceeding lawfully to arrest, with or without warrant, any person for an offence for which that person may be arrested without warrant, and every one lawfully assisting the peace officer, is justified, if the person to be arrested takes flight to avoid arrest, in using as much force as is necessary to prevent the escape by flight, unless the escape can be prevented by reasonable means in a less violent manner.
I would ask anyone who is interested in the matter what this means. I would be glad of any assistance in establishing just what is meant by those last three lines:
... Is justified ... in using as much force as is necessary to prevent the escape by flight, unless the escape can be prevented by reasonable means in a less violent manner.
That provision seems to me to be a contradiction. In the first place, you state he is justified in using as much force as is necessary to prevent the flight. Therefore he is only justified in using force if it is necessary.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I wonder whether my hon. friend would permit me to interject something very briefly?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I say that this clause which he is criticizing has been part of the Canadian criminal law for a great many years; I believe it has been so ever since 1892. It is the section which is provided in the existing code, namely section 41, for the protection of peace officers and persons assisting peace officers in preventing escape. The reason this section was, as a Senate amendment, introduced in the Senate is that the royal commission, the Department of Justice, the Senate and the House of Commons all had previously overlooked it. There is not any question at all as to the need for it. I am rather surprised that my hon. friend is criticizing it in any respect.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister may be surprised but that does not lessen the validity of the criticism. Section 25 is a consolidation of sections 23 to 27, 29, 30 to 37, 39 and 41 to 45.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This provision was left out by an oversight.


Edmund Davie Fulton: An attempt to consolidate that many sections must obviously involve change in the wording.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No; there is not any change in this wording. If my hon. friend will examine the existing code, I think he will see that this amendment is a verbatim copy of present Criminal Code section 41.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.

Criminal Code


Edmund Davie Fulton: You cannot consolidate about 18 sections into one section without changing the wording.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend will look at this section he is criticizing and compare it carefully with section 41 of the existing code, he will see that the sections are identically the same.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That may be so. This proposed subclause may be identical with the wording of one of the former clauses of the Criminal Code. However, the point is that in the consolidation produced and presented to us in section 25, the matter of using force and of the force that may be necessary to effect arrest has been fairly carefully worked out and worded. The three subsections of clause 25 as passed by the house seem to me to cover pretty adequately the circumstances under which the use of force may be necessary. The fact is that we have in clause 25 now an outline of the amount of force that may be used in the concluding words of subsection 1 which reads as follows:
... is, if he acts on reasonable and probable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.
Then, we have in addition the safeguard of subsection 3 which makes it clear that a person is not justified "in using force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm unless he believes on reasonable and probable grounds that it is necessary for the purpose of preserving himself or any one under his protection from death or grievous bodily harm". Therefore it would appear that the amount of force which may be used is quite adequately set out in the present three subsections. We now have this one added, and I am not at all dismayed by the fact that it may have existed in exactly the same wording in one of the old sections of the code.
What I am suggesting, in view of the consolidation represented by the first three subsections of the new section, is that this one is not really necessary and that added as it is now it creates confusion because it is already set out that a person is justified in using force if necessary and therefore if it is not necessary to use force he is not justified in using it. Nothing could follow more clearly than that from the words of the present section 25. After all, the infliction of death or grievous bodily harm is already a crime. Therefore, even under section 25 you would only be justified in doing that which inflicted bodily harm if it were necessary to do it. I can see no reason for restating that simple and obvious proposition under

the proposed subsection 4 added by the Senate, particularly when there seems to be a contradiction contained in the last three lines where it says in effect that he is justified in using as much force as is necessary- again that limitation-unless the escape can be prevented by reasonable means in a less violent manner.
If he does not have to use force to prevent the escape then he is not justified in using force at all, and that would be the situation without the addition of the last words there, "unless the escape can be prevented by reasonable means in a less violent manner". In view of the consolidation represented by the first three subsections, I think there is an unnecessary and confusing addition involved in this subsection 4. If it is felt necessary to add anything at all, I think it would be more consistent with the wording of the first three subsections if the words used were something to this effect: "is justified only in using as much force as is necessary to prevent the escape by flight" or "is justified in using only so much force as may be necessary to prevent the escape by flight".
That, it seems to me, would reflect the meaning more clearly than what is set out here because, as I say, it seems to me that there is a contradiction. First you say that he is justified in using force if necessary. Then you say he is not justified in using force if it is not necessary. It does not seem to me to be necessary to add the second qualification. Therefore I think it is not the best draftsmanship which could have been devised for the purpose of this consolidation.
These are the only two observations I wish to make with respect to the proposed amendment. As I say, we would have moved an amendment ourselves, particularly with respect to the contempt matter, had it not been for the fact that at this stage of the session it might have involved us in a protracted discussion with the other place and therefore delayed the session, and also because we can give more consideration to the matter and can bring it forward as a substantive motion at another session if it should then still be considered necessary.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to debate this matter. I rise to say that I regret that it has been considered necessary to debate it at all because nothing seems more futile to me at this stage than to debate amendments made by the other place if the government, as I understand is the case, is willing to accept them. As the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) said before he sat down, these questions are far-reaching, and if changes are to

be made I think of necessity they must be made at the next or some future session of parliament when we will have plenty of time to debate them.
I have been closely associated with the study of the Criminal Code. Because of that I studied the amendments made by the other place very carefully and on the whole I think they have resulted in a slight improvement. I must admit that I could not see the reason why some amendments were made but then I am not learned in the mysteries of the law. However, I felt that they did not take away materially from what had been done by the house. There is nothing we can do now unless we wish to have a conference with the other place, and I do not think there is anything of sufficient importance for that. Therefore why should we not let this measure go through?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 476, to amend the Criminal Code (race meetings).


Mr. Charlton:: Is the minister going to explain the bill?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, the amendments made by the Senate to the Criminal Code which we have just discussed contain a reference to this particular matter. However, the Criminal Code does not come into effect until January and it is thought to be advisable that in the interval between now and that time the same provisions of the Criminal Code should apply. This bill has been considered in the Senate and comes here now, and its purpose is to make that possible.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that a racing association that has been incorporated in one province shall not be entitled to conduct race meetings with parimutuel betting on racetracks that it acquires in another province. It simply prevents a racing association which has a charter in the province of Manitoba, let us say, from transferring that charter to the province of Ontario or Quebec or some other province and conducting races with parimutuel betting with inspection by our department. The natural way for them to get a charter to conduct racing in the other province is to go to the province itself and obtain the right to conduct racing there rather than to simply
Criminal Code
transfer a charter from one province to another and conduct races as the result of having done so.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to deal with the contents of the bill except to point out to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) that the very fact we have this bill before us indicates how easy it would be for him to provide an amendment in a separate measure defining the subject I have already discussed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Operation oj parimutuel system.
John Alpheus Charlton: I think probably we realize the objects of this measure, but I think some little explanation is needed as to the wording. As the amendment is worded here it says:
(2a) Subsection (2) does not apply in respect of a race meeting . . .
And that is to be inserted immediately after subsection 2 of section 235 of the Criminal Code, chapter 36 of the Revised Statutes of 1927. It is true that there is a section 2 where this amendment could come in, but later in this amendment there is a reference to subparagraph (i) of paragraph (c). Well, there is no subparagraph (i) of paragraph (c) in chapter 36 of the Revised Statutes of 1927, so I should like the minister to explain that.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is paragraph 1.


John Alpheus Charlton: But it has a dot over the "i"; subparagraph (i) is under paragraph (d) in the first subsection of section 235. There is a slip-up some place.


James Garfield Gardiner: Paragraph (c) relates to bets made or records of bets made through the agency of the parimutuel system only as hereinafter provided upon the race course of any association. Then, there is subparagraph one, which is an "i" with a dot over it, and if you are continuing the same kind of numbering you put two "i's" with a dot over them. These are just different ways of marking the subsections of an act. Then, in this case they continue with sections A, B, and then there is subsection two, which has two "i's" and then it goes on with subsection three and four which is in Roman numerals IV. It is the Roman numeral method of marking the section.
Then, at the end of the whole numbering you will notice it is not Roman numerals that

Criminal Code
are used but the Arabic and you have 3, 4, 5 and 6. It is then that this particular section will come, at the end of all that that has to do with 2, and we will put (2a).


John Alpheus Charlton: That is not the way it is in the Revised Statutes of 1927.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: There have been amendments.


John Alpheus Charlton: Why is it different, when it refers back to the revised statutes?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have amended it two or three times.


Mr. Michener:: Has the minister any particular place in mind? Could he give us an example of what he has in mind?


James Garfield Gardiner: That has been going on for some time, since some amendments were made before. It has been the practice to move from one race meet to another within a province, and it has also been the practice to move from one race course in a province to one in another province. There was no justification for having this movement. It was thought there would be a tendency probably to go back and get a racing charter that has started away back at the beginning of this century, start to have races under it, and then move it out of that province to another. It was thought it would be more reasonable for anyone who wanted to race in a particular province to go to the authorities in that province and get the right to race, rather than simply transfer the racing charter from one province into another.


Daniel Roland Michener: I was wondering whether there was a specific instance to which the minister could refer.


James Garfield Gardiner: I could give a number of instances.


Daniel Roland Michener: No, but one specific instance.


James Garfield Gardiner: There may be a few that might be left. There may be some in British Columbia or in my province, Saskatchewan. I think probably there are one or two in Saskatchewan and some elsewhere. I believe this section should not provide a way of getting any further racing charters in a province where, perhaps, the races can be run to better advantage than in the province where the charter is now. They should not be able to simply transfer that charter into another province where there is more likelihood they will be able to make more money by having the races there. It is thought they should go to the government of that province and get the right to run the races there.


Mr. Pearkes:: Would this provision affect any programs that have been already arranged by an association for a meeting this year?
fMr. Gardiner.]


James Garfield Gardiner: No, they will have complied with the law as it is. It will not be made retroactive.


George Randolph Pearkes: It will not be retroactive to any association that has made provisions to hold a meeting in another province this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have one or two questions to ask. My first question is as to draftsmanship. Should section one of this bill not have in it the words, "as amended"? Is it the usual practice to say section 235 of the Criminal Code, chapter 36 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, is amended? Should it not be "as amended," or perhaps "as amended by chapter 25 of the statutes of 1951", is further amended by such and such?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, I do not think so. What I might point out here is that this is just the counterpart of a similar provision that is contained in the Senate amendments to Bill No. 7.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But that does not answer the point we are raising now.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, I know, but this amendment will carry the law through from the date upon which this bill is assented to until the time when Bill No. 7 comes into effect.
On this other point my hon. friend raises, I do not think that is necessary. The important point is that this amendment does amend that section 235 of the present Criminal Code.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps that point could be looked into because it looks to me like sloppy draftsmanship to have a wording that suggests that the statute of 1927 is amended, when actually we are amending the statute of 1927 as it has been amended in the meantime.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, the wording does not necessarily suggest that the statute of 1927 is being amended. We are amending actually a section of the statutes of 1927 which has been amended in the interval.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The point is that it has been amended, as the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand pointed out. If you go back to the 1927 revised statutes, this subsection one is not subsection one of paragraph (c), it is subsection one of paragraph (d), and therefore obviously the section has been amended since 1927.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My point is that if effect is given to this particular bill and this proposed (2a) is added to that section, no confusion arises.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is confusion here right now, Mr. Chairman. I suppose we could spend all morning arguing this point. In any

case, I submit that to attempt to add something to section 235 which does not make sense when it is added is not the best kind of draftsmanship.
My other question is this: Clause 752 of Bill 7 reads:
This act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by the governor in council.
Was the Minister of Agriculture making an announcement on behalf of the Minister of Justice a moment ago when he said that Bill No. 7 would be proclaimed on January 1, 1955? If not, when is it intended to proclaim Bill No. 7?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, I think that is what he
was doing; and I have no objection at all to that announcement being made, because it is our intention that Bill 7 when enacted will come into effect on January 1, 1955.
My hon. friend will recall that at various times during the discussion on Bill 7, both in committee and elsewhere, it was pointed out that when there was such a thoroughgoing consolidation and overhaul of the code, which has not been touched for sixty years, there should be an interval of several months between the royal assent and the date on which it came into effect in order to permit provincial law enforcement officers and others to accommodate themselves to the new provisions of the new code. The thought was that the new consolidated code should not come into effect until the beginning of next year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I take it, though, that it is the government's present intention that that will be the date of proclamation?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One other question; I realize that this relates to Bill No. 7 but, after all, we are dealing with a measure that ties in with that bill.


Mr. Pickersgill:: A breach of the rules.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend the Secretary of State ought to know. Is it the intention to reprint Bill No. 7 incorporating in it the amendments that were agreed to this morning, so that those who are interested might have copies of it even before it appears in the statutes?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Being a Scotsman, I would not think it was necessary to do that-to reprint the whole bill for that purpose. Any who are interested can get a copy of the Senate amendments, clip them out and paste them on his copy of Bill 7 at the proper points. I do not think we should be expected to run off a copy of the new bill for the convenience of those who are too indolent to
Criminal Code
do a little clipping. Surely we should not have to do that, at the expense of the taxpayers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is your Criminal Code
not worth it?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, the Criminal Code is worth it; but the Criminal Code will be printed as a statute.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Surely it is not just a scissors and paste document.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In due course it will be printed. In the brief interval between that time and the present, surely to goodness those who are sufficiently interested could get this sheet of paper of Senate amendments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that the right sheet?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, this sheet I hold here is the wrong one. But they could get the right one, put it into Bill 7, and that is all that would be required.


Angus MacInnis: It is my understanding that statutes, other than those printed in bound volumes, are printed as they are passed by the house. I shall give the minister my reason for saying that. Some time ago a correspondent asked me to get him a copy of the Canada Shipping Act. I made inquiries from the printing bureau and was surprised to learn that it was out of print. They told me however that there would be a new printing, and only a few days ago I got my copy of the Canada Shipping Act.
I imagine therefore that if the Canada Shipping Act could be printed in a paper-bound volume, there is every reason in the world why the Criminal Code should be printed in a similar volume and made available in that way. The price of the Canada Shipping Act was, I believe, $3.75; and the price of the Criminal Code might be as much as $5. However, it would be made available to those who would want it, without having to get the bound volume.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It is a very simple matter in connection with consolidations of ordinary statutes to have certain bound volumes and certain paper-covered volumes. But that was not what I understood the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to suggest. He was suggesting that Bill 7 be reprinted with the Senate amendments in it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It amounts to the same thing; they use the same type.


An hon. Member:: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, may I discuss a small point in the matter of the wording of the introductory passage to clause 1 of the bill. It is perfectly clear that section 235

Criminal Code
(2) was amended substantially in 1951 by chapter 25 of the statutes of that year. This may be a small point, because in another six months the new code will come into effect. I am asking the minister whether for the sake of clarity, and in case some question of enforcement arises during the next six months, it should not be:
Section 235 of the Criminal Code, chapter 36 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, as amended by chapter 25 of the statutes of 1951 is further amended by adding thereto-
And so on. I make that point because section 235, as enacted in 1927-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I accept my hon. friend's amendment. There is no use labouring the discussion of it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then, I so move.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The Minister of Agriculture points out to me that there are two or three other amendments which have been made. I think the better course would be to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Edmund Davie Fulton: "As amended"?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, "as amended".


Stanley Howard Knowles: I so move.


Daniel Roland Michener: This bill appears somewhat inconsequential, but I suggest hon. members have not had sufficient explanation of the need for it. I would ask that we be advised as to who are affected by the bill. My understanding is that it is to bring into force an amendment to the Criminal Code before January 1, when the whole code comes into effect. There are a great many amendments to the Criminal Code, of great importance, but we are not being asked to bring those amendments into effect before January 1. However, in respect of this one isolated change in the criminal law it would seem that it is considered of sufficient importance that it must be brought into effect soon, with the racing season half over, because some harm will be done if it is not made effective until January 1 of next year. I suggest we should have a proper explanation as to why the bill should be passed at this time.


The Chairman:: Shall the clause carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the amendment been put and carried?


William Alfred Robinson: I have not received an amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have been writing it out.
I move:
That Bill 476 be amended by deleting the words "Is amended" from line -5 and substituting therefor the words "as amended is further amended".
tMr. Fulton.]


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause as amended
carry?


John Alpheus Charlton: I would ask the minister if there has been a conviction in any province, where parimutuel betting has been carried on without an inspector of the Department of Agriculture being in attendance?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would not like to say whether there is or there is not. There is a possibility that there has been, and if there have been any of course the prosecutions would be started in the provinces, if the prosecutions were desired.
Some changes have been made by those who intended to conduct it at certain times. In some cases they have been stopped. I do not know whether they have been stopped in every case.


John Alpheus Charlton: I understand that some parimutuel betting is going on without the inspectors being there. This would put a stop to that. I am asking the minister whether there have been any convictions.


James Garfield Gardiner: Really this particular bill has nothing to do with that. That is where a charter has been transferred from one race track to another within a province. That can still go on under this bill. The only thing that this bill stops is the buying up of a charter in one province and taking that charter over into another province and operating under it without consulting the authorities in that province at all. That is the general position at the present time, and this stops that, and that is the only thing it does.
Clause as amended agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, by leave, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, June 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Prud-ham for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Argue.
Mr. Speaker:: It might be advisable at this moment to discuss a point of order with respect to the amendment. On June 9, 1954, I raised several questions and deferred the final ruling with the hope that upon resumption of the debate on this amendment some

hon. members may wish to make representations. If that is not the case, I would submit that I have given further thought to the remarks that I made on June 9, and find after careful consideration that the amendment cannot be accepted. Standing order 54 says:
Whenever the Speaker is of opinion that a motion offered to the house is contrary to the rules and privileges of parliament, he shall apprise the house thereof immediately, before putting the question thereon, and quote the rule or authority applicable to the case.
In the "Introduction to the Procedure of the House of Commons" by Campion this position of an unparliamentary motion is further clarified, and at page 149 it will be found:
Amendments are out of order
(1) If they are irrelevant to the question to which they are moved, or would, if carried, produce a defective, meaningless, or ungrammatical form of words.
I should like to point out to hon. members that the two words here "defective" and "meaningless" are the ones which I am concerned with at the moment.
The amendment reads:
This house is of the opinion that in view of the present grave situation in the matter of international wheat trading the government should make an immediate declaration as to its policy respecting the marketing of our Canadian wheat surplus.
The amendment asked the government to make an immediate declaration as to its policy. Policy is within the realm of executive action. Even if the amendment were to carry, if it is the policy of the government not to say anything, well, what would be the position in this house? The house would have declared that it is its opinion the government should make a declaration of policy, and there would be no such declaration of policy, because there is nothing that we can do about it. It is for the government to decide in this particular field just what is their policy, and they may decide to say nothing about it at this time. Hon. members know that when questions are asked on the orders of the day a cabinet minister often replies that this is a matter of government policy which will be announced in due course, and there is nothing that any member in this house can do about that.


George Alexander Drew: That is right.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to point out that since the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has made a declaration of policy, a fortiori this amendment becomes much more meaningless than it was in the first place. Therefore, for these reasons, I declare the amendment out of order, and if the 83276-379
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus amendment is out of order it follows that the amendment to the amendment of course must fall.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to challenge the ruling because the matter can be discussed. Simply because this is a ruling of record I would point out that in the opinion of many hon. members the statement which has been put forward as a policy was meaningless and therefore we do not yet understand what it means.


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, though this particular amendment and subamendment which were before the house have been ruled out of order I propose to go on with the discussion on wheat which the amendment initiated.
I regret there has been the interruption in the discussion which takes continuity away from it and makes it more difficult to carry on the debate in an orderly manner, and particularly the fact that, under the rules of our house, when this particular motion was before the house it was not as a result possible to discuss the problem of wheat and grain marketing, for instance, when the estimates of the Minister of Trade and Commerce were discussed the other day.
First of all, I should like to make a few comments on some of the statements the Minister of Trade and Commerce made in connection with wheat marketing. When this matter was up previously the minister of course was optimistic as usual, not as optimistic as he has frequently been in the past, but still reasonably optimistic. He stated he did not think we had such a great deal to worry about; everything would work out satisfactorily, and so on. It seems to me the Minister of Trade and Commerce pursues what might be called an ostrich policy in regard to this wheat question. In other words, he buries his head as far as possible and shuts his eyes and attempts to get the rest of the people in the country to shut their eyes to what is the actual situation. In other words, he just does not like to have the real gravity of this situation realized by the people in this house or throughout the country. He not only persuades himself that it is not as bad as it is, but tries to persuade the rest of the people. It is a form of self-hypnosis.
Speaking the other day, the minister made quite a point of the fact that, as he said, the figures as to our percentage of the world trade in wheat were very good. In fact he said that we are riding at the highest point in percentage in our history. A little later on he went on to say that we are not blasting our way into the wheat markets of the

Wheat-Marketing of Surplus world but that we are, however, holding what we have.	Well, what he meant
was we were holding not what we had or have had as a general thing for many years past. We are holding only a percentage of a very small amount of wheat going into general world trade. It is quite true that as far as wheat going into the world trade is concerned, and in the last few months particularly, we are holding our percentage; we are all right percentagewise but the fact is that when you have a percentage of a very small amount it does not help a man who has wheat to sell. It does not help our farmers who have a very large proportion of last year's crop still on hand, and it does not help the country as a whole. It certainly will not assist the country, and terminal elevators crammed with wheat at the present time, to get rid of that wheat. In other words, compared with other countries percentagewise our sales are still quite good, but the actual amount of sales is very small and of no great help, and in fact, they do not in my opinion, present a true picture of the situation.
The minister said there was no reason for any complaint in regard to the way wheat sales have been handled, and during the meetings of the agriculture committee, which took place a few weeks ago, quite a number of compliments were handed out on the wheat marketing that had taken place, and very few questioned what had been done. The minister attended some of these meetings but by no means all, and I would like to ask him to read the reports of these committee meetings and he will see that I for one questioned this policy at some length, and there can be no doubt that the inference to be drawn from the large number of questions asked was that quite a number of people were dissatisfied with the situation.
Of course, if the minister is directing his statement towards the handling of wheat marketing in past years, then that is a different matter altogether, and I would also point out that in the agriculture committee we were limited to a consideration of the
1952	crop. We were not able to discuss the
1953	crop. Therefore, as far as the recent developments are concerned, the committee was unable to deal with them at all. It was dealing with something which happened a year or two ago.
Now, the minister in his statement said that the initial price for wheat is $1.40 a bushel. That is quite correct, but what about the demand that there should be a floor under wheat? As far as the present crop


year is concerned there is a floor price of $1.40, but quite a number of people are beginning to wonder if that is all they are going to get for their wheat and whether there will be any further payment. But as far as next year's crop is concerned, the one which has now been planted and which will be harvested in August or September of this year, there is no floor whatsoever, and what the farmers of this country particularly want to know at the present time is what the initial price for that wheat is going to be. In other words, what will the floor price be for the coming year?
I think before this debate is over the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) should make an announcement in that regard. The announcements in this regard have always been made before this date in previous years, and in fact some considerable time before this. The announcement is due and certainly I think there should be no further delay.
Contrary to what the minister attempted to indicate in his speech, there is no floor price whatsoever for the crop which is now in the ground and which will be harvested this fall.
There is one thing the minister said with which I thoroughly agree and that is that if you expect to sell in a competitive market your prices must be competitive. I think it is complete nonsense to talk, as some people do, about maintaining an artificial price higher than the price at which other people are prepared to sell their wheat, because, if you do that, while the price may be all right you will not sell any wheat. The minister is quite correct in his statement that we have to meet competitive prices from other countries. I will come back to that particular matter later on but I would say in passing- and I want to make this quite clear-that we should not enter into any price war because I think that would be quite fatal. Certainly if a country such as the United States reduces the price of its wheat by 10 cents per bushel on world markets, as it did a short time ago, we must meet that price if we wish to sell any wheat.
There have been quite a lot of figures put on record in regard to this wheat situation, but I do not think the figures used are quite up to date and I do not believe they put the picture in its true light, and they certainly do not represent the true picture as far as the western farmers of Canada, and in fact the entire economy of Canada, are concerned. I have a few figures which I should like to add to those which already have been put on the record in regard to this matter.

First of all, the price for No. 1 northern wheat is $1.72J per bushel, and the price in August, 1953, under the international wheat agreement and as indicated in the wheat board report, was $2.01 J. For class II wheat it was $2.02J. In other words, since August of last year the price has dropped by approximately 30 cents a bushel. The wheat we had on hand at August 1 from the previous crop year and the crop then being harvested amounts in all to probably well over 800 million bushels, and the exact figure is probably nearer to 900 million bushels.
The value of the wheat at that time was based on $2.01 and $2.02 a bushel. What that means is that the value of this wheat has now dropped by at least $250 million. In other words, the farmers of western Canada, at present prices, are going to receive $250 million less than they had anticipated when they took in the crop last August. Of course, there has been a substantial drop since that time in the amount of wheat which has been sold, but nevertheless this means that the economy of Canada will be short of $250 million. That money would have been circulated among the retailers, wholesalers, and manufacturers of Canada, for when money like this is in the hands of the western wheat farmers it keeps circulating, and when it is cut off you have a situation much like that of a house of dominoes which falls over when one is moved.
The fact that there will be about $250 million less for the western farmers to spend than they imagined there would be when they took in their crop last August is going to have a very serious effect on the economy of the western farmers and, as a result of that, on the entire economy of Canada.
I would like to say something about the amount of wheat on hand. According to the dominion bureau of statistics the wheat in a commercial position as at May 26 of this year amounted to 341,564,000 bushels and the wheat on farms at March 31-the last date for which figures are available since they are only put out every three months-amounted to 382,666,000 or a total supply at May 26 of 724,230,000. That is an enormous amount of wheat.
Now, I have seen a considerable number of figures quoted in the newspapers recently to the effect that the amount of wheat on hand in Canada amounted to 600 odd million bushels. That figure keeps cropping up in the press from day to day, though where they get it and what its origin is I do not know. However, the figures I have given are those issued by the dominion bureau of statistics and I think that is the closest estimate there is. The amount on the farms is, 83276-379J
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus of course, an estimate, but I think the figure of approximately 724 million bushels of wheat is probably fairly accurate. On April 1, following on from that-that is two months before this-the total supply at that time again, according to these figures from the dominion bureau of statistics, was approximately 741 million bushels. I will leave out the thousands. What that means as to sales is this. That was on April 1, two months ago; on April 1, or the end of March, the total sales or disappearance, whatever you like, during April and May were, as I make it, only 16,700,000 bushels approximately.


Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, may I point out the obvious error that my hon. friend has made? He has taken the figures of stocks on farms as of March 31 as constant. Of course the stocks on the farms have been moving into the country elevators ever since then. Therefore he has made an error and I think he knows it. The figures he has given are erroneous.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I am not making any error from that point of view. The figure for the stocks on farms-the last figure which the dominion bureau of statistics has-is for March 31.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am taking that figure as being approximately 383 million bushels.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is the last figure there is. In other words it was the same on April 1 as it is now. There has been a certain amount that has moved in. That is quite correct. The only figures we get on it are those I have mentioned. This amount on the farms is an estimate anyway. The figures that you must take and must use are the figures presented by the dominion bureau of statistics. They are the figures the minister used.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I may interject again, Mr. Speaker, may I say that it is all right to use the figures on March 31 as being correct as of March 31, but if you use the figures of March 31 as being correct as of June 1, you are introducing a very serious error, as my hon. friend must appreciate.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I appreciate the fact that grain has gone in and so on.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member sticks to his fallacy.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister must appreciate the fact that that is the only figure available and it is the figure on which all these various computations and so forth are made. I admit quite freely that some of the grain that was
5986	HOUSE OF
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus on the farms at that time has gone into the elevators, but not a great deal of it has gone in.
In connection with this matter I should like to refer to something that happened in the committee with regard to sales of wheat. I asked a considerable number of questions in regard to this matter and I had considerable difficulty in getting answers as to what the actual sales of wheat had been during recent months, or, in fact, the only months we were allowed to look at. Eventually we got it established that the total sales-domestic, export and everything else-for the six-months period from August 1, 1953, to January 31, 1954, were only 122 million bushels. In the previous year they had been 223 million bushels;	the	year	before	that,	228	millionbushels;	the	year	before	that	181	millionbushels;	the	year	before	that,	138	millionbushels.	It was not until we got	to one year,
August 1, 1948, to January 31, 1949, that we got down to approximately the same amount, namely 120,500,000 bushels. The year before that the figure was 137 million; the year before that it was 268 million. In other words, our sales had slipped and slipped extremely badly during this six-months period. In other words this thing has been coming on for a long time and the minister knew it was coming on for a long time in spite of all his optimistic utterances in the past. The sales had slipped to just a little more than half of what they had been the year before from August 1 to January 31 of last year. I asked quite a number of questions as to whether this-


An hon. Member:: This year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes; this year; August 1, 1953 to January 31, 1954. I asked quite a number of questions as to whether this was not the most disturbing fact we had put before us or that we were discussing in the agriculture committee but the officials there tried to pooh-pooh it and laugh at it, in the same way as the minister has done and to say that sales did not mean anything, that you did not need to worry about sales. In my opinion sales are the most important thing. They are the thing that counts as far as the farmer is concerned. Unless the wheat is sold, he cannot get paid for it; and that is what he is interested in. But as I say, they attempted to tell me that sales were not important, that there was no need to worry about them. In actual fact sales have continued to shrink and shrink. In other words, the situation kept getting worse and worse as time went on instead of getting better, and sales during the past few months have been frightening. When I say "frightening" I mean frightening because they were so small.
fMr. Harkness.]

I should like to approach this matter from a different point of view. Perhaps the minister will attempt to refute these figures also. The exports during the period-this information is also from the dominion bureau of statistics and I believe the figures were used here before-of August 1, 1953, to April 30, 1954, which was the last period for which I could get them, were 186,200,000 bushels. But in the wheat board report we also find that the exports for the period from August 1, 1953, to January 31, 1954, were 138,300,000 bushels. In other words, our total exports for February, March and April-for three months-were 47,900,000 bushels. That is all that we exported. That is to say that the average exports for those three months were just a little less than 16 million bushels a month. The exports for the first four weeks in May-as was established by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) in the house a short time ago-were 14-6 million bushels; and he said that that was a terrifying figure. May I say that it is not nearly as terrifying as the fact that it is the same figure as that which has prevailed for the preceding three months.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Has my hon.
friend the figures for exports for the same three months a year ago, two years ago or three years ago?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think I could produce them for the year before, if I had a few minutes to go through this wheat board report. However, they were very greatly over this figure, as the minister knows.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; they were not.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes; they certainly were.


Clarence Decatur Howe: For February, March and April?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, the figures for February, March and April were very much in excess of that. I will find the figures here in a minute. Here are the exports for the crop year 1952-53. The exports for these four months were respectively-and that was after things had got bad-17 million, 16-4 million, 25 million and 46'5 million.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member is now getting into May. He spoke of February, March and April. The periods are not the same.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, the minister apparently was not paying attention. I started talking about the four months. I said that in these three months the exports were approximately 16 million bushels each,

and in May it was exactly the same thing. Exports in the first four weeks were 14-6 million bushels, which would mean an average for the month of about 16 million. In other words, the exports during that whole four-month period have been an average of about 16 million bushels and that is all.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The figure was a little less the year before.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It was a great deal more the year before. I just put the figures on the record. My goodness, Mr. Speaker, this situation seems very difficult for me to understand. I am reading from the report of the minister's own board and I have just read the figures as to what the exports were for May of last year as being 46-5 million bushels; then he says they were less the year before.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not February, March and April.


Douglas Scott Harkness: When one cites figures of that sort and then hears statements made which are so contrary to the reports put out by the minister's own department it makes it very difficult to carry on a reasonable debate on the matter. Apparently the minister is just not willing to see any reason. Not only does his optimism blind him as to what the real situation is but he will not even admit the figures that his own people put out. As the hon. member for Eglinton has said to me, the minister takes an extremely selective approach to all these problems. He selects only what is pleasing to himself and what he thinks will be pleasing to the people.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You did the
selecting. You picked the months.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The only reason I picked these months, as the minister knows, is that they are the last four months, and I am trying to bring the picture up to date. I am much more disturbed about the whole situation than the minister appears to be. The situation is bad and he should know it is bad. He is the one who can do something about it but unfortunately he will not even admit that the situation is bad and that our exports have fallen to this extremely small amount.
As a matter of fact, although our exports during that period only amounted to just over 60 million bushels for four months, the picture is even worse than that because, as we learned in the committee, there were forward sales as of January 31, the beginning of this period, amounting to 21 million bushels. In other words, all the sales that have been made during this period only
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus amount to some 41 million or 42 million bushels. The sales picture seems to be much worse than the export picture and our anticipation of future deliveries is getting worse all the time instead of better. That of course is one of the reasons why the sales picture is important. It is on that basis that we make our exports.
The sale of wheat is a government responsibility. The government has a monopoly in the sale of wheat through the Canadian wheat board. As it has that monopoly, with the result that the farmers cannot sell their wheat to anybody else, the government must assume the responsibility for selling this grain. They have not been selling the grain. Sales have been going down. The situation is getting worse all the time. The farmers still have large amounts on their hands which they are not able to deliver and there is another crop in the ground which will be ready to harvest in two or three months. From one point of view particularly it is a great misfortune that the government has come to be looked upon as the only source, so far as the grain business is concerned, for information, assistance of any kind or anything else along that line.
As the result of the government monopoly in the sale of wheat the people of eastern Canada do not understand the situation. I run into people all the time, even members of the House of Commons, who, whenever an interim or final payment on wheat is made, will say to me: Oh, the government is giving you fellows another handout. Because the government has this monopoly in the handling of wheat many people in this part of the country do not understand the fact that the interim and final payments which the minister announces in the house are not government money. A whole lot of people think that it is government money which is being given to the prairie farmers when it is their own money which is being paid to them on the basis of wheat sold and so forth. As I say, government control of grain has produced an unfortunate result in the minds of many people in eastern Canada. Every time an announcement is made of a payment with respect to grain they think that the government is giving a handout to the west, which is complete nonsense.
With respect to the present situation, I thought that the minister's statement that we must meet competitive prices was sound sense. We must do that. I do not think there is any question about it. In that regard there is an article in this morning's Gazette from which I should like to quote briefly. It
5988	HOUSE OF
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus is by Sydney Gampell and is datelined "London, June 14". The article reads in part as follows:
After, as before the 10 cent price cut, and at either the minimum or the maximum price of the international wheat agreement, the wheat market is still artificial. In what amounts to a busted corner, there is no real market and no real price.
Unfortunately I think that is all too true, and under these circumstances, as I indicated earlier, it seems to me that there is no value in the idea a lot of people in the east particularly have, people with whom I have had private conversations, that if we cut the price another 10 or 20 cents a bushel we will sell a lot more wheat. I do not think we would sell any more and we might not sell as much. To cut prices and enter into a serious price war would be the very worst thing that could happen to the economy of this country and the wheat market generally. 1 am glad to see that an observer in London corroborates that view. The article continues:
If the oversupply and the overproduction in the exporting countries were thrown on the market for what it would fetch, it might be lucky to fetch so much as a dollar a bushel. Some of it might go begging as a gift. If the United States could find places inside or outside the iron curtain to make gifts of wheat with any political advantage or even without positive political disadvantage, it would probably be glad to give the surplus wheat away. It has already made some not insignificant attempts.
How the exporting countries got into this mess is irrelevant. The important question is what do they do now. What they almost certainly will not do is to slash the price in a free-for-all competition for any regular commercial markets. If they allow a sharply falling market they will sell less wheat, not more.
I would hope that attention will be paid to what was pointed out previously by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) among others, and that the government will maintain the closest possible consultation with the other big holder of wheat available for export, the United States, and will put forth every possible effort to ensure that there is nothing in the nature of a price war, in other words, that another drop on their part or another drop on our part does not take place. It seems to me that the only hope in the present circumstances, until a different cycle of weather rights the situation, is to try to maintain the price as close to the present level as it can be maintained, and that can only be done by co-operation and consultation with the United States. It would seem to me that must be the government's chief effort at the present time not only so far as the western wheat farmer is concerned but also from the point of view of protecting the whole economy of the country.


From all I have heard, it does not seem to me that the government has met its responsibility in that regard in recent months. I think one great lesson that we have learned, or that I hope we have learned, from the present situation is that the wheat agreements which were sold to us particularly by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) as the cure for all the uncertainty of agriculture in western Canada have not succeeded in doing that. They have proved to be a complete disappointment. I think the history of the years since the war has demonstrated the fact that there is no security for agriculture in international or intergovernmental wheat agreements because the importing countries enter into these agreements when it is advantageous for them to do so, and when the price is falling and it is not advantageous they do not enter into them or if they have they do not fulfil the agreement as was the case with one or two nations which signed the international wheat agreement.
Wheat has had an unfortunate history in the post-war period. The western farmers lost several hundred million dollars through having to sell their wheat at less than the market price and now they have no security so far as wheat delivery, price, quantity or anything else is concerned. I would hope that as the result of this experience we have at least learned one lesson, that these things do not provide security and there is no use counting on them to do so.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said, the government is responsible and has been responsible all the way through for the selling of Canadian wheat. They have not met that responsibility. We have all this wheat on hand that has not been sold. We find the farmers in an increasingly difficult situation, and particularly is that going to be the case if this next crop proves bountiful. Therefore I would move as an amendment to the motion, seconded by the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. Charlton):
That all the words after "That" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"this house regrets that the government has failed to deal effectively with the problem of marketing Canada's wheat surplus."


Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mouniain):: I rise, Mr. Speaker, to take part in this very important debate. The announcement by the government on June 7 of the lowering of the price of the three top grades of wheat by 10J cents a bushel was a blow below the belt to the western farmers. The ramifications of that policy, which I maintain is the forerunner of a fire sale policy, cannot be overemphasized. We have already heard

one or two members in this house representing the western part of Canada, who have indicated their concern.
I can agree in only one respect with the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Hark-ness), who has just spoken. He stated that the responsibility rests with the government. There can be no denial of that statement. I cannot, however, go along with him when he indicates that he is more or less in agreement with the government's policy.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not believe I could have indicated the reverse more strongly.


Edward George McCullough: Then, the hon. member will have to explain it, because after all he did not lay down any policy. He took it upon himself to more or less explain the wheat stock situation, and then he did say, I believe he will agree, that the price of wheat must be competitive.
In this group we have in the past supported the idea of the international wheat agreement and orderly marketing of grain. We have supported the principle which has been followed by the Canadian wheat board, and the principle of marketing wheat under that board. Here, I believe we have a diversion from that program that has been pursued in the past. In spite of the fact that we in this group have, during this session, asked the government to indicate its wheat policy and also to give some indication of what the farmer should do in respect to seeding of the crop this year, we have not to date received any information from them as to what the government's policy is to be in the future.
Indeed the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has castigated members of this group who tried to get some statement from him as to the initial price for wheat this year. Then, after the western crop has been seeded again, here we have the government announcing a policy on June 7 which, as I say, can only make the devils laugh and the angels weep. Surely we could have a policy in this country by which our agricultural producers could have stability and security. I say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), both of whom I am happy to see are in their seats, that if they allow the decline in prosperity in western Canada, it is going to affect every last home in Canada. We in this group are not coming here to suggest blue ruin in the west. We recognize that Saskatchewan, our own province, is in a prosperous state.
Many of the farmers are in the happy position of having paid off some of their pre-war debts; they are in the happy position
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus of having grain in their bins; they are in the happy position of having been able to purchase farm machinery, even at the high prices, in order to farm more efficiently. But I do want to say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture that we are not going to sit in this house and wait until the agricultural situation deteriorates to the point of depression. I am happy to see that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Mang) is in his seat. He represents a riding that is just north of mine. I do not believe he performed any useful service to western agriculture or to himself when he took it upon himself the other night to indicate that there was not a very serious situation in western Canada.


Mr. Blackmore:: You are right there.


Edward George McCullough: Later on in my remarks I shall deal with what he said. It is sufficient at this time to say that there are, however, people who appreciate the situation. If anyone in the house thinks the farm members from western Canada are asking for something unreasonable, let him look at the full-page advertisements that the great firm, the T. Eaton Company, have published lately in the Toronto Globe and Mail. Province by province, these advertisements have indicated the economic situation.
On June 12 last the full-page advertisement concerned Saskatchewan. We are mighty proud of the success we have had in Saskatchewan, and of our ten-year record with a C.C.F. government. All those resources were there prior to 1944, Mr. Speaker, and we feel very fortunate that the resources we have in that province are being developed for the people by the C.C.F. government. The C.C.F. government did not put the resources there; that was the work of Divine Providence. We are happy to note that we have 40 per cent of the oil reserves in Saskatchewan alone. This advertisement illustrates that in Saskatchewan 70 per cent of the population is rural and 60 per cent of the provincial revenue is derived from the land. One can readily see from that that we are dependent upon the returns we get from agriculture.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, at one o'clock I had been discussing the serious situation which has arisen owing to the announcement on June 7 when the government indicated that the price of wheat

Wheat-Marketing of Surplus for the three top grades would be dropped by 10J- cents per bushel. The failure of the government to announce early in the year the policy it might have in regard to wheat has left agriculture seriously concerned as to what the future holds. While the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has indicated to the house-and has been reported in the press to the same effect-that he does not foresee any price war in the sale of wheat, it does not in any way quiet our fears that the government is now launching upon a program which may spell disaster for agriculture in Canada.
Not only have there been various press comments in this connection, but I should like to quote a press report appearing in the Ottawa Journal of Saturday, June 12, which states:
Jake Schulz, president of the Manitoba farmers union, Friday protested trade minister C. D. Howe's statement that Canada will cut the price of wheat again if necessary to protect this country's share of the world market.
Mr. Schulz said in a statement the minister's comment will "be a shock to many western farmers".
Mr. Schulz, as president of the Manitoba farmers union, represents a large organization of farmers in that province. In addition to that, a press dispatch appearing in the Manitoba Co-operator of June 10 indicates that the federation of agriculture has sent a telegram to the minister requesting that the government should not engage in any fire sale of Canadian wheat. I would quote from the press report as follows-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon members should not quote opinions of associations or newspapers published outside the house reflecting or commenting upon proceedings in the house. When the hon. member was making his first quotation I was about to rise. Now that he has embarked upon a second one I think it is my duty to remind him that citation 265 in Beauchesne's third edition states this:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.


Edward George McCullough: 
Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Edward George McCullough: I am
happy the minister shakes his head, because all along we have been asking the minister to indicate the policy of the Canadian government. If we are to have a policy of orderly marketing and exporting of wheat, it cannot be one whereby, as soon as we have stocks of wheat on hand, we are going to throw it on the open market, regardless of price. I know very well that time and again the Minister of Trade and Commerce has repeated his statement that it would be useless to cut the price of wheat to increase sales because the demand is not there.
So I do not think the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) added clarity to the situation when he spoke in Regina. His speech is reported in the Ottawa Journal of June 14. The Minister of Agriculture said that the piling up of wheat in the finest storage facilities in the world is playing right into the hands of the market. I do not know what the Minister of Agriculture meant by that statement. If he means that by having some stocks of grain on hand we must embark on a fire sale policy, then it is like hunting for a jet-black cat in a dark room where there is no cat. It is just as clear that you cannot get any solution from that sort of thing. What we in the C.C.F. advocate is the principle of the ever-normal granary. In view of that, the Canadian stocks of wheat should be recognized as a safeguard for short crop years.
After all, Mr. Speaker, we are fighting an ideological war throughout the world. We are trying to indicate to those countries of the world that the kind of society in which we live is the best society for man. We are fighting to win over men's minds to our way of life. When the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) rises in his place and asks: Where are those hungry people? I have only to refer him to the publication put out by the government entitled: "Current Review of Agricultural Conditions in Canada." I do not intend to read it. Perhaps I would not be permitted to read it to the house. This is a government publication which gives a favourable impression of the foodstuffs existing throughout the world. It goes on to
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus indicate the hunger and the need for the uplifting of nutritional standards in various parts of the world.
I submit to the house that if we are fighting a war to win men's minds and to do away with hunger, then of course we have to play our part, and play it in a full way, in order to see that these countries that are undernourished and underfed and hungry are sufficiently fed. Not so many years ago Sir John Boyd Orr, then president of the food and agriculture organization, indicated that about two-thirds of the people went to bed hungry every night. If that is the condition that exists, surely in Canada we are not going to have a policy which is not going to allow our agricultural producers who have cooperated with the government to produce sufficiently huge stocks of wheat for a world which needs food.
At page 5749 of Hansard the minister seemed to indicate that in interviewing the members of the agricultural conference meeting here in Ottawa he was led to believe that farmers from western Canada were not in a bad financial position. He indicated that, according to his interview with those representatives, only about one per cent of the farmers needed financial assistance in the way of loans. I want to point out to the house that it may be quite true that a lot of the western farmers are still in a financially liquid position. But on the other hand, there are straws in the wind that indicate that the situation existing in western Canada is not as rosy as the minister suggested.
According to the dominion bureau of statistics figures, in 1946 the prairie indebtedness stood at $367 million. In 1952 it had increased to $486 million. Then again the loans from chartered banks increased from $283 million in 1952 to $318 million in 1953. Under the farm improvement loan plan, in 1951 the farmers of the prairies borrowed $85 million; in 1953 they borrowed $98 million, an increase of 33 per cent in the number of applications.
Let me take the agricultural picture over the country. In 1951 the figure stood at $2,811 million. In 1953 it had dropped to $2,674 million, or a decrease of $137 million. The situation is serious; and, as I indicated before lunch, we from western Canada are not concerned entirely with the prairie provinces. We recognize that if the agricultural situation is affected adversely it will in fact bring the whole economy down to that level. That is exactly what happened in the 1930's when agriculture was not receiving its fair share of the national income and prices were at a deplorable level. People
5992	HOUSE OF
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus were out of jobs and our whole economy suffered. Already we have had delegations coming to Ottawa from the agricultural implement industry and the textile industries indicating an increase in unemployment in Canada. Indeed, it has reached an all-time high. Therefore we are asking the government to hold the price line and to use its policies and its power to sell our wheat at prices which will guarantee the producer a decent standard of living.
In Saskatchewan we have made tremendous gains in the last ten years. We do not come here from that province asking for a handout. The thing we are asking for here is nothing short of a just, fair and equitable policy for western agriculture. At one time our province of Saskatchewan was called nothing but a hard luck province. In the last ten years we have been successful in raising the standard of living. We have been successful all along the economic line in order to give our people more security.
I hold in my hand a booklet published by the government of Saskatchewan, showing ten years of progress under that government. I commend it to all hon. members, because it shows in an unmistakable way the progress made in that province. We are not content, sir, to sit idly by and to see our people go back to the conditions that existed prior to 1944. I remember full well that during the election-and I believe it was the type of advertising used by Liberal candidates all over the country-Liberal candidates said: "Vote Liberal and keep Canada prosperous." I think the people supported the government and returned them to office on that basis. As the hon. member for Qu'Appelle said the other day, we should try to keep the record straight. He emphasized that point of view in his speech many times. I say now, let us keep the record straight. This government told the people of western Canada that if they voted Liberal they would have continued prosperity. Well, in the years from 1951 to 1953 agriculture has been put in an adverse position, when you compare the returns to agriculture with the cost of production. According to the dominion bureau of statistics figures there has been a decrease of about 16 per cent. That could very well end up in a tailspin, where our people once again would be losing their farms and where the general picture for agriculture would be disastrous.
What I am saying to the government today is that we in this group support the principle of orderly marketing. The government should assume the responsibility of taking over surplus stocks of wheat in Canada.
When you look over the submissions made to the cabinet by the Canadian Federation


of Agriculture over the years you will see that they have advocated to the government that surplus stocks of wheat in Canada should be stored and that the agricultural producers should not suffer from having those surplus stocks. It would be good policy, Mr. Speaker, for the government to undertake a policy of storing a thousand million bushels of wheat in Canada as a reserve either for war or for scarcity.
I do not agree with the Minister of Agriculture that having surplus wheat in this country should mean disaster, because that is the only interpretation I can take from his remarks as published in the Ottawa Journal of June 14. If the government undertook that policy, it would not mean of course a lot of money being spent on storage, but it would mean that the agricultural producer would have money in his pocket to buy the farm machinery. The farm machinery workers would be able to return to work, and so would many people who are today unemployed. Of course, anything may happen; but the Minister of Trade and Commerce has indicated on many occasions over the past three years that the crops we have had were likely to continue. What better type of husbandlike direction could we have from the federal government than the government taking over these stocks and storing them until people require them throughout the world?
I am sure he will agree with me when I say that the time will come when we can market these stocks of grain at a very decent price, a price which will meet with the support of the farmers, and one which will not cost the Canadian people one single red cent.
Today we have enough money to meet essential commitments in our defence program. There can be no question about that. And if we need more money for planes or guns the government can find it. This year we are spending about $2 billion for defence purposes. That may well be necessary, but I would point out that today we are not necessarily fighting a war involving guns and planes. We have to make people believe in the free way of life we have in the western world, and if that means anything at all it means security to the people of Canada, and livelihood, job and home security to the farmers throughout the length and breadth of the land.
We are not going to be able to put across any of the principles we cling to in regard to a better way of life to the peoples of the Far East and Asia unless we can have such a program here. It must be rather difficult for the people in the underprivileged countries to accept these views when they hear that in

Canada, although we have produced more cars, machinery, and more of everything else, we are starting into another economic tailspin.
I would therefore urge the Minister of Trade and Commerce to tell the farmers today, even though it is rather late in the day, what the initial price for wheat this fall is going to be. The government should buy, store, and pay the farmers for wheat, which could be stored against future commitments. For in my opinion the only way in which we are going to get the importing countries to adhere to any agreement is to assure them that they can obtain their requirements of wheat at an agreed price and on the date when it will be required in future.
If the government will undertake to do that I am quite sure that that will be the means of giving stability to agriculture; it will assure the farmers that they are going to be adequately protected; and, moreover, it. will assure stability to our entire economy.
Just in passing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to some statements made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, and I am very happy to see that he is in his seat, because I was most concerned when he said that he viewed the economic position of western agriculture from an airplane in coming to Ottawa and he felt quite satisfied that everything was all right because he saw some ships on the great lakes. It seems to me he took a rather superficial point of view in attempting to determine whether agriculture in Canada was in a healthy condition, and I would urge him to take a much closer look at the situation.
I have already indicated that farmers today are worried, I have mentioned the farm debt, and I have pointed to the prosperity we enjoy in Saskatchewan. But I would also add that we recognize that unless we have in Ottawa a government that is prepared to arrange an economic state of affairs throughout this country, which will lend healthy support to agriculture, then the progress we have made in Saskatchewan will seriously deteriorate. We must have an over-all economic policy to support our present policy.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope this government will not continue to sit idly by when large segments of our economy are in this present rather serious situation. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden):
That the amendment be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma and by adding thereafter the following words:
"and this house further regrets that the government has failed to make provision for a floor price to the wheat producers of Canada at levels not less than the Canadian wheat board selling price, basis Fort William/Port Arthur, on Friday, June 4, 1954."
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, the drop of 10J cents in the price of wheat, plus the statement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that it is possible that additional cuts might have to be made in future has, in my opinion, caused a great deal of concern in western Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I hope my hon. friend is not going to put words in my mouth. I did not say it was "probable" and I did not intimate what he implied. I said that the price could not be regarded as a firm price for all time and if it was necessary to keep our grain competitive the price would be cut again.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Speaker, I immediately corrected the word "probable" and said the minister had said it was possible. I corrected myself when I made that statement and there is no reason for the minister to rise again.
In my opinion, the concern today is not so much over the actual price of wheat, that is $1.72, but rather in regard to the uncertainty about the policy of the government in the future. That is what concerns farmers at the present time. There is no definite support price under wheat today, although we had a support price for four years under the international wheat agreement of $1.55 per bushel. But owing to the fact that so many nations have withdrawn from the international wheat agreement, that floor can no longer be regarded as an effective support.
I noticed in the Ottawa Journal the other day that the president of the farmers union of Alberta, Mr. Henry Young, has urged the government to announce that they will not allow the price of wheat to fall below the support price under the international wheat agreement. That should be the very minimum the government should be prepared to do.
Mr. Young pointed out that if the government made that announcement it would at least help to remove the fear that the price of wheat might absolutely collapse. I am not saying they would be satisfied with that; but they are suggesting that that is the very least the government could do at the present time, namely announce its support price equivalent to the support price under the international wheat agreement.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, may I make a comment? I cannot think of a more bearish statement any government could make at this time.


Victor Quelch: It might be bare but at the same time the people of Canada are a little bit fearful of what might happen. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has stated that we have a floor price of $1.40, but what
8994	HOUSE OF
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus we have is an initial payment. Let me point out to the minister that there is a fundamental difference in principle between an initial payment and a floor price. An initial payment is usually set sufficiently low so as to ensure that the average price received during the year will be higher than the initial payment. On the other hand a floor price or a support price is usually set sufficiently high so as to ensure that the price of agricultural products will not be allowed to fall sufficiently low to reach an uneconomical level.
As an example, let us take the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act. Under that act provision is made whereby the government can guarantee an initial price up to 80 per cent of the average price of the past three years but, as a matter of practice, the government has usually guaranteed that initial payment up to only 60 per cent in order to be certain that they will not suffer a loss. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) himself pointed out that there is a big difference between that act and the Agricultural Prices Support Act, because under the Agricultural Prices Support Act provision is made not for an initial payment but for a support price and that support price is tied to the price of other commodities, under section 9. I therefore say that the farmers would feel a great deal happier today if they knew that a support price was going to be maintained under wheat.
The minister has also stated in the past that he does not think the Canadian consumer should be taxed in order to subsidize the price of wheat. On the other hand, I never heard the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) object when the Canadian farmer was taxed in order that the people of Canada might receive wheat at a lower price. When the price of wheat to the producers was kept below the world market price, actually what was happening was that the producer was being taxed in order that the consumer could receive wheat at a lower price. There is no difference between the two. In the one case you are taxing the people to subsidize the price of wheat at a fair level. In the other case you are taxing the farmer in order to keep the price of wheat down to what the government considered to be a fair level at that time.
If the government, as a matter of policy, fails to stabilize the price of wheat at a level that returns to the farmer a fair price they will, in my opinion, be committing a definite breach of faith with the farmer. In 1941-42 when the price ceiling was put on, the prime minister of the day, in a broadcast, announced to the farmers that he appreciated the fact that they were expanding


their production in spite of the fact that a price ceiling had been put on; and he guaranteed that in compensation the prices after the war would be stabilized at a fair level. That was a definite promise made by the prime minister of this country in 1943.
In 1945 the then minister of trade and commerce announced a post-war policy on the marketing of wheat. He said that policy would be not to try to obtain the full world market price for wheat sold to our allies but that it was the intention to sell wheat for less than the world market price because he considered that we had a moral obligation not to charge our allies the maximum price we could get, having in mind the great contribution they had made in that war. When I replied to the speech made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I pointed out that we were prepared to support that policy, that we realized that we in Canada had a moral obligation to help our allies by not charging them the maximum price but that we must recognize that it was a moral obligation of the people of Canada as a whole and not merely that of the farmers. I pointed out that any losses suffered as the result of that policy should therefore be borne by the Canadian people as a whole and not by the farmers alone; in other words, to whatever extent losses were suffered, the farmers should be compensated for that loss.
We all know what happened. I am not going to place a lot of figures on the record- they have been placed on the record so many times already-to show what those losses were. We all know that there was a substantial loss as the result of selling wheat under the British wheat agreement and selling wheat to the consumer in Canada at the same price instead of obtaining the price for class II wheat, which loss has been estimated anywhere from $300 million to $500 million. All the farmers received against that loss so far was a payment of $65 million.
As I say the prime minister referred to the fact that the farmers had made a sacrifice and that they could rest assured that they would be compensated for it by a stabilizing program after the war. The Minister of Agriculture also referred to the same thing in the past. If the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce represents government policy in this country, and if they are opposed to the people of this country being taxed in order to subsidize agricultural prices in order to maintain them at a fair level, then it can mean only one thing. It means that the price to the farmer is to be governed by the so-called law of supply and demand. If that is to be the policy, then the

farmers of this country would be justified in reducing their production in order to try to keep the price higher.
Would the Minister of Trade and Commerce agree that the farmers would be justified today in reducing their production in order to keep prices higher? If prices are to be made subject to the law of supply and demand, that is the only protection the farmers have unless the government is prepared to step in and to place a support price under farm products. I should be interested in knowing whether that was government policy.
I think a declaration of that kind should be made. I think it is only fair to the farmers that they should be told by the government whether their policy is this:	We want you
to reduce production; we are not going to guarantee a higher price but you can look after the situation yourself by doing as other industries do, namely reduce production, and that reduced production will force prices up. Personally, we in this group do not favour such a policy because if we had two or three years of drought we would have a situation in the world where there would be widespread famine.
In his speech the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated that it was a fallacy to suggest there were starving people or starving nations in the world today. If the Minister of Trade and Commerce reads what is put out by the food and agriculture organization, I think he would be impressed by the fact that consistently over the past five years they have been stressing the fact that unless the nations that have the ability to expand the production of food do so, there will be widespread starvation in the world. In their recent publications they have referred to that point on a number of occasions. When the food and agriculture organization met in conference in Rome last fall one of the first statements issued there-and I quote from the Western Producer-was as follows:
The United Nations group said in Rome, Italy, on the eve ol a three-week conference that opened November 23, that its latest surveys showed a trend back "to the dilemma of the '30s with excess food co-existing with hunger."
Then I was struck by a statement in the FAO publication entitled Memo dated June, 1954. This is with regard to a report of the situation they expected to exist in 1956-57. They have this to say:
The report notes that "if, because of the fear of surpluses (in the more developed countries), present production plans were scaled down, the result might be a continuation of past shortages and inadequate levels of nutrition, for there can be little doubt that a high rate of population growth will continue at least for some years to come. The
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus margin between the expected expansion of production and population is narrow, and one or two bad harvests could wipe out much of the expected improvement in food supplies" . . .
"The essential problem is to raise the purchasing power of the poorer consumers," the report continues. "The possibility that supplies may at times exceed effective demand should not obscure the fact that most of the world's population still lack enough food. It would be tragic and socially dangerous if we found ourselves back in the dilemma of the 'thirties with excess stocks co-existing with hunger."
If this situation described in the FAO report refers to food other than wheat, then I think the government of Canada would be justified in perhaps following a policy similar to that of the United States. Apparently there may be some reason to feel that there is a different situation with regard to wheat and other farm commodities because I notice that the international federation of agricultural producers do make a recommendation that we reduce the production of wheat and increase the production of other commodities in its place. In the Manitoba Co-operator of June 3, 1954, I find this statement:
I.F.A.P. recommended that production of such crops as cotton, grain and potatoes be reduced and that production be increased for such commodities as animal proteins not in surplus supply at present.
If the government feels it would be advisable to cut down the production of wheat and increase the production of other commodities it could encourage action of that kind by a policy similar to that carried out in the United States where the farmers were given the option of maintaining their production of wheat at the present level and taking a cut of around 40 or 50 per cent in the price of wheat or cutting their production of wheat by 25 per cent and continuing to receive the support price of $2.21 a bushel, that is 90 per cent of parity. A policy of that kind no doubt would bring a substantial reduction in the production of wheat and would bring about an increase in the production of other farm commodities that may be needed at the present time. As I say, that is a matter that needs to be looked into, and if the government came to the conclusion that that was desirable they could very easily bring it about by action similar to that taken in the United States.
Since the war the food and agriculture organization has done a great deal of research work with respect to the matter of food surpluses and ways and means by which these food surpluses can be got to nations that need them. First of all we had the suggestion of Sir John Boyd Orr regarding a world food board, which was supported by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). Later we had
5996	HOUSE OF
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus another proposal known as the international commodity clearing house. That idea originated with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture which passed it on to the international federation of agricultural producers which passed it on to the FAO council. The FAO council set up a body of six experts who drafted the proposal known as the international commodity clearing house. That was not supported by the Minister of Agriculture.
I want to make it clear that I am not saying that he did not support the proposal of Sir John Boyd Orr, but the Minister of Agriculture did not support the international commodity clearing house and voted against it.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not exactly correct either but I will deal with it in due course.


Victor Quelch: I am so used to the minister saying one thing one time and another thing another time that this time I have brought with me what he did say. In April, 1953, in a speech I made in the house I was saying exactly what I have been saying today. At that time I said, as found at page 4588 of Hansard of April 30, 1953:
. . . but I am interested in the action that was taken by Canada in reference to the specific proposal for setting up an international commodity clearing house. That was the proposal before the conference and Canada voted against it. The minister can give his own reasons . . .
Then the minister followed me, gave his reasons and concluded with this sentence:
If we went into a scheme of that kind with a group of nations that would not accept the principles that were laid down by Lord Orr, then of course we would be looking for trouble; so we voted against it.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend has not yet read all that is there.


Victor Quelch: Pardon?


James Garfield Gardiner: If he will permit me to state what the position was I will state it now.


Victor Quelch: I think the minister had better do that in his speech later.


James Garfield Gardiner: It might suit your purposes better if I did.


Victor Quelch: All I wanted to point out was that the minister voted against the international commodity clearing house-


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I did not. I voted against the conditions that existed at the meeting at that time which were that the United States and Britain both refused to have anything to do with that proposal, and I said Canada could not take it on alone.


Victor Quelch: And as a consequence voted against the international commodity clearing house. The minister may have good reasons for it, but the point is that when the proposal was voted on Canada voted against it along with the United States and Britain.


James Garfield Gardiner: Canada did not vote until the United States and Britain had expressed their opposition.


Victor Quelch: I did not say you did. I say you voted against it.


James Garfield Gardiner: You are leaving the wrong impression entirely.


Victor Quelch: I merely said when the vote was taken you voted against it, and the record stands there. I am not criticizing the minister. He may have considered he had good reasons, but we seem to get into so much confusion. One time he says he voted for it-


James Garfield Gardiner: I have never at any time said anything different from what I am saying now, and my hon. friend cannot find that I did.


Victor Quelch: When the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) was speaking the minister denied having voted against the international commodity clearing house. But now we have the record straight. The minister, after making a great deal of explanation, finally voted against the international commodity clearing house.


James Garfield Gardiner: The record is not straight according to what you are saying.


Victor Quelch: Nobody could straighten out what you are saying. That is more than any man could do. It is interesting to note that the working party of eight nations has put forward additional proposals for dealing with farm surpluses, and this program is outlined in the FAO publication, Memo, of March 1954. Five suggestions are made for dealing with the situation and they are as follows:
1.	Sales on concessional terms, or grants, in aid of development ...
2.	Sales against importers' currencies, to be used for special purposes . . .
3.	Sales on concessional terms, or grants for special welfare distribution programs . . .
4.	Sales on concessional terms, or grants, for emergency relief . . .
5.	Holdings, or segregation, of stocks . . .
Ever since the discussion on the Bretton Woods agreement members of this group have advocated that it would be in the interests of Canada to accept sterling in payment for a certain proportion of our exports

to these countries in order to make it possible for them to buy our products. It is interesting to note that today more and more bodies of people are appreciating the soundness of that suggestion. In the May news letter of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce the acceptance of sterling is advocated. The food and agriculture organization, in the proposal known as the international commodity clearing house, advocated the acceptance of sterling. The proposal put forward by the eight nations working party also advocated the acceptance of sterling or the currency of the importing nation. In 1951 the United States, under the mutual security act 1951 program, put into effect a policy whereby they accepted the currency of foreign nations for certain specific purposes.
On the other hand, when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) spoke he called it a fallacy to suggest that the acceptance of foreign currency would help to sell commodities. He stated that there are only two nations with respect to which the United States has agreed to accept payment in the currency of those countries. One case was Japan. The minister says that there are only two nations, but the other day I read a report which indicated that there were a number of nations. I believe it was five, but in any event more than two. I forget the names of the nations. However, the March, 1954, issue of Memo makes it clear that far more than two nations are involved in the transaction because this is what it has to say:
Sales against importers' currencies, to be used for special purposes. The outstanding examples of this type of special measure are transactions under the United States mutual security act of 1951, as amended. Under this act, the supplies are used to build up stocks, ease derationing, meet abnormal import requirements of countries having poor harvests, etc.
Here is the important point.
Under most of the transactions concluded so far, the local currency proceeds are to be used for providing military assistance.
Note that it says "under most of the transactions". That means there must have been more than two. At the very minimum you would have to have three in order to have the word "most" involved. It does not say how many but I understand there have been at least five transactions to date. Even five is not very many transactions, but I think there is a reason for that. Under this plan the use of foreign currency was limited to investment for defence projects. However, the United States administration now is greatly widening that program, and if that program is put into force I feel we will see far more goods sold under it.
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus
I have here a copy of U. S. News and World Report for June 11, 1954, dealing with the new proposal that the administration has put forward, and I quote:
A disposal plan for farm surpluses now has administration approval.
Basic idea is to sell surplus commodities abroad for foreign currencies. That eliminates the problem of getting American dollars in payment.
Hope is that if India, for example, can buy American wheat for rupees instead of dollars, purchases of wheat will increase.
Result aimed at in the plan is to increase the total volume of exports of farm products. If accepted, the plan will be operated so as to take precautions against replacing normal sales with shipments abroad of government held stocks. Purchasing countries also would be pledged not to trans-ship the products.
Foreign currencies received by the United States could be used in part to buy strategic materials for the government stock pile.
A swap is proposed, actually, of surplus United States farm products for strategic materials, such as manganese or uranium, held by foreign countries.
Now, here is the important point.
In addition, the president would be authorized to use the foreign money for local improvements in the buying country, to pay U.S. obligations there, to buy military equipment, to help develop new markets for U.S. farm products, or for loans to promote world trade.
The plan has been submitted to congress as an addition to the program for the foreign operations administration that now is being considered. A limit of $1-3 billion is put upon this kind of transaction. That is as far as congress is asked to go in reimbursing the government for the surpluses shipped.
If that program is adopted, I believe the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) would agree that would be one more difficulty we would have to face.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That program was adopted some months ago. So far as I know, India has not taken any wheat for rupees and very few other countries have taken wheat for local currencies.


Victor Quelch: This article is dated June 11, and it says this is merely an administration program. The program to which the minister is referring is the mutual security program, and under that foreign currency can only be utilized for defence purposes. This is a new proposal to greatly widen the purposes for which foreign currency can be used. It is merely part of the administration's program and has not been placed before congress yet.
I am suggesting that if the program the minister is talking about under the security act is extended as wide as this program, then we will face a lot of additional competition. If a nation can just pay for the wheat it needs or the farm products it needs with its own currency, it will be far easier for it than having to find the dollars, especially when
5998	HOUSE OF
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus that currency will be invested in their own country, and not used merely for defence projects but for such things as irrigation works, as is done under the Colombo plan. Then, we will be facing very severe competition. We will have a situation where we are not merely competing against the United States treasury, because that is what the farmers of this country are having to do today. When we drop the price of wheat ten cents a bushel our farmers have to take that loss, but when the United States drops the price ten cents a bushel the farmers do not take the loss because they are guaranteed $2.20 a bushel. Actually, therefore, the farmers of this country today are having to compete with the United States treasury.
Then, we would have the further handicap of competing with nations whose currency is depreciated far below the Canadian dollar; that is the second severe handicap. The third handicap would be that we would be losing markets to the United States because they would be willing to accept foreign currency.
By way of summary, I would say that we insist that a support price for wheat comparable to the prices of other commodities is fully justified at this time. This is true, first of all, because a stabilized price was promised as the post-war policy of the government; secondly, because world peace requires adequate reserves of food, and those reserves must not be allowed to force prices down below an economic level. When the minister spoke he said there had not been any criticism of the wheat board officials or other officials dealing with wheat. I would point out that the wheat board only markets our wheat. It was not the wheat board that set the policy for subsidizing the Canadian consumer or the foreign consumer. It is not the wheat board that has the power to set a support price. It was the government that set the policy of subsidizing the consumers of this country and in foreign nations. We feel it should be the government of the day that initiates a support price that would guarantee the farmers a fair price for their products.


Mr. W. A. Tucker (Hosihern):: We have before us a motion to go into supply, to which an amendment has been moved by a representative of the official opposition, as follows:
This house regrets that the government has failed to deal effectively with the problem of marketing Canada's wheat surplus.
A subamendment has been moved on behalf of the C.C.F. as follows: and this house further regrets that the government has failed to make provision for a floor price to the wheat producers of Canada at levels not less than the Canadian wheat board's selling price, basis Fort William/Port Arthur, on Friday, June 4, 1954.
[Mr. Quelch.l

I would say first of all in regard to this motion to go into supply, and particularly with reference to the subamendment on behalf of the C.C.F., that we in Saskatchewan are accustomed to the use that is made of these amendments. Obviously, a motion to go into supply is a motion that must be carried in order to conduct the business of the country. If that motion were defeated by an amendment, it would mean the resignation of the government. The people who move such a motion realize that those who believe in the government's policy, and those who wish to keep the government in office, will have to vote against that amendment. They know that just as well as anybody else, and they have been doing that sort of thing in this house now, particularly the representatives of the C.C.F. party, for several years.
When it comes time to putting out propaganda, they do not point out that when people vote against these amendments to supply motions they are, in effect, voting to keep the government in office in which they believe, and the whole governmental program that is involved therein, but they publicize the fact that members vote against an amendment rather than in favour of the government's program as a whole. They point out that members voted against this particular item, and that particular item, and they spread that around the country. It is then said that members who have been elected here to represent western Canada voted against many of the things that the people of western Canada would like to see brought into effect. Then, it is suggested that the members who did so have betrayed the people who elected them.
Well, that sort of thing is designed to whip up hatred and establish as much misunderstanding as possible, as hon. members opposite, some of whom are laughing, know. They know what I say is quite true.


Mr. Castleden:: We know it is ridiculous.


Walter Adam Tucker: It has paid off politically. Almost all members of the C.C.F. avail themselves of these tactics because as we know they are great supporters of socialism. They are great supporters of the ideas of Karl Marx, and Karl Marx taught that the way to line up people to support certain things was to preach hatred and establish hatred, and if you could establish enough hatred amongst enough of the people then you could bring about the revolution you desire.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that what you were doing when you voted for one of our amendments in 1946?


Walter Adam Tucker: That is the sort of thing the C.C.F. have indulged in for some time. I think it is probably the reason why they have not had more success in Canada as a whole than they have had.


Stanley Howard Knowles: More than you have had,
anyway.


Walter Adam Tucker: I remember very well during the war, a period when C.C.F. members who were sitting here from 1940 to 1945 had very high hopes of ultimately-and in the not too distant future-becoming the official opposition in this House of Commons, and then becoming the government.


Mr. Nicholson:: The hopes you had in Saskatchewan.


Walter Adam Tucker: When they formed the government in Saskatchewan in 1944 they figured that that was just a step in this direction. Well, I think the people of this country as a whole-and I am suggesting this to the C.C.F. party-just looked at what went on in Saskatchewan. They have seen these attempts at character assassination-smear. And the people of Canada have decided they do not want to have that sort of thing put into power in the Dominion of Canada as a whole.
One of the things about which I have been very much impressed is that the C.C.F. party takes the lead-and I do not include in this certain people in that party, because I know some of them do not engage in this sort of thing, and do not like it-but there are members of the C.C.F. party in prominent positions who seem to have control when it comes to elections. During the last election there was a long list of things put out by the C.C.F. that Liberal members from western Canada were supposed to have voted against. They were on the basis of these tactics I have just mentioned. In my opinion that is nothing but deceit; it is nothing but an attempt to mislead the people.


George Hugh Castleden: On a point of privilege,


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Gardiner@: Are you guilty?


Mr. Harrison:: You will get more of it, too.


George Hugh Castleden: I have no objection to the
hon. member making remarks of that kind, but I just want to know that when we are allowed to reply we will be given similar latitude to answer the slurs that have been given out by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker).


Walter Adam Tucker: I have been stating facts; and the very fact that the hon. member immediately gets uneasy is very significant, indeed.
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus


George Hugh Castleden: We are not uneasy.


Walter Adam Tucker: In any event, I was going to say that I think they have not attained the success that they thought they would.


George Hugh Castleden: A very valuable opinion!


Walter Adam Tucker: Our people in Saskatchewan
believe that the way to make progress in this country is to have a certain amount of respect for one another, not to teach hate; they believe we should teach mutual respect, not try to build ourselves up by smearing other people, but that we should take the attitude that the other fellow is probably just as good as we are; and, while he might not see your viewpoint at once, if you take a reasonable attitude then ultimately you can rely upon your fellow Canadian to give you a fair deal.
I am satisfied that the approach the C.C.F. party, in making smear attacks on prominent public men accusing them of having betrayed the people who elected them-claiming they have been guilty of treachery-that sort of thing is building up hatred. I am satisfied that those tactics do not help the cause of Saskatchewan in the eyes of the rest of Canada, in any respect.
Now, in regard to the subamendment, the C.C.F. party know quite well in the first place that, even if members on this side of the house might consider it was desirable, we, believing as we do in the efficacy of the present government, believing as we do in the program of the present government, would unhesitatingly vote against that subamendment to keep the present government in office so as to complete its whole program. When they put the subamendment before us they knew we would do that, and they are laying the foundation to repeat in the future what they have done in the past.
Now, what do they actually suggest? They are actually suggesting that the floor prices of wheat be put upon a basis about ten cents higher than the present selling price. In effect, that is what they are suggesting. That sort of thing-the setting up of a floor price at a point much higher than the prevailing market price-has been tried for many years in the United States. It has resulted in the building up of such a large surplus of food supplies that farmers in that country are coming to the view that it is not a wise policy. It has built up such a surplus that the other taxpayers are beginning to find fault with the policy. The farmers themselves are beginning to realize they have to pay part of the taxes to produce a whole lot of goods that are being stored up and are spoiling.

Wheat-Marketing of Surplus


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Adam Tucker: Well, that is the case. And we find in the United States that more and more people are coming to the view that a price support policy must be one that will guarantee a living to the people engaged in that line of work-but not one that will act as an incentive to produce a vast oversupply. This is what was stated by the leader of the Social Credit party the other night.
The C.C.F. know this just as well as anybody else, but they move this subamendment, knowing full well that it is not possible in any way to carry it out, and knowing that if they were in the government they would not and could not carry it out. They know very well that it will be a good thing to use to whip up hatred when the time comes, in Saskatchewan. I shall deal with that again for a moment or so later on.
The Liberal policy is very clearly set out in an act which was passed under a Liberal government and which is still on the statute books, dealing with the support of agricultural prices. In that connection I should like to read section 9(2) of that act which, I think, is a sound approach to the matter. It is based upon what I believe the Liberal party believes in-a fair deal to all regions, a fair deal to all parts of Canada, a fair deal to all races. That is what the Liberal party believes in, and it is on that basis that we can appeal to our fellow Canadians in other parts of Canada to give us a fair deal.
This is the section to which I have referred:
In prescribing prices under paragraphs (a) and (c) of subsection (1), the board shall endeavour to ensure adequate and stable returns for agriculture by promoting orderly adjustment from war to peace conditions and shall endeavour to secure a fair relationship between the returns from agriculture and those from other occupations.
I have been reading, Mr. Speaker, from the Agricultural Prices Support Act.
This applies to all agricultural products, with the exception of wheat. However, it was stated when the act was enacted that wheat would be dealt with on the same principle, but that it was not necessary to include it in this act because it was under the control of the wheat board.
This, as I see it, is sound, just and fair -that agriculture should be assured of supported prices in difficult times, that it will get fair returns as compared with those engaged in other occupations. That policy, I think, is sound; it is the law of the country today, and it is a policy that I am satisfied the Liberal government, who put the law on the statute books, will carry out.

And I want to say this to hon. members opposite that, speaking for the great agricultural constituency of Rosthern, which I have the honour to represent in this House of Commons, I am satisfied that that will be satisfactory to the fair-minded people not only of Rosthern but of the whole of Saskatchewan. This attempt on the part of the C.C.F. to play to the gallery has been seen through pretty well by all of Canada, and I think it is going to be seen through in Saskatchewan, and that the handwriting is already on the wall for the C.C.F. in that province.


George Hugh Castleden: You didn't do much writing.


Walter Adam Tucker: What is basically wrong, what is basically unjust, and what is basically unfair to your fellowman will not ultimately succeed. I have that much faith in my fellow Canadians, and in my fellow citizens from Saskatchewan.
Now, in regard to the amendment of the Progressive Conservatives, it reads:
This house regrets that the government has failed to deal effectively with the problem of marketing Canada's wheat surplus.
That amendment, Mr. Speaker, is really an attack not only upon the government, which has appointed the wheat board and which carries on this work through the wheat board as its instrument, but it is an attack upon the wheat board itself, because if there has been a failure to deal effectively with the marketing of our wheat, then of course the people who have failed to do that are the wheat board. It may be said that it is the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). I do not think that anyone suggests for a moment that he is engaged in the marketing of wheat. True he is consulted in regard to the matter, but the one who takes the responsibility for doing the marketing of wheat is the wheat board. There have been attacks upon the wheat board in the past. I have deplored them because I think our wheat board system has saved our producers in western Canada literally hundreds of millions of dollars over the last ten years. I regret this continual attack, on every possible pretext, upon the wheat board and the wheat board system of marketing grain.
That is the sort of thing that everybody from western Canada, of all parties, if they think that the wheat board is a good thing, should deplore. I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman who moved this amendment and I am sorry that, coming from western Canada as he does, he saw fit to move this particular amendment. I am sure that

in doing this he was not speaking on behalf of the vast majority of farmers in western Canada.
The farmers in western Canada are apprehensive, Mr. Speaker, over these constant attacks upon the wheat board and our present system of handling grain. One of the proofs of that is to be found in an advertisement which I have in front of me. It is in a paper dated April 10, 1954, just two months ago. It was inserted by the Saskatchewan wheat pool. I submit, to you, Mr. Speaker, that they would not pay money to put such an advertisement in the paper if they were not apprehensive about the constant attacks being made upon our present grain handling system. Here is what this advertisement says: It is headed: "Some grain facts." The subheading reads: "Canadian exports, wheat and flour." It continues:
This year, August 1 to January 31, 138,700,000 bushels. Ten-year average, August 1, to January 31 from 1943 to 1953, 137,700,000 bushels.
During that period the ten-year average was 1 million bushels less than we exported last year during the same period. The wheat pool wants to draw this to public attention. They put in black letters that the record during the present year is better than the average by 1 million bushels. I continue: The next subheading reads:
Deliveries to elevators western Canada, all grains: This year, August 1 to February 28, 400 million bushels; ten-year average, August 1 to February 28, 1943 to 1953, 373 million bushels.
The farm deliveries during the seven-month period of this crop year covered by this advertisement are better than the ten-year average, as pointed out in this advertisement, by 27 million bushels. The advertisement goes on to say:
Orderly marketing keeps grain moving. These are the facts. Don't be misled. Saskatchewan wheat pool, head office, Regina.
There is the attitude of the farmers of western Canada. They believe that we have a good grain handling system and they are apprehensive about attacks on it. They believe that the rest of Canada will be led to believe that we in the west are not satisfied with it; that it has failed; and that there will be the feeling that it should be changed. They want everybody to know that they the farmers in western Canada are satisfied with the present system of handling our grain, and the people who are real friends of that system will not seize upon a time of difficulty to attack it, Mr. Speaker, as is being done here today. Surely the time when the wheat board and the present system of handling grain needs support is now, when there are great difficulties.
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus


Douglas Scott Harkness: Don't burst a blood vessel, over nothing.


Walter Adam Tucker: They do not need support when things are going well. The time when that system needs support is when there are difficulties such as there are at present, and the real friends of the present system of marketing can be found when people seize the first chance to attack it, Mr. Speaker. The people of western Canada are observing what is happening today in regard to this problem.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You are just setting up a straw man and knocking him down.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am just dealing with the facts. There is no doubt about where the farmers of western Canada stand on this matter. Here are some things that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, representing the farmers of Canada, submitted to the government on February 19 of this year:
We wish once again to put on record our support of international agreements as a means of developing and stabilizing markets for Canadian wheat.
Here is what was said in regard to what this amendment seeks to condemn:
Finally, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture reaffirms its appreciation of, and confidence in, the work done by the Canadian wheat board in the discharge of its difficult and responsible tasks.
This is as complete and wholehearted an endorsation as you would get of any human institution, and yet this house is by this amendment asked to deplore, to condemn indirectly, something that our farmers in western Canada have fought to get for the last twenty years, at least, and are glad to have; and they are not going to abandon it because we have entered into a period of some difficulty.
This view is shared by members of all parties when they are speaking more or less as they should speak on behalf of the farmers. I hold in my hand the report of the agriculture committee, and I was very interested to see the attitude taken there. Some suggestion is made sometimes that we have been losing markets for our grain. Well, I find at page 32 of the proceeding of the committee on agriculture a definite question is asked of a member of the wheat board. Mr. Riddel in answer said:
Yes, I think our markets in the Orient have been expanding during the past number of years, particularly in Japan, the Philippines and Hong Kong.
We heard the members of the board going over the work that they were doing in pressing the sale of our grain in all the countries of the world. Anybody who heard the evidence must have been impressed with the splendid case they made out and with the

Wheat-Marketing of Surplus good work they are doing in selling our grain. The person who asked the question knew that this charge was being put out to the country that Canada was losing our grain markets, and so he asked this definite question of the wheat board:
We are not losing any markets?


Mr.   Riddel@: No.
That is a definite, bald assertion by a member of the wheat board and yet when the Minister of Trade and Commerce rises in his place in the house and points out that we are holding on to our markets, that we are keeping our share of the markets, he is attacked because he defended the work being done by the wheat board. I say that in defending the wheat board, as he has done stoutly, and ably against attacks in time of trouble, the Minister of Trade and Commerce has the wholehearted support of 95 per cent of the farmers in western Canada.


Mr. Pouliot:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter Adam Tucker: I am surprised to hear laughter coming-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Keep up the show. It is quite amusing.


Walter Adam Tucker: -from the other side of the house. I am quite sure it is not related to the statement I made.


Mr. Low:: We are laughing with you, not at you.


Walter Adam Tucker: I cannot imagine anyone who is concerned about the wheat board being Upheld in a time of trial not being glad when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) made such an able defence of it as he did the other day. I sat here, Mr. Speaker, and I was grateful that we had a man of such great business ability looking after this matter and representing this government in regard to its dealings with the wheat board. The minister certainly effectively upheld the wheat board on the floor of this house, and we should all be glad that we have a man of his established ability and well known devotion to the welfare of the people of Canada in the position he is in.


Mr. Macdcnnell:: The minister made the best of a bad job.


Walter Adam Tucker: I do not think it was a case of making the best of a bad job.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't you?


Walter Adam Tucker: I think the record of the wheat board during the last ten years is one of which most Canadians are proud and rightly proud. I do not think that a representative from western Canada would dare to make


such a statement when the minister was defending them, namely that he was defending a bad job. I can understand it being said by an opposition representative from the city of Toronto.
Here is what was stated in regard to the job done by the wheat board, and this very interesting comment can be found at page 34 of the evidence given before the agriculture committee. I will read part of what Mr. Riddel said in his evidence. He said that sales would definitely be down from last year and he gave as the reason for that the fact that there were big crops in other countries. In view of that, sales would obviously be down. He added: ". . . . the crop production is up, away up". He then went on:
I think that it can be said that the reason for the accumulated surpluses in Canada after the last crop year are definitely not the lack of sales, but the substantial production in the two previous crop years.
I hope you will note, Mr. Speaker, that he states that the reason for the mounting surplus is not lack of sales but the tremendous increase in production. It might be surprising to hon. members if I pointed out who agreed with him. The hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden) said: "I think we can all agree to that." Now, the hon. member who moved the amendment on behalf of the Progressive Conservative party was, I believe, present when the hon. member for Yorkton expressed his agreement and I do not find anything in the record to indicate that the Progressive Conservative member disagreed with that observation. Despite that, we are now told by both the Progressive Conservative party and the C.C.F. party that we are losing our markets.
One of the things with which everyone agrees is that we should not have a fire sale if we are to retain a fair price and hold our share of the markets of the world, because other people will want to do the same. If we try to get more than our share of a dwindling market in any way, shape or form, then the others are going to try to defend their position, and I think all hon. members agree that would be undesirable. Just what do hon. members want to do?


An hon. Member:: Put a floor price under wheat.


Walter Adam Tucker: We can put a floor price under wheat but that is not going to get rid of our grain. The floor price might get you a few votes, but what I am dealing with is the problem which confronts us in western Canada of getting rid of our grain.


An hon. Member:: At an adequate price.


Walter Adam Tucker: A high floor price is not going to get rid of the grain. It is suggested, for example, that we accept sterling in payment for our grain. Yet, we are told that Great Britain has had enough of having her currency taken in payment for various things she could not pay for during the war. She built up a debt with Egypt and India of about $12 billion and when she tried to repay that debt during the period following the war she was faced with millions of dollars of so-called unrequited exports.


An hon. Member:: So what?


Walter Adam Tucker: My hon. friend says "So what?" That meant that when Great Britain came out of the war, struggling valiantly to regain her position, she had to meet that demand in exports for which she was getting nothing in return. She had this millstone hanging around her neck and as she struggled to the position where she could stand on her own feet and again become one of the leading nations again in regard to trade, commerce, banking, and monetary matters, she had to cope with this colossal handicap. The leaders of British opinion have taken the attitude that they want no more of this business of buying things for which they cannot pay and giving sterling which they know they will have to repay ultimately, for they believe in keeping their word.
It is therefore suggested here that we take sterling in payment and then expect Britain to pay it back later. But the British say, "No, thank you".


Victor Quelch: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would the hon. member not agree that it would be quite different if that sterling were invested in the sterling area?


Walter Adam Tucker: To the extent the British government is willing to permit sterling to be given in exchange for wheat I take it that there would be nothing wrong with that proposition, but the British government have no desire to put the sterling area in a position of indebtedness to the rest of the world.


Victor Quelch: Unless it is invested in the sterling area.


Walter Adam Tucker: Their attitude is that they do not want that sort of thing. My hon. friend is no doubt aware of the fact that Mr. Towers, governor of the Bank of Canada, stated that the financial authorities who were looking after financial matters in the United Kingdom were not favourable to any such plan. If they are not favourable to it what is the use of constantly talking about it on the floor of this house?
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus
Some hon. members are constantly suggesting we should take sterling, but once we take sterling and become willing to carry out deals of that sort then the other competing countries would say, "You are taking sterling and therefore we will take sterling." They would bid against one another and in effect what you would have is a fire sale, because if we agree to accept payments in a depreciated currency then it is just the same as if we had reduced prices.
One of the things we have got to guard against at this particular time is that we do not engage in cutthroat competition with other exporting countries to try and steal from them what they might regard as their share of a diminishing market. If we can keep our share of that market, even though it is diminishing, we should be quite satisfied with that.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? Would the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) agree with the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he says that the wheat price must be made competitive?


Walter Adam Tucker: The Minister of Trade and Commerce took this attitude as I listened to him. He said that if we did not keep our wheat price competitive to a certain extent we would sell no grain.


Edward George McCullough: He did
not say "to a certain extent".


Walter Adam Tucker: I beg the hon. member's pardon. He said we recognize that we always have to hold a bit of an umbrella over some of the smaller exporting countries. That is what he said. In other words, the attitude was, as I understood it, that there would be consultations with the great exporting countries and, so far as they are willing to cooperate, there have been consultations with the United States. As I understand his statement, the United States had taken the attitude that South American countries were pressing their sales and cutting prices and that if we did not do something to meet that situation they would sell their grain at good prices while we held the umbrella over their heads and kept our grain unsold. He said he recognized that to some extent the larger exporting countries would have to put up with something of that nature. In other words, the attitude of the Minister of Trade and Commerce was one that every single member of the House of Commons would agree with if he would lay aside politics for a moment. It is the policy that the great grain handling pools agree with. It is the policy that the
6004	HOUSE OF
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus Canadian Federation of Agriculture agrees with. It is the policy that we handle our grain through the wheat board, that we do not press it on the market unduly and that we try to keep a fair price level for that grain. But it is also a policy that recognizes the fact that if you keep your price out of line with that of other exporting countries, they will sell their grain and you will not sell yours.
We had an experience of that situation back in the days of the thirties. When we refused to sell, our wheat piled up and other taxpayers in Canada began to get uneasy, as was to be expected. The result was that our wheat ultimately had to be sold at low prices because we could not keep it indefinitely. But our farmers realize that what is needed is a policy of moderation in this matter, one of working as much as possible with our great neighbour to the south. I believe that country recognizes its obligations under NATO but also is in the position that she is under pressure from competition from South American countries. She is beset by those two considerations. But I am satisfied that she is prepared to consult with us and to try to maintain a fair deal in prices for herself and for us also.
I am satisfied that in the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the wheat board we have people who will examine that situation and who will get as good a proposition for Canada as that which will be obtained by the representatives of any other country in the world. When we have a situation like that, with a capable wheat board that everybody upholds and a Minister of Trade and Commerce who is regarded as one of the outstanding businessmen in the western nations today-when we have the privilege of having him do this work, acting as a liaison between the western grain growers, the wheat board and the government of this country; when we have a man of that great ability, acknowledged over the whole world, who played such a great part before the war, during the war and after the war-I say that I am satisfied that I can go to 95 per cent of the farmers whom I have the honour to represent and that they will say to me: While we sometimes do not like the bluntness of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and we sometimes do not like the things he says in answer to our requests, we know that he is honest, that he is capable and that he is doing the very best he can for us; we are glad that he is there.


Douglas Scott Harkness: See them smiling.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The pause is so that the minister can stand up and bow.


Walter Adam Tucker: Not at all. That remark reminds me of "The Merchant of Venice"; we judge others by the way we think ourselves.


George Hugh Castleden: Is that the beginning or the conclusion?


Walter Adam Tucker: I have often wondered how it was that the C.C.F. got certain ideas about other people, and that is the only conclusion I can come to as to how they got them. I will tell the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that I paused because I wanted to find a statement made by a member of his own party before the 'committee on agriculture. I thought he would be interested in it. It will be found at page 176 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), a member of the C.C.F., in regard to the wheat board stated as follows:


Mr. Argue:: As one member of the committee and I am sure that I can speak on behalf of my associates here, the other members of the committee, in saying that we have had a very pleasant experience throughout with the board's appearing before the agriculture committee. This has been our experience before the agriculture committee. This has been our experience every time the board has appeared before the committee. I am sure we all appreciate the very co-operative way in which the members of the board have answered questions, the very full and valuable information they have given us, and I am sure that we and the producers of western Canada which they represent wish them continuing success in their operations this coming year.


George Hugh Castleden: What a terrible attack!


Walter Adam Tucker: It is not an attack.


George Hugh Castleden: The hon. member said we attacked the board.


Walter Adam Tucker: It is an endorsation-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Walter Adam Tucker: - on the floor of the agriculture committee, to the effect that the wheat board had had success and they wished them continuing success.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Walter Adam Tucker: I ask the hon. member if they agree with that. Why did they not move to strike out the amendment moved on behalf of the Progressive Conservatives rather than endorse it and add something onto it?


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Edward George McCullough: On a
question of privilege-


Walter Adam Tucker: There is just one thing-


Edward George McCullough: On a
question of privilege-


Walter Adam Tucker: The hon. member can ask his question afterwards.


Edward George McCullough: On a
question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I understand the hon. member is rising on a question of privilege.


Edward George McCullough: Yes,
Mr. Speaker. I want to point out-


An hon. Member:: What is the question of privilege?


Edward George McCullough: -
that the amendment which we moved to the amendment-


An hon. Member:: We have all read it.


Edward George McCullough: -is not
in any way-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member please come immediately to his question of privilege?


Edward George McCullough: We in
this group at no time have done anything other than support the Canadian wheat board. We have never attacked the Canadian wheat board.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The remarks of the hon. member do not constitute a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Walter Adam Tucker: I think the amendment and the subamendment moved will speak for themselves. Our people in western Canada are intelligent and they understand what you have done.
There is one thing I wish to deal with before concluding, I understand my time has almost elapsed. I want to bring one matter to the attention of the government. The submission of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to the government stated this:
The problem of providing federal guarantees on bank loans secured by farm-stored grain has been before your government in the fairly recent past. While we do not believe that the lack of such guarantee has worked very much hardship on western farmers as yet, during this crop year, we believe that as the season advances a definite need for such interim financing may arise. Under such circumstances lack of federal action could cause unnecessary hardship to substantial numbers of individuals. We would therefore ask that you keep this problem under constant review, prepared to act when necessary.
What I wish to suggest to the government is this. With present circumstances as they are, it may be that it will not be possible to take delivery of a very great amount of the crop of 1954. If the crop is as good as it appears that it may be, and as we hope it will be, it will cost quite a bit to take it off. Many farmers will be needing help to finance
Wheat

Marketing of Surplus their harvesting operations, and when the situation is not in any way of their own making I do suggest that the government should examine the matter very closely and, if they cannot take delivery of enough of the crop to cover the financing of harvesting it, make the necessary financing as cheap and as available as possible. Now that the Emergency Powers Act has expired I believe there is no provision in the statutes whereby the government can make provision for farmers to borrow enough to cover harvesting expenses under some partial guarantee as in the case of the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
I would ask the government most sincerely to give consideration to the situation with which we may be confronted in a matter of a couple of months from now or less than that and to make sure that if the situation turns out to be such that the government is satisfied that the farmers need help to harvest their crop provision will be made for them to borrow the necessary money under some partial government guarantee scheme as in the case of the Farm Improvement Loans Act.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I thought everything was O.K. over there.


Walter Adam Tucker: I think the people are satisfied that the government is doing everything possible. My hon. friend's colleague the member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden) says that the situation is due to big crops. The government takes no credit for good crops and, after all, it should not be blamed for them either. I do suggest that consideration should be given to the possibility that action may be necessary if we have another good crop and that the government should provide itself with the necessary powers to initiate such action if necessary. In that regard I disagree most profoundly with the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Argue). Our farmers are in such a financial condition, as pointed out by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Mang) the other day, that I think if they can get credit-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am extremely sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.


Walter Adam Tucker: May I finish my sentence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let him finish.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Let him go ahead.


Walter Adam Tucker: -that if they can get credit they will be glad to pay for it at the rate of 5 per cent, the same rate as under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. The farmers of western Canada are only too glad to be able to stand upon their own feet-

Wheat-Marketing of Surplus


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Walter Adam Tucker: -and I am satisfied that they will be ready and willing to pay a reasonable rate of interest. All I ask is that the government make sure that they have the power to extend that financial help if it is needed.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: They do not want to get into debt.


John Hornby Harrison: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) has run out of time but I still have a little left and I should like to continue along the line he was following. I too have listened to some of the debate, particularly some of the speeches from the C.C.F. benches. I listened particularly to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) the other night and I found some of his philosophy not at all surprising. It is the philosophy that you would expect him, as a socialist, to have. There was some difference of opinion between the hon. member for Assiniboia and the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough) as to who was responsible for the economic situation in Saskatchewan and the good thereof. I think I understood the hon. member for Moose Mountain to say that all of Saskatchewan's present prosperity is attributable to the government at Regina. I think there should be a caucus among that group to decide who is who because the hon. member for Assiniboia expressed a very different opinion. If you will look at page 5737 of Hansard of June 9 you will find that he said:
And so X say that this government-
He is talking about the federal government. -is directly responsible for the economic position of western Canada today.
I suggest that is diametrically opposed to what was stated by the hon. member for Moose Mountain when he attributed all the economic weal of Saskatchewan to the government of Mr. Douglas.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Weal to Douglas, woe to Gardiner.


John Hornby Harrison: Then there are some other things on which I think we should dwell such as how much stock we can take in the pronouncements of our friends on the other side, particularly in the C.C.F. group.


An hon. Member:: Very little.


John Hornby Harrison: My colleague says "very little", and I am inclined to agree with him.


Mr. Thatcher:: He is biased.


John Hornby Harrison: The hon. member for
Assiniboia questioned the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and made a gentleman's agreement with him in the
[Mr. Tucker.)
course of the debate that if the minister would give him certain information he would sit down. He operated like a true C.C.F.'er. The hon. member obtained the undertaking of the minister to fulfil his requirement to the letter but when he was called upon to fulfil his part of the bargain he operated like a true socialist and would not come through. There is nothing new in that. That is the cause of all our international troubles today. When we sit across the table from these people who are causing trouble in the world we cannot take their word for what they say. That is the reason we have these problems, because we are always sitting across the table from socialists. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) has these problems every day. When he talks business with any of these people who are causing trouble he is always talking with socialists. That is the basic trouble. You cannot take their word for anything. There is no such thing as integrity in these people. When they say they are going to sit down they stand up.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Would the hon. member describe Mr. Attlee-


John Hornby Harrison: Would you just sit down. You will have forty minutes later.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Would he put Mr. Attlee in that category?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John Hornby Harrison: When they say in Saskatchewan that they are going to take off the education tax it means that they are not going to take it off but are going to increase it, which they did by 50 per cent. If they say they are going to take the civil service out of politics it means they are going to put them into politics. They put through legislation to bring the civil service into politics. What do you find? You find C.C.F. candidates with campaign managers supplied by the department of public health, and so on.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Name one. You cannot
do it. Name one.


John Hornby Harrison: When a C.C.F.'er says that he is going to go north you go south if you want to catch him and you will catch him. I am glad-


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: On a point of order-
Seme hon. Members: Sit down.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: The hon. member in effect is calling me a liar and I resent it.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: No. On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I understand that the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre is raising a point of order.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: The hon. member in effect has called me a liar, along with my other colleagues. I demand that he withdraw and I think his remarks should be expunged from the record.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I was listening to the remarks of the hon. member for Meadow Lake. They were of a general nature and I did not hear any particular reference to the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre to which he could take exception.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Very respectfully, Mr. Speaker, may I just remind you of one. He said that when a C.C.F.'er says he is going north if you go south you will find him. On three or four occasions the hon. member said that the word of C.C.F.'ers could not be taken. I resent that, and I think in all fairness the hon. member should withdraw even if you will not make him.


John Hornby Harrison: I think I can satisfy the hon. member personally when I say that I think he has demonstrated that he is no C.C.F.'er.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Mr. Speaker, I certainly am a C.C.F.'er.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Prove it.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I still say that the hon.
member has accused me of being a liar and I should like him to withdraw. I think if he is fair he will withdraw.


John Hornby Harrison: Mr. Speaker, if it will do the hon. gentleman any good I will withdraw as far as he personally is concerned, but as far as socialists generally are concerned I certainly will not do so.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: On a point of order____


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Perhaps we could terminate this discussion without too much trouble. I understand that the remarks to which objection has been taken is something about going north, and then you would find them going south.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: That is one of them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I really cannot find that a remark of that kind is unparliamentary. Objection may be taken by hon. members opposite the speaker, but they will have the opportunity of reply.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: On a point of order: the hon. member has withdrawn so far as the member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre is concerned, but it places the rest of us in this particular group in the position where it is 83276-380
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus claimed that our word cannot be accepted. I believe that if the hon. member wishes to observe the rules of this house he should withdraw his remarks without any further delay.


John Hornby Harrison: I believe I can satisfy-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. If the hon.
member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Harrison) made any implication he would not accept the word of hon. members, I am sure he would be quite willing to withdraw.


John Hornby Harrison: What I was going on to say, Mr. Speaker-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: On a point of order: the hon. member has refused to withdraw the objectionable remarks in regard to the members of this group.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps if the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) would give the hon. member for Meadow Lake time, he would make the withdrawal.


John Hornby Harrison: I think when the hon. member for Mackenzie sees where I am going he will find that he has no objection that he can rightly make. My explanation to him would be as follows: he will find the remarks of the hon. member for Assiniboia at page 5738 of Hansard for June 9, 1954. During those remarks he agreed with the Minister of Trade and Commerce that if the minister gave him certain information at that time, he would sit down. He did not do that.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: He sat down, and then he got up again.


John Hornby Harrison: The hon. member went back on his half of the agreement. The hon. member for Assiniboia is spokesman for that group in agricultural matters.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Hornby Harrison: Just let me finish this thing The house had a demonstration of just how good their word is, and what an agreement means to this kind of people. We have had plenty of experience along that line in Saskatchewan.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: -the hon. member is trying to prove, by what he has just said-


John Hornby Harrison: There is proof right on these pages, and everybody saw it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member for Assiniboia will defend himself, but I insist that the hon. member for Meadow Lake withdraw

Wheat-Marketing of Surplus his claim that the word of members of this group cannot be accepted. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if the member will not withdraw voluntarily you should require him to make the necessary withdrawal.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As I said before, although I followed the discussion with some care I did not get the impression that the hon. member for Meadow Lake had made any imputation. Nevertheless if the hon. member for Meadow Lake imputed that the word of hon. members opposite him could not be believed, he will, of course, withdraw. I am sure he would be glad to withdraw.


John Hornby Harrison: If that were the case, I would do so, but I am talking of a particular case in this house and every member saw it. There is nothing to withdraw because I take it that if the hon. member sitting there, and who has risen so many times on questions of privilege and points of order, had not agreed with the exhibition put on at that time he would have gotten up and taken exception to it. It was at that time he should have risen on points of order and questions of privilege, when the member for Assiniboia put on that exhibition. If the hon. member did not agree, that was the time to say so.
What I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, is that that is the situation with socialists generally, that is the trouble we have internationally, because you cannot make agreements with these people. They do not keep their half of the agreement. Possibly if we got rid of that type of thinking in the world we would not be faced with this debate now.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: You could not trust Mr. Attlee?


John Hornby Harrison: To give these gentlemen credit, this type of thinking was not originated by them. It was first invoked in Grecian times when Philip of Greece used this kind of-


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Let us get back to wheat.


John Hornby Harrison: We are into this subject now, and we might as well go through with it. When Philip of Greece wanted to take over a neighbouring country, he immediately said he was good friends with them. They knew then they were going to have their throat cut next morning. This system of attack has been taken over by the socialists and is still used. When the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics want to take over some country, they immediately sign a friendship pact with those people. They move in and cut their throats next morning, then take their goods and chattels.


Well, it was along this line that Demosthenes made his first Philippic or his first speech against Philip of Greece.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Let us get back to wheat.


John Hornby Harrison: I should like to just quote a remark made by Demosthenes on this type of thinking. It is a remark from the first speech by Demosthenes against Philip.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Mr. Speaker, when do we get to wheat, which is the main point in this discussion?


John Hornby Harrison: I think the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) will enjoy this, and very likely it will help him in the future to sell hardware. The quotation is as follows:
And who is it that deceives the state? Surely, it is the man who speaks not what he thinks.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Is that what you are doing?


John Hornby Harrison: The quotation continues:
What greater crime can an orator be charged with than that his opinions and his language are not the same.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I charge you.


John Hornby Harrison: How often do we find the opinions of these gentlemen and their language not the same? They get up and make speeches inside this house, then you talk to them outside of it and find they have different opinions altogether.
When we get back to the subject of wheat we find that we have had a lot of discussion about wheat and the plight of the farmers in the west. When we first came to Ottawa for this session last fall we had a new crop of C.C.F.'ers fresh from the hustings in Saskatchewan, who had been expounding a theory out there. They had been saying: if you send us down there we will be a voice for you in the parliament of Canada. What a voice they have been! If we read the speeches in Hansard of last fall referring to agricultural matters, what do we find? The hon. members opposite preached blue ruin to such an extent that the leader of that party got up the other day and said that was not the situation they wanted to convey. The hon. member for Moose Mountain did a little more work along that line today.
Anyone who is engaged in trade, either personal, national or international, knows that if you want to sell something you advertise it. The type of business you get in return depends upon the kind of advertising you put out. Of course if you advertise that you have so much Wheat you do not know what you 'are going to do with it, the farmers are

broke and have to sell and do not know what they are going to do with this wheat, as has been done by some gentlemen here who are the voice of the farmers in the west, naturally you are going to get results from that advertising. I believe that one of the reasons we are having this debate, and having all the trouble in selling this wheat, is that kind of advertising from those members here.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Why do you not tell that to the Minister of Trade and Commerce?


John Hornby Harrison: If these members had genuinely wanted to help the western farmers, they would not have put out that kind of advertising.
The system of advertising in ancient days was for peddlers to shout their wares. When one went to London then one did not find these street peddlers selling their wares by saying they were poor quality, or they had such a stock that they despaired of selling it. Everybody knows that a fish peddler does not sell his fish by shouting, "rotten fish!" He will say that the supply is very limited, and that the fish are the very best.
But these gentlemen opposite come down here and shout "rotten fish!" They have done that for several days on several occasions, and now the pigeons have come home to roost. And they are surprised. Well, it is indicated that they think there is some soft-pedalling should be done, with respect to this blue ruin talk, by the remarks the other day by the leader of the C.C.F. party, and those of the hon. member for Moose Mountain.
I was interested in some of the other theories offered by the hon. member for Assiniboia the other night. He said that the government south of the line has a much more progressive policy in handling grain than we have. Of course he was speaking about their subsidy policy. My hon. friend from Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) touched upon that. Then, the hon. member for Assiniboia said that this federal government, the one we have here and the one I have the honour to be a member of-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Since when?


John Hornby Harrison: -has never done anything about floor prices. Well, I suggest to the house that no other government in this country, except this government, ever did anything about floor prices. And if the farmers in the west are up against the decision of either taking the word of this government that it will stand behind them, or taking the word as set out in the amendment moved by members of the opposition- especially after the demonstration that was 83276-380i
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus given to them as to what their word is worth, and in this very debate, by the hon. member for Assiniboia-well, I think there is not much doubt about where the farmers will stand, and in whom they will have faith.
Certainly we are up against a difficult situation in view of the surpluses in the United States. That very policy that they have in the United States is the cause of our trouble, and I do not think anyone will disagree with that. When that policy was put into effect it was an incentive proposition to persuade the farmers to grow grain, because the supply was short and our allies had to be supplied. At that time it was considered to be a short-term policy. But having caught the tiger by the tail, the administration over there have not been too prone to let it go, because they are getting scratched a little bit while hanging on. And they will get clawed and bitten besides if they let go of it.
I think they have grown over a billion bushels of grain in that country for several years in a row. They have three quarters of a billion on hand now, and they are going to grow another billion this year. Yet they are going to provide an incentive policy down there to have them grow more. Well, I suggest to hon. members opposite, or to anyone else, that if that policy had not been followed across the line we would not be engaged in this debate. This top-heavy surplus was caused by the incentive-and under the conditions when the policy was originated, the incentive was required because the grain was required. But once that grain is available, and they have satisfied their requirements, there is not much use keeping on with that incentive.
Certainly the government over there owes its farmers a living, just as this one does. But I think when it comes down to brass tacks this government will stand behind the western farmer so far as seeing that he gets a fair return for his produce is concerned.


Edward George McCullough: Does not the hon. member realize that under the present program in the United States the farmer in that country will not lose by that policy?


John Hornby Harrison: The farmer will not lose by it, no-that is, immediately. But how long will it be before he will lose? The farmer in this country is the one I am interested in, and he is losing by the continuation of that policy over there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Our subamendment seeks to rectify that.


John Hornby Harrison: I do not want hon. members to get away with the idea that I would not

Wheat-Marketing of Surplus agree to some form of subsidy for our farmers. I would tell them definitely that that is not my idea, and that is not the idea of this government, either. When floors are required they will be forthcoming from this government, but not under the conditions we have now, not with the surpluses of grain they have in the United States where they have put on an incentive. That will not cure the situation.


Edward George McCullough: Do you
believe in parity prices for farmers?


John Hornby Harrison: That is the trouble with the situation; the parity price they have over there is unrealistic in the light of the world market. That price might be all right if the world market were at a higher level, but not at the present time. What you want to get rid of is the incentive idea with surpluses of that kind on your hands.


Edward George McCullough: You are sure getting rid of it.


John Hornby Harrison: It may not be the kind of thing my hon. friends would go into, because they want to have votes. That is all they are interested in. They are not interested in discussing or facing the facts.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Nonsense.


John Hornby Harrison: They want votes.
Another one of the dissertations of the hon. member was the proposition that we should tax and spend, tax and spend, and should go in for deficit financing. Well, I wonder if the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre goes in for that in his business? I do not think so.


An hon. Member:: He does not look like it.


Mr. Campbell:: On a point of order. The hon. member for Assiniboia was quoting Mr. Roosevelt.


John Hornby Harrison: Mr. Truman, with which he thoroughly agreed, yes. He said he thoroughly agreed with it; and that is just the point. I am glad the hon. member raised the point of order. In other words the hon. member for Assiniboia wants deficit financing in times of prosperity. What are you going to have when times are bad?


George Hugh Castleden: A Liberal government.


John Hornby Harrison: It is quite natural to hear that remark from a socialist, that we should have a policy of tax and spend, tax and spend, and that we should go in for deficit financing. Because the whole basis of the socialist theory is to get something from somebody else for nothing-you do not care whether it is from your children or your grandchildren. But so long as it is deficit

financing you are not going to pay for it. Your children may pay it after a while; and if they don't, then it will be your grandchildren or your great-grandchildren. Somebody else will be paying it, and you do not have to. That is socialist thinking. I can see where that comes in. And I was not surprised to hear that from the hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Your government has failed to reduce the national debt.


John Hornby Harrison: This government, since it has been in office, has reduced the national debt right along.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Angus MacInnis: That's a bright one.


John Hornby Harrison: With the exception of the war years.


George Hugh Castleden: Oh yes!


John Hornby Harrison: And that is a horse of a different colour, of course. And nobody else has done any better in any other country. We used to hear a good deal about Australia from our socialist friends, but now we hear more about Great Britain. Well, in Great Britain, when they had their Labour government, they did not do any better nor as well at debt reduction. I hear my hon. friends laugh; they think that is funny.
The fact of the matter is that this government has made some approach toward reducing our debt, and no government that made the stand it did during the war, paid as much as it went along as this one did-and we were engaged in the same war. No other government that was engaged in that war has as good a record as this one has, in the matter of its financing, not even the United States government across the border. And certainly our record since the war is a lot better than the record south of the border. They have been engaged in deficit financing, and I do not think it has got them anywhere, certainly no farther ahead than we have got.
And so, Mr. Speaker, I think those were the main points I wished to make.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: What were they, Jack?


John Hornby Harrison: I am glad the hon. member asked that. He wants to know what they were. One of the main points I wish to make is the reliability and integrity that people can expect from members of that group-and I still except the hon. member who has interrupted; but when he makes interruptions he must expect the answers he receives. That is the main point I wanted to make. That kind of thinking from socialists in all parts of the world is the thing that anybody will agree is causing our troubles internationally and bringing about our dilemma and our not

being able to settle differences, because you have nobody on which you can rely to settle them with.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What a tremendous contribution this has been!


John Hornby Harrison: Thank you, sir; it may not have been as lengthy as some of your own.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member is for lower prices for wheat.


John Hornby Harrison: I hear a voice from the wilderness talking about lower prices for wheat. I do not think that I would be advocating lower prices for wheat. I am not defending holding it in the bag, and certainly when it comes to the farmer deciding whether our present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) will handle our wheat to good advantage, or whether he can rely on the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson), with his blue ruin talks, to get him a better price he will certainly give the nod by a slight margin to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Speaker, before we grant supply in this house it is a member's right to draw the attention of the government to the difficulties and problems of people in his part of the country. We are availing ourselves of that right at this time by moving that before we go into supply the government, because of the condition of world markets today, should deal with the problem of placing a floor under the price of farmers' wheat.
It is rather to be regretted that government members take this opportunity to drag in a lot of provincial politics. The hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) is singing his usual song of remorse over his own failure-


Walter Adam Tucker: On a question of privilege-


George Hugh Castleden: He went out like a knight in shining armour some years ago to conquer the province of Saskatchewan, and probably that is the cause of his remorse now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand that the hon. member for Rosthern is rising on a question of privilege.


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes. I sat down at least a half a dozen times for hon. members opposite. I would point out that I rose on a question of privilege to ask a question. Apparently the hon. member does not even want to let me correct him. He suggested that I dragged in provincial politics. I said nothing whatsoever about provincial politics. I challenge the hon. member to point to one thing I said.
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus He said I wailed over my failure in Saskatchewan. I challenge him to show one thing I said in regard to that matter.


George Hugh Castleden: I was referring to your
wailing voice, sorrow, regret and remorse hurled across the house, and the same goes for the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Harrison).


Some hon. Members:: Pretty weak.


George Hugh Castleden: Such knowledge and such insight, such an understanding of the people of Saskatchewan came from him. It was rather surprising that he did not do better while he was out there. He tried to build up a case for himself, and when he shouts his loudest you always know he has the weakest case. When he tries to say that the members of this party, the C.C.F., are in any way attacking or not supporting the Canadian wheat board, then he knows in his own heart that what he is trying to say is not right.


Walter Adam Tucker: On a question of privilege.


George Hugh Castleden: Not only have we supported the wheat board, we have-


Walter Adam Tucker: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Walter Adam Tucker: The hon. member has no right to say that I said something I did not believe. I believe that when they say what they have about the failure to market our wheat properly, they are attacking the wheat board. I believe it.


George Hugh Castleden: This party has always supported the wheat board.


Walter Adam Tucker: Hon. members opposite are very anxious to have the hon. member for Meadow Lake withdraw something that is not as bad by far as what was just said by the hon. member. He said that I said something that in my own heart I did not believe. I ask that he be asked to withdraw that in an unqualified way.


George Hugh Castleden: Mr. Speaker, what I said was this. When the hon. member tries to say that this party not only did not support the wheat board but attacked it, it is wrong. He knows we have never attacked the wheat board. We have always-


Walter Adam Tucker: That is not what the hon. member said. He cannot twist and squirm out of it. He said that I said something that in my own heart I did not believe. I ask that he be directed to withdraw that, Mr. Speaker.

Wheat-Marketing of Surplus


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member made the remark which the hon. member for Rosthern has said he did, of course he must withdraw it.


George Hugh Castleden: The remark which I used, Mr. Speaker, was-


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw like a man.


George Hugh Castleden: He knows the record of the C.C.F. party has always been in support of the wheat board. We support it; we always have supported it and we never attacked it.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


George Hugh Castleden: He tried to imply we did. We did not.


Walter Adam Tucker: The hon. gentleman is twisting and squirming. I am not surprised in view of the past attitude, but I do ask that you make him withdraw that statement. I suffered enough smears from people opposite and I am not going to stand for it in this house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Smear away.


George Hugh Castleden: The record stands.


Walter Adam Tucker: I ask the hon. member to withdraw.


George Hugh Castleden: The record stands exactly as I said it.


Walter Adam Tucker: I had enough smears from the people opposite. Again I say I do not accept it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member implied that the hon. member for Rosthern said something which he did not believe, then the hon. member for Yorkton realizes that he must withdraw, and I ask him to do so immediately.


George Hugh Castleden: Of course I would, Mr. Speaker. The record stands and what I said can easily be read in the record. It will be seen that our record stands just as clear as what I have said.


Jean-François Pouliot: Withdraw and don't repeat it.


George Hugh Castleden: Another statement which the hon. member for Rosthern did not quote quite correctly was the statement that the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave to us with regard to the position of Canada's wheat. Here are the actual words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce as recorded on page 5746 of Hansard:
If you expect to sell in a competitive world, the price must be competitive with prices offered by other countries.

He said nothing there about protecting others. He goes on:
That, I think, is the situation today.
That is taken directly from the record. That statement of the situation causes apprehension among the grain growers in the prairie provinces. There is the statement without reservation that prices can go to the very bottom, and still there is nothing in the way of floor prices to protect those grain growers.
Since this house opened last November we have been telling the minister and the cabinet that a very serious economic situation was developing in the west.


Clarence Decatur Howe: And the minister of finance in Saskatchewan has been telling the world the opposite.


George Hugh Castleden: Does the minister mean to say that there is no serious economic problem in the west?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am just giving the two stories, yours and that of the minister of finance in Saskatchewan.


George Hugh Castleden: Then there is no serious economic situation developing?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will let you choose.


George Hugh Castleden: I say that a serious economic situation is developing, and it has been developing for some time. It is the same across the whole of Canada. It is not true of Saskatchewan alone. It is true of Manitoba and Alberta and the figures already prove it. The next few months will prove it even worse.


Some hon. Members:: More blue ruin.


Walter Adam Tucker: You have been predicting that for ten years.


Jean-François Pouliot: Tune your violin.


George Hugh Castleden: You were out there for five of them; you know all about that. Under a Liberal set-up today the western grain growers, as compared with last year, have not only been curtailed in their deliveries, they have delivered 170 million bushels of grain less than last year. The reason for the apprehension in the west is that in the face of a drop in prices the farmer sees no possibility of reducing his cost of production along with that, and he is being caught short. We are merely asking that the government do something to protect those farmers from going into a complete collapse, and to stop prices from hitting the bottom.
Ever since last November we have been told that the situation was all right; that we

will do as well as we did last year; that we are above the 20-year average or the 10-year average. That situation has developed until the point is reached where the people here, who are trying to say that everything is all right, really believe it themselves. The minister's attitude can best be likened to that of a chap who sees someone falling out of a 30-storey window and when he had just passed the 20th storey window the watcher says: "What is he hollering about? He is all right so far."


Mr. Gour (Russell):: That is a baby story.


George Hugh Castleden: We are asking the minister and the government to place a floor under the price of wheat so as to prevent western agriculture from hitting the bottom with the resulting collapse not only of the economy in the west but of the entire economy of Canada.
The wheat producers have done their job. We believe the Canadian wheat board has done its job. It is the policies within the government which make it impossible for the wheat board to carry out the task of maintaining prices. The producers must depend upon the policies of the federal Department of Trade and Commerce, and they have to try to maintain markets in other countries and sell their goods at a proper price regardless of the fact that Canada is a high priced economy. I know that that is difficult in view of the high prices of goods produced in Canada today. It is not this 10-cent drop in the price of wheat which bothers us, it is the situation behind that and what it implies.
The producers are entitled to some form of security and this amendment asks for that. If a price war starts the producers will be facing a very serious situation indeed. They are perturbed about how far the price is going to be cut. The minister says, "Well, we live in a competitive world and we have to meet that competitive price." But our neighbour to the south does not require the producers there to face that danger. The farmers there are guaranteed a pretty high floor under a government subsidy. We think the Canadian producer is entitled to something. We do not ask for $2.21 a bushel, but we do ask for enough to be paid so that the producer will be kept in business and so that he can continue his operations. That is the reason for our amendment.
The minister is well aware that there is a very critical situation with regard to delivery and ready cash in the west. That problem does not face the farmer in the U.S.A. The prairie farmer today is facing not only a situation of abundant crops, and lower prices, he is also facing the fact that within 90 days he may be harvesting another
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus crop. If there is no floor price and no assurance today that in another 90 days when he begins to harvest his crop it will pay him to do so, then he is obviously in a serious predicament. Can there not be some floor price under these commodities? The purpose of this amendment is quite clear. We want a floor price so that the farmer can have some assurance that it will be worth his while to continue his production and so that he can plan his production in regard to that price.
The situation in the west is severe. There is not only the matter of production, but there is also the matter of distribution and the matter of storing the crop he has already sown. The farmers in the west deserve to have a guarantee of some form of security.
The other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce said something which caused some concern among hon. members here, namely, as to what could be done with regard to the disposition of the wheat. He said, as reported at page 5749 of Hansard:
Now, there is another fallacy, namely, that there are millions of starving people in this world who would be glad to get the wheat if someone gave it to them. I wish people who make that statement would just tell me where those people are and how we can get the wheat to them.
Later, he added:
I wish my hon. friend and other hon. members of this house who keep referring to the fact that there are starving peoples who would be glad to take large quantities of surplus wheat if we were willing to give it away would just remember these facts.
I do not know the minister's source of information but, according to the food and agriculture organization, a branch of the United Nations, which has at its disposal some of the finest experts in the world who have made a study of this problem, there are more than a billion people in the world today who require food and do not have enough. Surely the minister is aware that there is need for food in the world today and that that food should be delivered to those who need it.
In western Canada during the past eight years we have enjoyed a period of general expansion and prosperity. The farmer's income has been high and we recognize that. But along with his expanding income the cost of production has been expanding at an even greater rate. The cost of everything which goes into production has increased in price until today the farmers' margin is much less than it was a few years ago.
The tragedy of the situation today is not so much the drop in price but the fact that if a serious drop in price occurs today the farmers' losses can be terrific because of the terrifically high cost of production. That is

Private Bills
the reason for the very urgent demand on the part of the grain growers that a floor price be placed under the farmers' commodities so that they can be guaranteed something and the loss will not wipe them out.
If there is no floor price under these commodities then the farmers of western Canada will be placed in the same position as that of many of the fishermen in the maritimes when there was no market for their fish. They will be in the same position as the Cape Breton coal miners who now find the coal mines closing down and oil being substituted. They will find themselves in exactly the same position as the workers in the farm implement plants who are now laid off, and in exactly the same position as the automobile workers who are facing a substantial reduction in plant staff, which has increased Canada's unemployed ranks to a very critical point. The farmer has no unemployment insurance.
The Canadian producer requires some basic security and if he can get it he will continue his purchases with regard to farm machinery and the plants will continue to operate. They ask this government to consider a floor price and to maintain that price on the basis of the price maintained by the wheat board as of June 4. If that is done it will restore some faith to the producer of wheat, and guarantee some security to the entire Canadian economy. More important it will bolster up the purchasing power of all Canadians and greatly improve the situation. If that is not done then in this peacetime competitive world about which the minister speaks, thousands of producers will be wiped out in western Canada and that will reduce the western economy to niggardly existence, lower the standard of living will result, and the purchasing power of the entire nation will be affected. The economic effect of this will cause distress and trouble in every part of Canada.
The choice rests with the cabinet. On behalf of those people in the west who are undertaking the production of food and to save them from what can be economic disaster I would ask the government to make this choice immediately and assist those who face this very serious and critical situation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to a consideration of private and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
House in committee on Bill No. 472 (Letter N-15 of the Senate), intituled: "An act to incorporate Canadian Slovak League". (Without amendment).- Mr. Reinke.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On the order paper there is this bill and a number of divorce bills. Is it agreeable to the house that these bills be considered in one motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to the house going into committee on these bills on the one motion, provided it is understood that when we get into committee we shall deal with the bills separately.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on these bills?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADIAN SLOVAK LEAGUE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 472, to incorporate Canadian Slovak League-Mr. Reinke-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Incorporation.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder whether the sponsor of the bill would not like to have this opportunity of saying a few words about it? He did not have that opportunity on second reading.


Mr. Reinke:: Mr. Chairman, in order to bring hon. members up to date and to give an explanation of what this bill is about possibly I might briefly explain the background of the Canadian Slovak League. It was founded in Winnipeg in 1932 and received its letters patent from the Secretary of State of Canada in April, 1934 and acquired the usual corporate powers that an organization of that type would acquire. The Canadian Slovak League was set up as a social and a cultural organization. I could possibly read some of the aims as outlined in the letters patent but I shall not unless hon. members would like me to do so. There are some 57 adult branches spread across Canada from one coast to the other. In all there are probably in the neighbourhood of 3,800 adults and possibly 700 junior members of the society.
This bill corresponds with similar bills which the House of Commons has already passed. The head office will be at Fort William, Ontario. It is to be a fraternal benefit society so incorporated as to have the power to create an insurance fund and a department for the aid of its members and dependents and to undertake with its members a contract or contracts of life, disability and sickness insurance as well as to provide for the investment of the funds of the said society and to define the rights of members of such society, all of which is to be for the benefit and protection of its members.

It is because it proposes to exercise these special powers that it is necessary to come to parliament and to ask for the corporate rights under this bill. The proposals which the bill contains as to membership, management, directors and bylaws have satisfied the superintendent of insurance but until the actual bylaws are approved the superintendent, of course, will not allow the society to engage in business. I understand the superintendent of insurance also has approved the provisions of the bill with reference to the maintenance of a general fund, and such matters as premiums, assessments, disposition of surplus assets and so on. I am further informed that the superintendent of insurance has been supplied with an actuarial report on the financial position of the society and that the report is satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
On clause 4-Objects of the society.
Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that I was not at the banking and commerce committee meeting at which, I understand, this bill was considered. Paragraph (c) of subsection 2 of clause 4 reads as follows:
(c) A juvenile insurance fund for providing death or endowment benefits in respect of any child, or any child under the guardianship, of any member.
I have noticed within the last several years that the regular life insurance companies are not particularly happy about writing death insurance policies for young children. I am just a little bit worried whether it is wise to have this authority granted to any benevolent society. Some recognition is being granted by most insurance companies to the proposition that some measure of death benefit, even for a child, may serve a useful purpose because even for a child there are unexpected last expenses such as funeral expenses and so on. However, I think the practice now is that insurance companies have a maximum which they have voluntarily set for themselves and that they will not accept death payment policies on behalf of minors over and beyond a certain limit. Here no limit is set or stipulated. I hope that the management of the society will bear that tendency in mind and that they will, in their regulations, definitely follow the practice that is now being followed by the life insurance companies.


Russell Earl Reinke: I might inform the hon. member that when this bill was discussed in the committee in the presence of the superintendent of insurance the particular matter referred to by the hon. member came up for discussion. The superintendent was quite 83276-381
Private Bills
satisfied that under the provisions of the bylaws this matter would be taken care of and that it would be administered in the same manner as it is administered by insurance companies. As the matter is handled by insurance companies, I believe the maximum for a child of one year or under is $100 and that it ranges from there on up to the age of ten years, at which time they are able to procure $1,000. As I said, I believe the superintendent was quite satisfied that this provision would be handled in the same manner.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 5-Members.
Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: I must apologize first of all, Mr. Chairman, for not having been at the meeting of the banking and commerce committee which discussed this bill. Had I been there I would have raised the point that I am now going to raise with regard to section 5. In this section I notice that there is a definition of the persons who are eligible to join this particular association. Surely it must be unique in Canadian legislation that we should provide for the formation of a body, the members of which are to be loyal to the Christian and democratic traditions of another nation. I do not quite know what that means. For instance, I do not know what are the Christian and democratic traditions of the Slovak nation, and I doubt whether many members of this committee know what they are. Most of the members are, I imagine, in the position that I am in. We know of the Czechoslovakian nation which disappeared, first of all, under the impact of nazism and which was later reconstituted to disappear later under the impact of communism. We know of a previous development in the Slovakian part of Czechoslovakia under a rather notorious individual known as Tizo, if I remember rightly, heading a pro-fascist organization.
What I am afraid of is that, in the first place, this parliament of Canada is giving official recognition to a divided loyalty on the part of residents in Canada. In the second place, we may be doing something else. I have an uneasy suspicion that here we have provision being made for what, shall I say, is the other side of the coin of totalitarian communism and that we are providing a battleground within Canada for an ideological and a nationalistic struggle between two groups of people who should, in all common sense and in all decency, be far more concerned with becoming effective members of the Canadian community.

Private Bills
It has been said of course, and said quite rightly, that our philosophy in Canada in regard to the absorption of other peoples has been that of unity in diversity, that we have attempted to provide every opportunity for the various ethnic groups who make up our population to maintain their own cultural characteristics and to make their contribution to the Canadian community on the basis of their cultural diversity. But I think that the implication might be taken from this that it goes beyond that, that we are giving our blessing to a sort of conditional loyalty to the Canadian community and the Canadian idea.
I realize of course that it is much easier for a member of the English or French speaking groups in Canada to adopt the attitude I am now adopting. I realize that for those who belong to ethnic minorities there must be a very great temptation to constitute a little enclave of their own language and ethnical group in Canada, but I do not think the parliament of Canada should condone that sort of development in our community. In fact I think it is not too much to say that we have in the past condoned far too much of that in Canada and that many of our social troubles within the Dominion of Canada have resulted from far too lackadaisical an outlook on this question of people coming to Canada and not fully absorbing the Canadian point of view and the Canadian approach.
I would specifically register my very strong objection to this Canadian parliament endorsing words in a piece of Canadian legislation by which we are to recognize that persons who are residents at least, if not citizens of Canada, are to have the right to be loyal to the traditions of another nation which is specifically set out in the legislation. Certainly the only purposes in this legislation that we can condone are quite well fulfilled in the first words of that particular section, "only persons deemed by the society to be loyal to the free institutions of Canada". That will, I think, quite effectively rule out those people who they may fear might try to join their organization, people who might be prepared to act as the agents of communist organizations abroad. I think if they insist that they be loyal to the free institutions of Canada that is all that this parliament should be prepared to assist them to do. It is no business of this parliament to promote loyalty to any other institutions, to any other democratic traditions, to any other nationalistic traditions. Our duty is confined to ensuring loyalty to Canadian traditions and to Canadian institutions.


Russell Earl Reinke: Section 5 reads as follows:
Only persons deemed by the society to be loyal to the free institutions of Canada and to the Christian and democratic traditions of the Slovak nation-
Actually the purpose of this wording is to give the association the right to choose its membership. There have been various approaches to the same type of authority to choose membership. In some cases the marginal notes, while they mean the same, are actually different. For instance, I have a bill before me where the marginal note is "powers of association". Another one is "qualification for membership". Another uses the word "members" and another "control of society". It is my understanding that in several of these bills the language generally has been to this effect, and I am now reading from a bill to incorporate the Sons of Scotland Benevolent Association as passed by the Senate in March, 1937. The section there reads in this way:
Only persons deemed by the association to be of Scottish origin . . . shall be admitted as members of the association . . .
That is an excerpt from a bill passed by the Senate in 1937 and it refers to persons "only of Scottish origin".


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is pretty broad.


Colin Cameron: That is a different matter. That is the matter of origin.


Russell Earl Reinke: Actually the clause in the
present bill has reference to origin as well as Christian and democratic traditions and loyalty to Canada. That is the full meaning of that clause. I might point out to hon. members that I have some other examples here. For instance, I have here an act to incorporate the St. Nicholas Mutual Benefit Association. Under "control of society" it is stated that only persons considered by the society to be of Ukrainian origin and who are of the Greek Catholic faith in communion with the Holy See of Rome shall be admitted as members of the society.


Colin Cameron: That is quite
different.


Russell Earl Reinke: I cannot agree with my hon. friend on that score. I suppose no fault can be found with the reference in the bill before us to persons deemed to be loyal to the Christian and democratic traditions and, as I have pointed out, the reference to the Slovak nation merely refers to the fact that only those persons who are deemed to be of Slovak origin will be admitted.


Colin Cameron: I would submit that is what it should say. My fears have

not been allayed by what the hon. member has said just now, and I am very much afraid that the yardstick that is going to be used by this society is not the yardstick of devotion to the democratic ideals of Canada, which is the only thing this house should be concerned with, but the yardstick of the devotion of these people to some organization or group in Europe holding we do not know what concepts of democracy, holding perhaps some rather dubious concepts from our point of view. I suggest there is no justification for putting that in here at all and that the only purpose of it can be to separate, from the point of view of this society, the sheep from the goats. The only way in which we as the parliament of Canada can justify the separation of the sheep from the goats in this way is by deciding that it should be confined to people who are loyal to the free institutions of Canada, and I think we should confine ourselves to that. I should like to see the sponsor of the bill agree to the deletion of the reference to the traditions of the Slovak nation.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, the sponsor of the bill quoted from a bill passed by the Senate some years ago incorporating a Scottish society, but what he quoted is altogether different from what is contained in this bill. He referred also to another bill, but what he quoted from both bills in support of what is in this bill has no relation to what is in this bill at all. I do not believe there would be any objection to having this read something like this: "Only persons deemed by the society to be loyal to the free institutions of Canada and of Slovak origin." That is what is in the other bill. It refers to people of Scottish origin. It does not say they have to be loyal to Scotland before they can become a member of that society.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does one have to eat haggis?


Angus MacInnis: That is a test on which my friend would be rejected right away, but it is not provided for in the bill. I think the hon. member would be well advised to make it read "of Slovak origin" and leave all the rest out.


Mr. Harris:: Mr. Chairman, it is not often that I disagree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway but I think I should on this occasion, and with everything that has been said about the words in this clause. I have had a good deal to do with ethnic groups in the past four and a half years, and as members of the committee know there are ethnic groups and ethnic groups. Some of them are in the hands of the communists. Thank goodness, practically all of them are 83276-381i
Private Bills
not. If there is one thing in common that they have, it is that they are grateful to this country for the right of living here. They want to have a democracy here such as we have here and they are inclined to hope that the best traditions of their homeland can be transplanted here by their own actions.
Indeed they incline to the belief, perhaps we may say without too much foundation, that conditions in their homeland for their relatives are as democratic as they are here. If they cannot believe that, they at least hope that some day that will be so. When an ethnic group such as the Slovak league wishes to incorporate in its letters patent the best in their homeland, the Christian and democratic principles, whatever they may have been according to our standards, I would urge hon. members to agree to let them have that hope and to maintain those aspirations rather than to discard what to them may be valuable and may be a link with the homeland. Those words to the Slovak union mean those things that were best at home and as comparable as possible to our own. I find no offence whatever in those words.
I do not admit, as the hon. member for Nanaimo seems to believe, that there is a divided loyalty here.
There are, in fact, two loyalties but they are not divided. The loyalty, as I understand it, in the opening words is a loyalty to the free institutions of Canada. In other words, a person who belongs to this organization must begin by having that loyalty, and must also have a loyalty to the best that was in the Slovak nation, according to the interpretation that can be placed upon it by the directors of this organization, I presume. Now, that is not excluding anything in Canada. It is taking the best in Canada and trying to add to it the best of their traditions and free institutions. I hope hon. members will look upon it in that light rather than in the other way that has been mentioned.


Mr. Croll:: I believe the matters raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo are interesting but not unique. There is no question of dual loyalty or partial loyalty. It is quite decidedly an undivided loyalty. I think we have to read section 4 (1) (b) of the bill which says:
The society may,
(b) promote, on the basis of Christian and democratic principles, good citizenship and loyalty to the free institutions of Canada, by educating and instructing the members of the society in the history, constitution and government of Canada;
Surely, there can be no question about dual loyalty under section 4 (1) (b). There was an act to incorporate the Ukrainian Fraternal Society in Canada, which was assented to on

Private Bills
July 24, 1943 and is chapter 39 of 7 George VI. It was a similar sort of society, and section 5 reads:
Only persons deemed by the society to be of Ukrainian origin . . . shall be admitted as members of the society:
There was a proviso in that bill which makes an impact upon this bill. One of the powers was set out in section 4 as follows:
(c) To cultivate among the members of the society fond recollections of the Ukraine, and to promote their instruction and education in its history, literature, music, arts, traditions, customs and amusements:
These people may very well have used the word "traditions" as the term was used in the act I have just quoted. Surely when people consider the words "Christian" and "democracy" as synonymous terms, and use them in that sense, this House of Commons will understand their feeling and will meet their request to carry out their intention.


Mr. Mclvor:: Hon. members will notice under clause 2 of the bill the headquarters of the Canadian Slovak League is in Fort William; that means something. I know the Canadian Slovak League in Fort William, and they are conspicuous for their outstanding help to any members of their organization who are out of work, sick or in distress. In my opinion, they practise the Christian program, and because the headquarters of the organization is in Fort William Canada should know there is no more loyal spot in Canada than Fort William. Any society that is not loyal will have a hot time.


Colin Cameron: I would point out to the hon. member for Spadina what I am sure he does not need pointed out to him, that his argument was not a very cogent argument. It is quite absurd to quote a provision for selection on the basis of ethnic origin and compare it with selection on the basis of political opinions, which is what this clause calls for-


Walter Edward Harris: No, no.


Colin Cameron: It certainly does. When you speak of democratic institutions, you are making a selection on a political basis, which is entirely different from the question of origin. I would have no objection at all if this section called for the selection on the basis, not only of ethnic origin but on the basis of red-headed Slovaks or cross-eyed Slovaks or any other type of Slovak, because that would be purely a matter for the decision of this society. But when you make a selection on a political basis, and that is what this is, they are only going to select people who have a particular political

point of view. There is only one political point of view that we can condone here and that is that of Canadian institutions-


Russell Earl Reinke: Free institutions.


Colin Cameron: No, not free institutions as they are described in other parts of the world. If you look at the constitution of the Soviet union, you will find it full of references to freedom. In fact every one of these totalitarian nations make great boasts of their free societies, their free peoples' democracies. There is only one definition of freedom and free institutions that we as the parliament of Canada can accept and that is the free Canadian institution.
I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that if this were put in there in any other way except inadvertently, then it is important we should look into it very seriously. I really believe it was put in inadvertently, and they should admit it. I do not like to see the Canadian parliament condoning in express terms a loyalty to other definitions of freedom than that comprised in the Canadian outlook, and that is what this does. I do not know, and neither does the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, what is the concept of freedom of Slovaks in Europe? What is their concept of free institutions?


Russell Earl Reinke: It does not say Europe; it says the free institutions of Canada.


Colin Cameron: It does not.


Russell Earl Reinke: Well, read it.


Colin Cameron: It says:
Only persons deemed by the society to be loyal to the free institutions of Canada and to the Christian and democratic traditions of the Slovak nation,-
I suggest that the hon. member and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration have no idea at all, nor can they tell this House of Commons, what are the democratic traditions of the Slovak nation. They cannot define them for us, because they do not know them.


Russell Earl Reinke: Can you define "Christian"?


Colin Cameron: No, but I have_ a good idea of the traditions of a Canadian with regard to freedom, and that is all I am concerned with as a member of the Canadian parliament. I challenge the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to tell us what are the free traditions of the Slovak nation What are they?


Walter Edward Harris: I gather that my hon. friend from Nanaimo is trying to read into this bill a good deal that is not there. For example, he spoke first of a political decision here as to membership. Surely if he thinks about it for a moment he will realize that

this organization cannot be accused of using democracy as a word in the same sense as they do in the Soviet constitution.


An hon. Member:: How do you know?


Walter Edward Harris: I can assure you that the league is not of that kind, and that if it were it would not be sponsored here.


Colin Cameron: We are not
speaking about the league, we are speaking about the Slovak nation.


Walter Edward Harris: I will come to that. You have here a group of people seeking to be incorporated, and they are using words in their Canadian sense. They are not using words in their Russian sense, at least so far as "democracy" is concerned. If these words have any political connotation at all-and I do not agree that they have-they would be the best means of refusing membership to a communist that I can think of. And unless the hon. member for Nanaimo were to put an express ban against communists as such, or Labour-Progressive party members as such, I do not think he could find better words to bar them than those in this clause.
However I do not agree that that is the purpose behind these particular words. These words "Christian and democratic traditions" are the ordinary words used by all ethnic groups in Canada to mean one thing, and that is the Canadian way of life, with the best traditions of their homeland. That is the sense in which the words are used.


Mr. Cavers:: Mr. Chairman, I take part in the debate only because of my close association with the branch of the Canadian Slovak League established in St. Catharines. Reference has been made here today to the fact that they might not be loyal to Canadian institutions. In my experience I have found that statement is not correct. I think it is proper that these ethnic groups which come from Europe should bring with them the various crafts, sciences and abilities that they have acquired at home. They have many high qualifications for citizenship which they bring with them. I expect them to have a high degree of loyalty to all Canadian institutions-and they have shown this sense of responsibility. For that reason I believe that many fine citizens who have come to this country and have had good success in business should have the right to incorporate their own Canadian Slovak League to carry on the type of insurance business proposed in the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, first of all I think it should be made perfectly clear that no one who has taken part in this debate
Private Bills
has expressed any reflection upon the loyalty to Canada or the loyalty to the free institutions of Canada entertained by these people. Too many of us in the House of Commons have connections with them to have any doubts on that score. I think too, Mr. Chairman, it should be said that we all appreciate and agree with the interpretation placed upon these words by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. We recognize that what these people want is to make clear their loyalty to Canada, and to associate with that loyalty the desire to carry forward the best in their own traditions and in their own history.
But it has been made clear time and again that what counts in law is not the interpretation this or that member in the House of Commons may place upon legislation; it is not what is said on the floor of the house that counts, but rather the actual words enacted by parliament. In this instance we are being asked to enact a section which suggests that membership should be open only to those who have (a) loyalty to the free institutions of Canada and (b) loyalty to the Christian and democratic traditions of the Slovak nation.
As other hon. members have said, definitions of "Christian traditions" and definitions of "democratic institutions" vary from one person to another and from one group to another. In this case both those traditions are tied to these words, "the Slovak nation". Well, I do not just know where the Slovak nation is at the present time; it does not exist as a separate nation. If one thinks of part of Czechoslovakia as being the geographical area referred to and as being the historical homeland of these people, then one must face the fact that at the present time that area is under a communist government.
Communist governments talk about their traditions of democratic freedom. There is no doubt that the people named in clause 1 of the bill, the people who have been carrying on this society for many years and who now seek this charter, think of democratic traditions in a quite different vein than is the case with the so-called democratic traditions of that part of Europe at the present time. But if this language is carried forward, then surely one can envisage the possibility of the day coming when people in charge of this society might have a different approach, and might be able to use these very words to exclude certain people or to admit certain others. I submit that we are not splitting hairs here, but are asking for something that we have a right to ask when we suggest that this clause should not carry

Private Bills
a reference to loyalty to certain traditions attaching to a particular nation outside of Canada.
I was pleased to hear the references made by the hon. member for Spadina and the hon. member for Hamilton South when they read from certain other acts. I thought it interesting to listen to those references, and I think they should consider recommending the same language back to those who have requested the passing of this bill. Indeed, I suggest-


David Arnold Croll: I will amend it now, if you sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Good; I shall sit down.


Mr. MacNaughl:: The hon. member sponsoring the bill has asked me to propose the following amendment:
That clause 5 of the bill be amended by striking out the first three lines thereof down to and including the words "Slovak nation" and substituting therefor:
"Only persons deemed by the society to be of Slovak origin and loyal to the free institutions of Canada and Christian and democratic traditions."


Mr. Philpoti:: Mr. Chairman, just before the amendment carries I wish to say a few words with reference to the statement made by the hon. member for Nanaimo regarding the great allied statesman, President Tito of Yugoslavia. I have no remarks to make on this particular bill. It seems to me that this amendment strengthens the bill which was introduced in the beginning, but I do think it would be a crying shame if the belittling remark made about the leader of a great friendly nation, whose friendship is being so cultivated by the British commonwealth, President Tito-did I misunderstand my hon. friend?


Colin Cameron: I think the hon. member for Vancouver South misunderstood my reference. It was not to Tito of Yugoslavia; it was to another person, Father Tizo, you recall, who arose in Czechoslovakia.


Elmore Philpott: Thank you very much; as I heard it over on this side it was "Tito". I was astonished with my hearing, and I am delighted that there is no reflection on President Tito.


Mr. Weselak:: I have only a brief remark to make here. I do not think there is any divided loyalty here. The reference to "Christian and democratic traditions of the Slovak nation" refers only to the traditions and not to loyalty to the Slovak nation as such. I should like to say that I do not think there is any doubt in the Slovak mind as to what is meant by reference to Christian and democratic traditions. Before the Slovak nations were overrun by the communists
[Mr. Knowles.l
they did have Christian and democratic governments, and I do not think there is any question in the Slovak mind as to which of the Slovak people have Christian and democratic traditions. I do not think that that particular paragraph will raise any problem of interpretation among the Slovak people. These are the only remarks I wanted to make.


Erhart Regier: I am very pleased to see that the sponsor of this bill has introduced this amendment. I should like to point out that these organizations come to individual members of parliament and ask them to act as sponsors. I hope that this amendment is in line with what is wanted by the executive officers of the society. I noticed that the previous wording would enable the society to grant membership to people who were not of Slovak origin. The amendment now makes it perfectly clear that the society may grant membership only to people who are of Slovak origin. If that is the wish of the directors I am perfectly happy. However, as the wording was originally-and it may have been deliberately worded that way-it was in order for the society from time to time to give membership to some particular individual who had rendered valuable service to this society or to others.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: An important point was raised by the hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam. Will the sponsor comment on it?


Russell Earl Reinke: I have consulted with the
members of the Slovak league on this matter and I told them that possibly I may have to amend this bill. They told me that they concurred in the amendment as I had outlined it to them which I had my hon. friend present to the house. Therefore I believe they are quite satisfied with the amendment as it is. Actually, there is no change in so far as the intent or the meaning of this clause is concerned other than in the explanation. I am quite willing to go along with it, and they are too, and that is to strike out the word "nation". That is the one word which seems to be on everyone's mind. Actually the clause as it originally stood said: only persons deemed by the society to be loyal to the free Institutions of Canada.
And so on. The amendment is: only persons deemed by the society to be of Slovak origin.
It is the same thing, and that wording is quite satisfactory, I am sure, to the sponsors of this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.

Private Bills
On clause 7-Management.
Erhart Regier: I notice that the affairs of this society are to be managed in this way:
The affairs of the society shall be managed by a board of directors which shall be known as the central assembly and which shall consist of the president, the vice-president, the secretary, the treasurer, the recording secretary, the elder junior branch and five auditors or overseers.
It seems to me a bit odd to have five auditors as members of a board being responsible for management. In most constitutions or bylaws of this sort that I have seen the matter of auditors is attended to by means of a separate sentence saying that the five auditors shall be elected at the annual meeting, or something to that effect. It is very odd to have five members of the board of directors auditing their own financial statements.


Russell Earl Reinke: I think the intent of that clause really is in the words "and five auditors or overseers". The fact is that they are more or less a board of directors rather than auditors. In a true sense of the word they are auditors, but not in the sense that they are chartered accountants or something of that sort. They are actually overseers rather than auditors. Aside from that fact, I am assured that the superintendent of insurance is quite satisfied with the provisions of the clauses contained in this bill.


Erhart Regier: I wish I could be a little happier about the statement just made that the superintendent of insurance is perfectly happy about this because it says very definitely that the affairs shall be managed by a board of directors, and it lists them, and then it adds to the board of directors five auditors. I again submit with all due respect that I doubt very much whether this will pass the scrutiny of the superintendent of insurance.


Angus MacInnis: I do not want to disagree with my colleague from Burnaby-Coquitlam, but do not the words "or overseers" give a different meaning to the word "auditors". It is not the same meaning as we give to people who audit the accounts. It is something associated with management rather than with auditing.


Russell Earl Reinke: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 12 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 13-Ownership, control and nondisposition of property.
Erhart Regier: Subclause 2 says:
No property of the society shall, under any circumstances, pass into the private ownership of any
member or members of the society as an individual or individuals, but all such property shall be and always remain-
And so on. I assume that that is for the protection of the society as a whole to prevent any misuse of funds or otherwise that people may hold in the society, and thereby any member who has any influence with the board being able to take undue advantage of the membership as a whole by obtaining title to some of the real estate. I am wondering whether that is possible. The subclause goes on:
-but all such property shall be and always remain the property and estate of the society as a whole.
This clause seems to me to be one that would likely severely handicap any management with respect to real estate that they may hold from time to time. It says that it shall always remain the property and the estate of the society as a whole. Does that indicate that the society will never be able to sell any real estate or any lot it may happen to own?


Russell Earl Reinke: No, it does not say that. It merely says that all such property shall be and always remain the property of the society. The intent here is clearly defined; that the property belongs to the society so long as the property is in existence, you might say. In other words, it does not preclude or does not exclude the fact that the society can sell the property. It does not mention anything about the property. As long as it is owned by the society then the society owns it.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 16 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 449, for the relief of Francis Walsh-Mr. Hunter -Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, before clause 1 of this bill carries there are a few words I should like to say. Like a great many of these divorce bills that come before this house this is one which involves a rather tragic story, and a number of elements which I shall refrain from relating on the floor of this house.
I do think, however, that we should take a moment to realize the kind of job we in this parliament are being asked to do. We are here as members of this House of Commons, with members of the other place, to
6022	HOUSE OF
Private Bills-Divorce
pass laws for the general well-being of the people of Canada as a whole, but now we are called upon to use all of our parliamentary machinery for the relief of one individual. That is not to deny the importance of any individual who may be faced with a problem such as this, but I would point out that it was recognized many years ago in the United Kingdom that that was not the function of parliament and it was out of that recognition that divorce courts were first established in the United Kingdom. Parliament's job is to pass laws of general application. Individual problems are best dealt with in courts.
In this case, Mr. Chairman, we have the story of a very young man who was working in the merchant marine. While still under 20 years of age he met a young lady in Glasgow. Apparently they were acquainted with each other for three or four days when they got married. They lived together for about two weeks; then the husband went to sea again. Apparently when he returned to Scotland he discovered that his wife was not living the highest type of life. As a matter of fact, if anyone wishes to read the evidence he will find that the lady in question was guilty of just about everything in the book. At the hearing which was held in the other place the only witness who appeared was the petitioner himself. The respondent, the young woman in question, is still in Scotland and she did not appear.
As I said, there was only one witness, but amongst the exhibits were four sworn affidavits and all these affidavits were received here in Canada from Scotland. Two of them were signed by women who were friends of the wife, one was signed by the wife herself, and the other was signed by a detective. The terms of these affidavits are included in the evidence of this case and they do not make choice reading.
I think hon. members should be made aware that this divorce was granted by Their Honours in the other place on the basis of these affidavits. The petitioner himself was not able to give any direct evidence and he appeared merely to seek a divorce and to answer such questions as were put to him. As I said, the evidence on the basis of which the divorce was granted was based solely on these four signed affidavits. I would point out that the wife in question is perhaps the most damaging witness against herself and her own carryings on for a number of years. In addition to swearing that she is guilty, as I stated, of just about everything in the book, she declares in her affidavit that she is contemplating re-marriage.
Now, no questions were raised, according to the evidence, as to whether there was any


collusion, but it seems pretty clear from that sworn affidavit by the wife that she is quite prepared to give her husband the divorce he wants, and she is prepared to give him this sworn affidavit providing the evidence that is necessary to satisfy Their Honours that a divorce should be granted. She admits in the sworn affidavit that she is contemplating re-marriage which makes it pretty clear that that is perhaps the reason why she is so willing to give that evidence.
So far as the young man himself is concerned, one reads the story as set out in this evidence with a sad heart. One hopes that his future may be better once this situation is in the past so far as he is concerned, and one can even hope that the young woman in question in the married life she contemplates pursuing will have a better future, and that her life will be a better one than it has been in the past.
It might seem to some, Mr. Chairman, that we have no alternative but to agree to a case of this kind, but I have taken these few minutes to spell out the sad details of this case just to impress upon hon. members the obvious fact that this is not the business-


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. gentleman. I think if his remarks are very brief the committee might consent to permitting him a minute or two to complete them, but if his remarks are extensive then I shall have to call it six o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
Clause stands.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I remind hon. members that at eight o'clock the house will resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Prudham for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Harkness, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain).

Mr. Rene N. Julras (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, when we left off the discussion at five o'clock we were dealing with the amendment and the subamendment which are now before the house. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), the amendment moved by the official opposition is definitely a motion of nonconfidence in the government. As a matter of fact, in wording their amendment I think they took care to make sure that it would be a motion of non-confidence in the government. To that amendment there has been moved by the C.C.F. party in the house an amendment which, by the same token, is also a motion of non-confidence in the government. However, I do not propose to deal with the subamendment on that basis. Rather, I propose to deal with it on its own merits.
I want to say without any hesitation whatever-and I think this will be apparent to all hon. members in this house-that the subamendment moved by the C.C.F. is not realistic, is not sound for the economy of this country and is not in the best interests of the primary producers of this country. As a matter of fact, those in the socialist group who spoke on this subamendment apparently did not have in mind quite clearly what was meant by the mover of the subamendment because there appeared to be some confusion in their minds as to what is meant by floor price and what is meant by parity price.
The hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castle-den), who was the last one to speak, referred to the subamendment merely in the terms of floor price generally. I must admit that I could not figure out why the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough) took the price of $1.82. If the idea was to hold the line, as he put it, it seems to me that it would have been more logical to stick to the $2.05 which had prevailed up until a fairly recent time. On the other hand, I do not think that he could argue that this would constitute a floor, because if it constituted a floor, by the same token, being a higher price than the prevailing market price, it would definitely act as a ceiling as well. It must therefore be viewed in the light of a parity price more than in the light of a floor price.
Naturally, even if we have before us at the moment a motion of non-confidence in the government, I think that members of the opposition also realize that the government at the moment are not trembling in their boots. We know fairly well what the fate of the amendment and the subamendment will be and that it will not change the picture
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus greatly. But since the discussion is, to a large degree, academic, let us suppose that the subamendment were carried by parliament and let us suppose for a moment that parliament instructed the government not to sell any wheat below $1.82. In effect, that is the result of the subamendment. The hon. member who moved the subamendment says that the government is not to sell any wheat below $1.82 or that it is not to pay the producer less than $1.82.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Those are different things.


René Jutras: I will concede the difference. Let us say the amendment is to pay the producer $1.82. As a wheat producer myself, I naturally would have no objection to getting $1.82 instead of $1.72$; and I am quite sure that there is no producer in western Canada who would object to getting $1.82 instead of $1.72$ or less.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: How much would you be getting if you were south of the border?


An hon. Member:: Be patient.


René Jutras: I will come to that particular point.
As so much has been said about the matter I think it is about time that we cleared up this point once and for all. For the moment, as I say, if the government were placed in the position of having to pay the producer $1.82 and no less, it would have to take one of two courses. The first one might be to instruct the wheat board to sell as little wheat as possible since it would have to be sold at a great loss to the taxpayers of the country; and they would take the policy of holding the line, of selling as little as possible, hoping that the price would go up later and they would be able to dispose of the crop. This policy has been tried in the past. It was tried during the thirties. This is exactly the policy that was adopted by the McFarland commission or the McFarland agency in the thirties. We all know what the results of that policy were. Reference was made previously to that point. No one in this house has pronounced himself as being in favour of going back to that policy.
The other course would be to decide to go ahead and to sell wheat at a price higher than the market price and to subsidize the producer. Then naturally it is only common sense that the people of the country would expect the producers to restrict their production. That is an inevitable result.
My hon. friend has just referred to the situation across the border. The situation there is quite different from the one we have

Wheat-Marketing of Surplus here in Canada. As a matter of fact, their position is entirely the reverse of the Canadian position. They consume a large percentage of their production and export a small percentage of it. In Canada we consume a small percentage of our production and export an extremely large percentage of it. Consequently the position in Canada is the reverse of the position in the United States. But in spite of that fact, Mr. Speaker, as you know, last spring the government in the United States had to give an alternative to the producers in the United States. The producers there were given a choice of either accepting a reduction in price or reducing their production. After consultation and conference the farmers, or the representatives of the farmers, agreed to reduce their production, to cut their acreage in wheat rather than to take a cut in price.
In passing may I say this. Let us be clear on what the United States government was attempting to do at the time this parity price system was passed. This system was passed during the war. The purpose of it was definitely to increase the production of wheat in the United States. War conditions existed at that time. They could see that there would be many war-devastated nations in Europe and that there would be a great demand for food products. At that time they did not know how long the war would last. With all these demands they felt that it was in the national interest of the United States and was better policy on the whole to encourage the production of wheat in that nation. Hence they passed what we commonly refer to as the parity price system and agreed to fix the price to the farmer. That price is now $2.21.
This procedure had the desired effect of producing more wheat. Up until the last war the average exports by the United States were roughly in the neighbourhood of 130 million bushels a year. Now their exports are well over 300 million bushels. Hence it will be seen that the desired effect of their policy was attained. I have no quarrel with that procedure. If that is what the American people want to do, it is their business and not ours. However, there is one observation that we make in this country-and we think this is unfortunate-when the rest of the industries of the United States and those in the rest of the world were demobilized, they did not demobilize the wheat industry in their country. The result has been that they have been piling up huge surpluses. As long as they do not dump those surpluses on the markets of the world and do not affect others too drastically, we can have no objection.
[Mr. Jutras.l

Certainly so far they have exercised every care and have shown consideration for their neighbours to the north. We hope that they will continue to consider any move they make in that direction because it would have a very drastic effect on our economy, particularly our agricultural economy. On the other hand, there you are; there is the situation that must be faced. The suggestion contained in the subamendment of the socialists is precisely to adopt a policy with respect to the price of this agricultural commodity that has proved to be a detrimental one in the United States. If it has been so proved in the United States, where their exports are just a small percentage of their total sales, then it is that much more serious and that much more undesirable for a country like Canada where the greater bulk of the product has to be sold outside of this country.
On the face of it the subamendment merely means the freezing of the price of wheat, but we know that it entails a lot more than just the price of wheat. In our western economy wheat is the basic commodity. So it is in the United States. There would be many ramifications. As a matter of fact there is nothing new in the subamendment. This very thing was tried out by the socialists in the United Kingdom when they came into power a few years ago. They initiated a policy of forward fixed prices with the result that they had to exercise control over production, which is inevitable, and after four years the scheme had to be abandoned. I know that the members of the socialist party in particular in this house are well aware of everything that transpired under the socialist government in the United Kingdom. I am sure they are well aware of the very extensive controls and restrictions that the primary producers of the United Kingdom had to put up with. As a matter of fact they were very much opposed to the plan, are still opposed to it and certainly would be opposed to returning to such a system. The national farmers union of the United Kingdom, the largest farm producers organization in that country, has lately come out quite openly and categorically against going back to any such system. They are now directing their efforts towards producer-controlled marketing agencies the same as we have in this country. They have made the experiment in the United Kingdom and it has not proved to be a very successful one.
Here again, let us not forget that in the United Kingdom they do not export any grain. It is entirely a matter of domestic consumption, and consequently the fixing of prices is relatively simple. As a matter of

fact it is very simple. It is the same situation that we have in this country when we control the price of milk in a city. If a province decides to fix the price of milk within the province all it has to do is to pass an order to that effect, and that is being done in many cities across Canada. When the problem is purely domestic you can exercise control over it if you wish, but when a very large part of the product has to be sold in the markets of the world then you have no control whatsoever. You cannot exercise any control over these markets, and that is where the difficulty arises. This is the situation that the United States has to face at the moment.
I know that members of the socialist party have quoted certain farm organizations with the idea of trying to convey the impression that the farmers and primary producers of this country were not aware of these difficulties. Let me refer to the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. In his annual message every year for the last few years he has been warning the producers of the country against any scheme of forward fixed prices, and even against a "parity" system. In his message last year he referred to the United States parity system, and here is what he said:
For twenty years our farmer neighbours to the south of us have had their parity program which did aim to establish profitable prices on the same level as prices and services in the rest of the economy, and then hold them there. Undoubtedly they were partly successful and benefited greatly by it over the period, but today in view of the wide difference of opinion in their own farm ranks, I think it is fair to say that they do not regard it as a complete or adequate answer to maintaining equality and stability for agriculture. And like us, they are looking for a better program. Two of their major organizations are recommending flexible price supports, that is, when production of a particular commodity goes up the floor price will automatically go down and vice versa.
I think it will be apparent that any scheme of fixed prices must of necessity be related in some degree at least to the production because we fall into the other difficulties that I have mentioned. Again in the month of January this year the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture had this to say in his annual message:
That a support program based on a high percentage of "parity" is not the best answer is indicated by experience in the United States and by changes which are being insisted upon there by both the producers and the government. When a program of forward fixed prices with practically all phases of the farm economy controlled is now being abandoned in the United Kingdom, it may indicate at least that that is not likely to be the one that we would want to try in Canada. Incidentally, in their efforts to replace that program the national farmers' union are placing most emphasis on orderly regulated marketing under producer boards.
15, 1954
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus
I think that even my hon. friends of the C.C.F. party will agree that all in all this represents pretty well the thinking of the primary producers of this country. The emphasis today is placed upon primary producers' marketing boards or agencies rather than freezing prices at any level, particularly any unrealistic level.
When the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) spoke he made some very drastic and farfetched statements. I do not propose to deal with every one of them because my time will not allow. However, there is one that he made repeatedly and which was repeated by some of his colleagues several times, not to mention the hon. member for Yorkton who preceded me. I should like to quote this one sentence which illustrates pretty well the thought running through the minds of the socialist group in this discussion. He made the flat statement that "the Canadian government has always opposed the principle of floor prices and the principle of orderly marketing". This was repeated by him and repeated by other members of his group.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as you and every hon. member of the house knows, the present government is probably the government of Canada that has done the most in the history of the nation to encourage orderly marketing for the primary producers. I think every primary producer and every farmer in western Canada knows that. Exercising some measure of control over marketing is not new. As a matter of fact it goes back to pre-confederation days. But the present government that is now in office, and probably to some degree because it has been so long in office, has certainly done more than any other government in the history of the nation for primary producers of this country. When that statement by the hon. member is made particularly in relation to the marketing of wheat, then it is so far away from the truth you wonder if the hon. member was not carried away by the enthusiasm of the moment. However, we cannot say that because he repeated it two or three times during his speech.
I am not going to enter a debate as to who should get the most credit for establishing the Canadian wheat board. I concede quite readily, and I am quite happy to be able to do so, that it came into existence three months before the government of the Hon. R. B. Bennett was dissolved. I believe every fair-minded member will agree that it was under the present administration that the Canadian wheat board was made the strong marketing agency it is today. It was not
6026	HOUSE OF
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus done because the government was opposed, it was done because the government did everything to encourage it and make it possible for the board to be what it is today. Nobody can deny that fact. All hon. members in this house, without exception, agree that it is the best marketing agency we could possibly have in this country. I have never met anyone in this house that dared challenge this statement.
As was pointed out before, and apparently will have to be pointed out again, it was only a few weeks ago that the annual report of the Canadian wheat board came before the standing committee on agriculture and colonization. The three commissioners of the Canadian wheat board were before the committee and everyone was at liberty to question them as much as they liked. As a matter of fact the committee went through the whole operation of the board and everyone asked the questions they wished. The commissioners were quite willing to answer all the questions. I thought the whole matter had been gone into thoroughly. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) made the statement that no one objected, and I defy anyone to go through the records of the committee and find anyone who dissented from what the board was doing. Everyone agreed that this was the best possible way of doing it.
The socialist members even went so far as to put a direct question to the chairman of the Canadian wheat board, asking him if he thought this was the best way of doing it. Naturally, being the chairman of the board, it could not be expected that he would say anything else, but for the purpose of the record he did say that naturally he thought this was the best way of doing it. The hon. member for Assiniboia was quite as enthusiastic in agreeing with the chairman, and is on the record as saying, "Very good; very good". When a suggestion was made about the other method of marketing and they asked the chairman if he thought this was not a better method, naturally the answer was that the present one was a better method.
This afternoon the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) tried to indicate that he at least, if nobody else, had offered some criticism of the board. I must say that if he had criticism in mind he did not make it quite clear because I am sure he was the only one who thought he made any serious criticism of the marketing system.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I believe, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should make a correction here. I was making my criticism in the agriculture committee and in this house to a large extent of
[Mr. Jutras.l

the policy of the government. I was not criticizing the board, because they have to do what they are told.


René Jutras: I should like to point out to the hon. member for Calgary North that for the moment I am not referring to the policy of the government. I am referring to the operations of the board, and for the moment I am restricting my remarks to the actual operation. I shall come to the policy level later. So far as the board is concerned, and so far as their sales of wheat are concerned, there has been no serious criticism. This afternoon the hon. member referred to actual sales of the last three or four months. This question was also put in the committee, as he knows-


Douglas Scott Harkness: No, no.


René Jutras: I will give the hon. member the page reference after I am through.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Not after January 31 of this year.


René Jutras: No, but up until January. The hon. member tried to make the same point in the committee, and the clear statement of the chairman of the board is on the record to the effect that it is useless to take one week, two weeks or one month in the marketing year as giving any possible indication of the year's operations. We can see from last year's report that there was a period in which there was no marketing. Members of the committee asked why that was so, and were told that at that time there happened to be a strike. There was no grain moving. There might be almost any situation occurring at a particular moment. There are many factors affecting marketing such as weather, transportation and many others. Picking out any one week or one month or two months cannot possibly give any indication of the year's operation.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) also made a statement, and prefaced his remarks by saying that none of the last crop was sold. That is quite true; I mean it is in a way of speaking. Last year there was as much wheat left over as the entire crop, so we could say that none of the wheat was sold during that year. Standing alone that is a misleading statement because in the same year we exported more wheat than we ever exported in the entire history of the nation. We established an all time high record for selling wheat outside of this nation.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is the previous year you are talking about.


René Jutras: No, the same crop year, 1952-53.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is the previous year.



René Jutras: Yes, and that all comes back to the fact that we have had three very large crops in western Canada during the last three years.
Some hon. members have tried to create the impression that we have lost our markets. The chairman of the wheat board was asked that question and he made the categorical statement that we had not lost any of our markets. It was just that the percentage went down. This was attributed to the fact that the United Kingdom is not buying but is using up her stockpile. There are many nations in Europe which were buying wheat before who have had such good crops they are now selling wheat. The United States has boosted its production, and we have had large crops. Naturally, therefore, there is a large amount of wheat on the market at the moment.
I see my time is running out, and I should like to deal with another important statement. I must say I regret the fact the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) is not in his seat. No doubt he has been detained by important business. I am not saying anything to reflect on him in that regard, but since I want to deal with remarks he made it makes it a little difficult when he is not in the house. However, a few days ago when he moved a motion to adjourn the house he gave a statement to the press which I felt was very unfortunate and should be dealt with now. I am quoting from an article in the Ottawa Citizen of Tuesday, June 8, which says:
Mr. Diefenbaker, who told reporters the price drop is a blow to the western farmer, blamed it largely on Canada's stubborn refusal to agree to Britain's request for a ceiling of $2 a bushel instead of $2.05 under the international wheat agreement.
The hon. member for Prince Albert should definitely know the situation in this regard, and should know that this is not accurate.
Well, you see how these things snowball. Two days later a very reputable newspaper, the Montreal Gazette, carried an editorial commenting on this situation and taking that as a matter of fact in writing the editorial. Then again, a few days ago, some private citizens in Ottawa wrote a letter to the editor along the same lines which appeared on the editorial page.
To begin with, the hon. member for Prince Albert says that he blames it on the stubborn refusal to agree to Great Britain's request for a ceiling of $2. I have not time to place all the information on the record, but the first inference there is that he has always taken the position that we should have agreed to a price lower than $2.05. All we have to do is to read the pages of Hansard, at
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus the time we ratified the agreement, to find that the hon. member for Prince Albert was the one who inferred, I believe on four occasions, that the price was not high enough. But he went further than that. Here is what the hon. member said on this matter of the price range:
With increasing farm costs, a price level such as that suggested in today's Canadian Press article-
Referring to the suggestion that it might be $2.
-will, I think, be most detrimental to the wheat producer of this country on the basis of the suggested maximum and minimum prices set forth in that article.
And in the course of these remarks he went on further and suggested that-
-the Minister of Trade and Commerce would give consideration to asking the purchasing countries to accept some escalator clause whereby, in the event of increasing farm costs, there would be increases in the minimum price.
Not only was he against the $2 price, but he wanted to tie an escalator clause to it. The idea was to force purchasing nations to be tied to the escalator clause on top of that. And yet today he turns around and says that he blames it all largely on Canada's stubborn refusal to agree to $2. That is the first inference.
Then, the second inference is that it was Canada who held out definitely for $2.05. Well, we all know the facts of the situation. That was over a year ago. When the negotiating team got down to the last stages the United Kingdom suggested price was $1.95. The Americans had started at $2.50, and it was made clear by the United States delegates that they could not possibly recommend anything below $2, that it would not have a chance of carrying in congress, and that consequently they could not consider anything below $2. They said that $2.05, which looked a little more than $2, was the best they could do; and they had to negotiate on that basis.
I would not put the blame on the United States more than on any other country. But at that time both the producers in the United States and in this country felt very strongly that $2.05 was the limit in North America, and we agreed to that. I am willing to take my responsibility for that, the same as anybody else. I am not trying to say that we should have agreed; but we have the statement of the chairman of the Canadian wheat board before the committee. When he was asked if he thought we could sell more wheat by taking less for it, or if he felt we could have sold more at a lower price, he made the very definite statement, without any hesitation at all, that it would not have made
6028	HOUSE OF
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus any difference. It was not a question of price; it was just a question that they did not want to buy. He pointed out that 5 cents, 10 cents or 15 cents would not have made any difference. And he was quite categorical on the point that price at that time and up until now has not been a feature in the lower sales in the international market.
So that this argument that the present reduced price is the outcome of the negotiations at the time of the international wheat agreement is not valid. And I want to place on record again that I hope members of the official opposition will not try to repeat what they tried to do after the British wheat agreement. They never would concede, but they had agreed to the British wheat agreement. Then a few years later they tried to deny they had ever supported the British wheat agreement. All parties in the house, without exception, supported the international wheat agreement and supported the terms of it to the same extent. Some of them would have preferred, the same as we would have, some other provisions; but the fact remains that we all agreed to support this agreement because those were the best terms we could get.
The situation developing now is a situation of overproduction, and it is not one that has anything to do with whatever price was arrived at, at the international level. And I might add personally I feel very strongly that during the years it has been in operation it has served a very useful purpose, and it is still serving a very useful purpose. Because we have been able to agree to some degree.
I agree fully with the Minister of Trade and Commerce that it is far better policy to take a package drop, rather than to allow the price to drop a half cent, a cent or two cents at a time. It might well develop into a price war at the international level. And at least this is a fact, that a package drop at one time has the effect of holding it there. And I for one-and I am sure this is shared by the Minister of Trade and Commerce- hope that it will not develop into something more.
I want to say in conclusion that while the opposition has been complaining so much that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is an optimist, I am very gratified and pleased that he is an optimist. We are very fortunate in that, because it is much preferable to have an optimist in that position. Of all people, I cannot understand primary producers complaining about the fact that they have an optimist in that position. After all, for one thing, in a few weeks' time he will have to set the initial price. I hope he will
[Mr. Jutras.l

be very optimistic in the future outlook when he sets the initial price, and will set it as an optimist, rather than as a pessimist.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the reasons for supporting the amendment introduced this morning by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) were fully set out by him in his excellent speech. It becomes necessary, however, to make a brief statement concerning our position in regard to the C.C.F. subamendment.
Let me say at the outset that the matter of the marketing of Canadian wheat is a subject of importance to every Canadian. Its importance is not confined to the western provinces, nor to those who represent the western provinces. The finding of good markets for Canadian wheat, our principal food export, is something basic to the whole Canadian economy; and it is with an appreciation of that fact that I approach the problem now.
The government has monopolistic powers over the disposal of wheat in Canada. Therefore it must accept full responsibility for whatever may be lacking in the disposal of Canadian wheat. I sought in my remarks last week to indicate the reasons why the Canadian people and members of the House of Commons expect that the government, in the discharge of its responsibilities as the salesman of Canadian wheat, must be an energetic and resourceful salesman. As indicated in our amendment we think the government has failed. It has not measured up to its responsibilities as the salesman of Canadian wheat.
I am not going to weary the house with figures. I will give the house only the more recent evidence. It is true that our wheat marketings in the crop year 1952-53 were something of a record, totalling approximately 378 million bushels. Up to May 15 of the present crop year 1953-54 our total exports were only 196 million bushels. In other words, in the first 9J months of the present crop year we have marketed barely one-half of the marketings in the previous crop year, and it will take a mighty spurt in the remaining 2J months of the crop year after May 15 to make any impression at all in reducing this huge disparity between the marketings of the year 1952-53 and the greatly reduced market ings of the year 1953-54.
The United Kingdom is our best customer for wheat. What then have been our marketings in the United Kingdom in those two crop years? In the crop year 1952-53 we marketed 123 [DOT] 4 million bushels of wheat in wheat and wheat flour in the United Kingdom. Up to the end of April, 1954, in other words, in

nine months of the present crop year, Canada had marketed in the United Kingdom only 59 million bushels of wheat in wheat and wheat flour. In other words, in the first nine months of this crop year we did not market as much as half of our marketings in the United Kingdom in the full crop year 1952-53, and that is a fact that must fill us all with very grave concern.
Canada has on hand now approximately 675 million bushels of wheat. World stocks at May 1 aggregated 1,800 million bushels in the four major exporting countries, the United States, Canada, Australia and Argentina. Of that huge total, one-half was located in the United States. Measure that stock of wheat, Mr. Speaker, at May 1, this year, 1,800 million bushels, with the situation exactly one year earlier, when the total world stock in those four great exporting countries was just 1,338 million bushels.
The alarming feature of the way in which the government demonstrates its attitude towards this problem is that so far as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), as the spokesman of the government, is concerned, he apparently does not see a problem in it. He seems to be quite content with what we are doing. He does not recognize the existence of a problem. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the minimum essential, the first requirement of the solution of any problem is that we should recognize the existence of the problem, and there is scant hope of effective solution of this problem, which is a problem for all Canadians, as long as the government through the Minister of Trade and Commerce is content to deny even the existence of a problem.
After all the government's promises, and after all its bragging, and after all the kidding that it has practised at the expense of the western wheat farmer, we see a situation here today which ought to be giving great concern to hon. members, and it is for that reason that the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) moved this amendment in which we invite the house to express its concern over this problem in these words:
This house regrets that the government has failed to deal effectively with the problem of marketing Canada's wheat surplus.
I now turn to the C.C.F. subamendment which reads as follows:
That the amendment be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma and by adding thereafter the following words:
"and this house further regrets that the government has failed to make provision for a floor price to the wheat producers of Canada at levels not less than the Canadian wheat board selling price, basis Fort William/Port Arthur, on Friday. June 4, 1954."
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus Sir, as has been indicated, that price was $1.82J per bushel. Since the date referred to in the subamendment the government has reduced the price of wheat by 10 cents a bushel, and if one is to follow the statement made by the minister in the course of this debate more reductions are threatened.
May I recall what the minister said in the course of this debate on June 9 at page 5750 of Hansard?
If it is necessary to cut the price again in order to hold that proportion, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we are not going to lose markets for wheat because we make a fetish of $1,781 for Vancouver and $1,721 for Fort William and, by making a fetish, lose markets for substantial quantities of wheat.
And again, speaking of our customers among the countries of the world, he said on the same page:
If they are not buying from us when our turn comes, we make inquiries to find out why. If it is a matter of price, that is one factor which, added to other factors, may indicate to the wheat board that a cut in price is necessary.
Those are the facts of life. That is the policy that the wheat board will follow. It is the purpose of the board to be competitive.
There is only one interpretation that these words bear, and that is an intimation from the minister that the Canadian wheat farmer may expect further reductions in the price of his products.
Now I turn to this subamendment and I ask where would the adoption of the kind of policy outlined in the C.C.F. subamendment lead us as a nation? What might it cost to implement this policy? It is quite true that this subamendment, calling for the expenditure of money, cannot commit parliament to the expenditure itself, but nevertheless we are called upon in the forthcoming division on this subamendment to express ourselves in relation to that policy. I ask in the first place: What would the policy cost? I measure it against the background in which the present government has not been very successful in selling wheat. I point out that the subamendment is not confined to wheat of the 1953-54 crop year. Apparently it is intended to be the continuing policy, assuring a floor of $1.82J per bushel on all wheat grown or marketed hereafter, or after June 4.
We have on hand, as I indicated earlier, approximately 675 million bushels of wheat just six weeks now from the commencement of the next crop year. Add the crop year 1954-55 to our stock on hand today of approximately 675 million bushels and it will be seen that the policy indicated in the C.C.F. subamendment is going to have an application to a great deal of wheat in the next year or two. Let us take it both ways. Let us assume on
6030	HOUSE OF
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus the one hand that we may have a much reduced crop in the next crop year. Let us say, for instance, that the crop in the crop year 1954-55 is just 325 million bushels. Let us assume on the other hand, for purposes of calculation, that Canada has for the fourth year in succession a bumper crop of 625 million bushels. Add these respective quantities of 325 million bushels on the one hand and 625 million bushels on the other to our existing stock of approximately 675 million bushels and it will be seen that if we have a poor crop in the crop year 1954-55 this policy will apply to approximately one billion bushels of wheat. On the other hand, if we have another big crop year in Canada in the crop year 1954-55 this policy will apply between now and the end of the crop year 1954-55 to some 1,300 million bushels of wheat.
In measuring the cost let us regard also the rather chilling warning given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the passage which I have just quoted as to the expectation of further reductions in the price of wheat. Here is the way in which these figures of cost work out. If the present price of $1.72 per bushel continues this policy would cost the Canadian taxpayer 10 cents per bushel. If we have one billion bushels of wheat to market in terms of the present quantity and next year's crop, this will cost the Canadian taxpayer $100 million. On the other hand, if we have the large crop I mentioned and we have to dispose of 1,300 million bushels of wheat then it would cost the Canadian taxpayer $130 million to implement this policy.
Now suppose this chilling news given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce issues in a further reduction and we assume the next reduction is to $1.62J per bushel. The Canadian taxpayer must then subsidize every bushel of wheat to the extent of 20 cents and in that event to dispose of one billion bushels of wheat the cost to the Canadian taxpayer would be $200 million. On the other hand, if we have the big crop to dispose of amounting to 1,300 million bushels the cost to the Canadian taxpayer would be $260 million.
If the Minister of Trade and Commerce pursues further the policy of which he gave us that chilling warning last week and let us say the price at which the government proposes to sell the wheat drops another 10 cents per bushel to $1.52J per bushel, this time it will mean that the Canadian taxpayer will be required to subsidize every bushel of wheat to the extent of 30 cents, and if we have one billion bushels of wheat to dispose of the bill to the Canadian taxpayer will be 

$300 million. If we have to dispose of 1,300 million bushels of wheat the bill to the Canadian taxpayer will be $390 million.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What would happen if it dropped another 10 cents?


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is the Minister of Trade and Commerce apparently seriously suggesting that there is the possibility of some further drop. I say to the minister that if this is the best consideration he can offer he had better get off the job and make way for somebody who will do a better job of selling Canadian wheat at proper prices.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We were just testing your arithmetic.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am prepared to have my arithmetic tested but I wish the Minister of Trade and Commerce could do better when we test his salesmanship.


Mr. Abbott:: Try eating a little more wheat.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The fact of the matter is that to implement this policy no one here can tell where it would lead. It is laid down as a policy of continuous application. The quantities of which I have spoken include only the stock on hand today plus the crop for the crop year 1954-55. It is quite evident that no one in this house knows what the continuing cost of this policy would be. It is, however, not to be wondered at that hon. members introduce an amendment of this kind, particularly when we see the fruits of the government's failure in the way in which it has misled the western farmer by all the airy talk it has offered to the wheat farmers of the west for years past, but in the face of the facts I have put before the house, and the fact that no one knows where a plunge of this kind would take us, we in this part of the house cannot give support to the C.C.F. subamendment.
I do not wish to close my remarks this evening without laying all the emphasis at my command on one thing. I conceive it to be the duty of the government in fairness to western wheat farmers immediately to do something that the government has been asked repeatedly to do, particularly today in the speech made by my esteemed colleague the hon. member for Calgary North. It is the duty of this government immediately to announce the initial payment on the 1954-55 crop. Never in all the years since the conclusion of the five-year wheat pool has the government been so late and so tardy in announcing the initial payment on the new crop. We are now at June 15. I suggest we take a look at the dates on which the initial payment was announced during the previous four years. For the crop year 1950-51 the

government announced the initial payment on April 5, 1950. This is just 71 days earlier than the day on which we are meeting here now. For the crop year 1951-52 the government announced the initial payment on May 4, 1951, 42 days in advance of June 15. For the crop year 1952-53 the government announced the initial payment on April 8, 1952, just 68 days ahead of June 15. For the crop year 1953-54 the government announced the initial payment on April 27, 1953, just 49 days ahead of June 15.
Never throughout this entire period, has the government been anything like so late as this year. Now, sir, this is a matter of the liveliest concern to the western wheat growers. It is a matter of lively concern to others as well. It is a matter of concern to "the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker" in western Canada and elsewhere. It is a matter of concern to the railways and indeed to the entire country.
Why has the government been so coy about announcing the initial price? Why this tardiness? There was a statement from the minister in his speech on this matter in this house on June 9 which, if not explained by the minister, can only be described as misleading. The minister said, as reported at page 5746 of Hansard for June 9:
The present-
Note these words, Mr. Speaker.
-initial price has been $1.40 basis No. 1 northern for several years, and that is the initial price today. It has been said here that there is no floor under wheat. What more effective floor can there be than an outstanding offer to pay on the basis of $1.40 at terminal delivery point when wheat is delivered at the country elevator?
At the risk of repetition, Mr. Speaker, I would again draw your attention to the words the minister used in reference to "the present initial price of $1.40". He says that that is the initial price today. But the fact of the matter is that that was the initial price for the crop year 1953-54, and that price was announced on April 27, 1953, nearly 14 months ago.
No announcement has been made, and none has been attempted on the part of the government as to the initial payment for the crop year 1954-55, which is the crop year that is giving the farmer immediate concern as to what the initial payment will be. Of course, he knows what initial payment was received for the crop year 1953-54; he has known that for the last 14 months.
It is surely not necessary for the minister to make statements of that kind which, without explanation on his part, it seems to me can only mislead those who read them.
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus
We are now only six weeks away from the beginning of a new crop year. No one knows what to expect. Government policy is an enigma. If the government has not a policy, then it is time they found one and found it soon, in simple justice to the Canadian wheat farmer and to all those Canadians who depend upon the Canadian wheat farmer for the success and the economic health of their efforts. I say that it would be the gravest injustice if the government defers for one moment longer announcing an initial price for the crop year 1954-55.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, the debate which has been going on with regard to the marketing of wheat during two complete days now is one which always creates a certain amount of interest in the house. This debate is no exception. There is, however, one matter which I do not think has much bearing upon the question which is before the house. Nevertheless it has been referred to in the speeches of two different members, namely the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) and the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch). I may say that this is not the first occasion upon which it has been referred to.
Since there has been considerable argument about it, I am sure that you will permit me to deal with it for a few moments. It has been suggested by both hon. members that on some occasion I voted against an international commodity clearing house as proposed by the farm federation. On previous occasions I had not taken the trouble to look up the record to see whether or not I had voted against it. I knew exactly what I had said on the occasion when the question was under discussion. I did not recall ever having voted at all upon it one way or the other. This afternoon, when the question was raised on the other side of the house, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) stated that the real question is this: Did you vote against it? I hope I can answer that question to his satisfaction tonight.
I have read through the debate which was referred to this afternoon by the hon. member for Acadia. He referred back to a debate which we had in this house on April 30, 1953, upon the same question. Practically everything that has been said both inside and outside of the house with regard to this matter is based upon what the hon. member for Acadia said and on what he induced me to say. I am not going to hold him any more responsible for what was said than I am going to hold myself. The suggestion was made time after time that I had voted against

Wheat-Marketing of Surplus the international policy as suggested by Sir John Boyd Orr. I made it quite plain that I had not done so. As a matter of fact, my speeches at all the international conferences on food and agriculture will bear me out when I say that I was always one of the chief supporters of the policy whenever it was brought up for discussion at any of the FAO conferences. That is all I am going to say about that matter.
My hon. friend from Acadia was good enough to point out in the speech of April 30, 1953 that he quite agreed that I supported Sir John Boyd Orr's international proposals. The hon. member for Assiniboia the other day did not accept that point of view at all, and he was quoting from the speech of the hon. member for Acadia. He was saying that I did not support that position. I want to thank the hon. member for Acadia for putting him right this afternoon-at least he will be put right when he reads Hansard because he was not here at the time and is not here now-by saying again that he acknowledged the fact that I had always supported that policy. But he said that I or the Canadian delegation of which I was the head had voted against this international commodity clearing house that was proposed.
I must say that where I was led a little bit astray was that after I took a column or two of Hansard on that occasion to explain just exactly what I did say down there, I said this; and this is the only sentence out of the whole discussion that the hon. member for Acadia saw fit to read this afternoon-


Victor Quelch: That is all that is necessary.


James Garfield Gardiner: We will find out in a few
moments whether or not it is all that is necessary. I had not expected that from the hon. member for Acadia. I endorse everything that the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) said this afternoon wtih regard to the members of the other group who continuously take positions of that kind, not because they are in accordance with the facts but simply because they serve the purpose for the time being.
My hon. friend, out of all this speech- and in this I explain exactly why the Canadian delegation took certain positions with regard to the matter-read this one sentence:
If we went into a scheme of that kind with a group of nations that would not accept the principles that were laid down by Lord Orr, then of course we would be looking for trouble;-
And here is where I made my mistake. I continued:
-so we voted against it.
I say I must take part of the responsibility for my friend's thinking that we did.


Victor Quelch: That is a good thing.


James Garfield Gardiner: Nevertheless I had never looked up the records until this afternoon. I looked them up and I have them here. As a matter of fact, no vote at all was taken on the question. The only reasons there were for the Canadian delegation taking the position it took are explained in the speech which I made. In that speech nothing at all is said about a vote and it does not touch upon a vote, for the simple reason that results were obtained in another way. I am going to read only the last two sentences of the speech which I delivered on that occasion. They will make it plain why I examined the records in order to find out whether or not there had ever been a vote.
Unless the proposed international agency, with the co-operation of the governments concerned, could direct the disposal of any substantial surpluses which may arise in a way that would avoid this kind of development, then the effort of other exporting countries to maintain production levels in keeping with natural demand would be jeopardized and far-reaching effects might result throughout the entire food and agriculture economy of the world.
Then the last sentences:
In conclusion, we in Canada agree with the United States and the United Kingdom that suggestions should be considered by a working committee. The Canadian delegation will co-operate in every possible way on such a committee. We hope that out of this conference will come a suggestion that we can all agree on.
Following that a working committee was set up and the conference had sufficient confidence in the Canadian delegation to place the deputy minister of agriculture of that day from this country-I refer to Dr. Barton -at the head of the committee. That commodity committee of the FAO organization sat throughout the years in order to arrive at some suitable method of handling this question of surpluses of farm products throughout the world.
Well now, I wish to repeat again that according to the statements of the officials who were there, and I checked with some of them this afternoon, there was no vote taken on this question at all. The question that was before the conference was fully discussed. Our opinion with regard to it was clearly expressed and following that, not only because of the position we took but because of the position others at that conference took, a committee was set up to go to work on the matter of international surpluses in order to determine the best possible way of dealing with them from year to year. That committee sat and carried out its activities throughout the years.
I wanted to say that on this occasion because I know why my hon. friends keep repeating these things. They do so for the

very reason expressed by both of the hon. members, although one of them is in the C.C.F. group and the other in the Social Credit group. They say: Well, we cannot rely on your statements anyway. Of course, every time they can put anything on the record which makes it appear that my statement is not exactly correct they feel that helps them in some way in creating just the kind of impression that the hon. member for Rosthern said this afternoon they were bent upon creating with regard to anyone in this house who differs with their opinion.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I do not think the minister has any right to suggest that I made that statement purely to infer that the minister was making an incorrect statement. I did so for the simple reason that I wanted to find out what the attitude of the government was, and I referred the minister to the statement he made last year in which he said that he had voted against the proposal. I have seen reports of that conference which state that the conference turned down the proposal. In view of the fact that the government of which the minister is a member is opposed to the acceptance of sterling, and in view of the fact that the international commodity clearing house is based upon the acceptance of sterling, I do not see how the minister could possibly have done anything else than oppose the proposal.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is all right. I do not think my hon. friend needs to make another speech. He raised the question whether or not I was inferring something that I should not infer. I have corrected him on three previous occasions and each time he has got up on the floor of the house and repeated the statement all over again and said he was right.


Victor Quelch: Because the minister kept changing his statement.


James Garfield Gardiner: I took it for granted when the hon. member kept repeating the same thing time after time that there must have been a vote on the matter but there was no vote on it at all, and therefore I did not vote. The whole position of the Canadian government is contained in a speech which I delivered on that occasion, and it was considered by the government before I went to the conference.


Victor Quelch: How can a conference turn down a proposal without some form of vote on it?


James Garfield Gardiner: They turned it down because a proposal was made which was satisfactory.
15. 1954
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus That proposal was for a working committee instead of setting up the clearing house spoken of in the resolution, and the work was proceeded with under that committee. In view of the fact that this matter has been dealt with on a number of occasions I thought it necessary for me to make a statement once again and to put the position clearly on record.
Coming back to the question which we have before us at the moment, which is an important one. It has been said by hon. members that we should follow the American practice at the present time in connection with the handling of wheat. I have the American plan here in my hand, and having it in my hand I think I should place it on the record. These are the acreage allotments and marketing quotas on United States wheat.
1.	Authority for acreage allotments and marketing quotas is provided in the agricultural adjustment act of 1938 as amended. This legislation provides that not later than July 15 of each marketing year for wheat the secretary shall ascertain and proclaim the total supply and the normal supply of wheat for such marketing year and the national acreage allotment for the next crop of wheat. It provides further that when the secretary determines that the supply of wheat will exceed a certain quantity, as set out in section 335(a), he shall, not later than July 1, proclaim the fact and that during the marketing year beginning July 1 of the next succeeding calendar year a marketing quota shall be in effect. Between the date of issuance of such proclamation and July 25-mid-August in the amended legislation-a referendum is to be held to determine whether the farmers approve the quota. If more than one-third of the farmers oppose it the secretary shall by proclamation suspend the operation of the quota.
That is the first provision in connection with the establishment of support for wheat prices in the United States.
Then I come to the next one.
2.	The agricultural act of 1949 provides price support for wheat at 90 per cent of parity for cooperators, defined as those whose acreage does not exceed the farm acreage allotment-
In other words, just as the chairman of the agricultural committee said a few moments ago in discussing this question, when you impose price controls and establish anything in the nature of what they have in the United States you must have along with it acreage control as well. The two things are tied together.
The agricultural act of 1949 provides price support for wheat at 90 per cent of parity for co-operators-defined as those whose acreage does not exceed the farm acreage allotment-if the marketing quotas have not been disapproved. The rate is to be 50 per cent of parity for co-operators if the marketing quotas have been disapproved by producers.
6034	HOUSE OF
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus
That is quite a different proposition from the proposition that has been discussed here.
It has been suggested that the farmer in the United States goes ahead and produces whatever wheat he feels inclined to produce; that that wheat is produced at 90 per cent of parity; that a loan is made upon it to the extent of 90 per cent of parity, and then he can do so and so and so and so. That is not correct at all.


An hon. Member:: Who made that
statement?


James Garfield Gardiner: The fact of the matter is that if 90 per cent of parity is established by the vote that takes place once a year the individual is bound by that acreage once it is established. If he has any more than that amount of acreage seeded then the amount he is allowed, if he is allowed anything at all, is considerably less that 90 per cent on all the wheat he grew.
Then I come to the third point.
3.	The national acreage allotment under the existing legislation is to be such that with normal yields and taking into account estimated carry-over and imports it will make available an amount equal to a normal year's domestic consumption and exports, plus 30 per cent thereof. The minimum for any year was to be not less than 55 million acres.
In other words, the acreage in the United States, which at the end of the war was 83 million acres, could be reduced to 55 million acres. As everyone knows, when the vote was taken last August the acreage in the United States was reduced by 16 million acres. That 16 million acres taken off the 78 million made an acreage of 62 million. The fact is that if American farmers seed more than their quota of the 62 million acres then those who exceed their quota in acres will, under this particular proposal, suffer thereby in so far as any support for prices they get is concerned.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: How much a bushel for his wheat, though?


James Garfield Gardiner: I might say to the hon. member for Mackenzie that I once heard a very prominent member in this house make the remark that no one ever listens himself into trouble.
4.	The prospective supply for the 1954 crop year was such that this minimum would have been in effect. Amending legislation signed by the President on July 14, 1953 set the 1954 allotment at 62 million acres-
-the figure which I gave a moment ago. The 1953 wheat acreage was 78 million acres.

5.	The referendum on the wheat marketing quota for 1954 was held on August 14, 1953. The quota was approved, over 87 per cent of the farmers voting in favour of it.
As the hon. chairman of the agricultural committee said a few moments ago, you cannot tie down the price of wheat and make that work successfully unless at the same time you have acreage control. If there is one thing that the western farmers have voted against, talked against and worked against ever since I have been in Saskatchewan, and that is ever since the province was formed, it has been any kind of acreage control. Of course the reason for that is obvious. We are a new province. Farmers are settling here and there throughout the length and breadth of it. They have objected at all times to acreage control, and because they have objected to acreage control many of the things that are being suggested from the other side of the house are an impossibility.
A few moments ago something was said by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) about the supplies of wheat that have been sold at different times. Prior to the war Britain was very anxious that she should not be put into the position where she was consuming more than 90 million bushels of our wheat in a year. This did not mean that she would not buy any more than 90 million bushels of our wheat. There was a time when Britain bought wheat for the most of Europe. She bought it from us and other people and distributed it to the countries in Europe. Since the war she has not felt in a position to do that kind of thing, so she has been buying wheat for herself and allowing others to make arrangements for the supplies they required.
I have here a table of the imports of wheat into the United Kingdom from the different countries during 1951, 1952 and 1953. I shall just use the round figures, because it is only to get comparisons. Australia exported to the United Kingdom in 1951, 21 million bushels; in 1952, 16 million bushels; in 1953, 14 million bushels. Canada exported in 1951 just four times what Australia placed in the United Kingdom, 84 million bushels; in 1952, 103 million bushels; in 1953, for nine months -this statement just carries me down to the end of September-83 million bushels. These are calendar years, not crop years. Then from the United States the United Kingdom imported in 1951, 39 million bushels; then 16 million and 16 million, for the next two years. The figures for France are as follows: 1,200,000; 797,000; 12,500. The figures for other countries are 5,293,000;	681,000;

1,618,000. The Soviet union supplied wheat only in one year out of that group, the year 1952, 7,338,000 bushels.
Now, let me call attention again to the sales Canada made. They were, in 1951, 84 million bushels; in 1952, 103 million bushels, and in the first nine months of 1953, 83 million bushels. I have the figures for flour here, and when you take in flour and wheat the figure is raised to the figures mentioned a few moments ago by the hon. member for Eglinton for 1952 of 123 million bushels. When you take wheat and flour both, the other figures are comparable.
What I wanted to point out was this. Britain has been taking about the usual amounts of wheat and flour from this country. When you take the first year, for example, the figures are 84 million bushels of wheat and 9 million bushels in the form of flour. For the next year, there is a similar position and in the last year it is 83 million bushels of wheat for nine months and 6 million bushels in the form of flour. The figures work out to be quite comparable but are much higher than any other country sold to Britain.
When my hon. friends opposite are discussing this question, I should like to point out that one cannot be too sure what these figures mean. Britain is a very careful trader. Britain is concerned about seeing her population is fed, in a country where they cannot produce more than about 50 per cent of their own food, and so she does her own storing in her own way. When there is a situation that may threaten war, she has her own methods of storing up and retaining certain amounts until she is sure there is not going to be any trouble, or comparatively sure that there is not. She then consumes the wheat in storage and buys less.
There is not any way in which anyone in this house can take these matters and consider them reasonably in any other manner than by taking a long period of time. To say that Britain only bought so much wheat in some months or some particular year is on the face of it ridiculous if you want to make comparisons. Even saying that Britain only took so much wheat in a particular year, particularly if you can show an unusually high amount in the preceding year, does not mean that one is at all sure whether she is supplying the nation in that year or whether she is supplying storages to take care of any difficulties which may happen in the next year.
What we in this country, and those in every other country that is selling wheat in the markets over there, must do is to do our own reasoning. We must come to our own conclusion and go ahead from whatever
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus point of view we reach. We must do the best we possibly can in support of our own people who are producing the product, and that is exactly what the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been doing, in so far as he directs the wheat board at all. I know from long experience in dealing with the wheat board that no one here directs the wheat board. The wheat board comes here from time to time and asks for advice on certain things they may wonder whether or not they should do. As for the minister directing them as to what they should do, that board was set up at the request of the producers in western Canada and at the request of no one else. It took the producers years to establish the idea here. First they tried it with the preceding government, and I believe there is only one member in this house now who was in that government then. The farmers attempted to have the preceding government establish a compulsory wheat board. They put forth every effort to have that done.
I must say, to the credit of the Bennett government of that day, that they brought down a bill which provided not only for compulsory marketing of wheat but compulsory marketing of all grain. My friend shakes his head, but I say to him to go and read the legislation.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I was just shaking my head because it is a red letter day when a fair remark is made from across the gangway about the Bennett government.


James Garfield Gardiner: I beg my hon. friend's
pardon for having thought anything else. In so far as the statement is concerned, I have said it so often without getting credit for it that I am sure I appreciate the credit I get tonight. The government of Mr. Bennett brought down a bill to provide for the compulsory marketing of western grain through a wheat board. There was a discussion about it on the floor of the house, and finally that bill was withdrawn. A committee of five was appointed and Mr. Bennett made himself chairman of the committee. This committee brought in another bill. I am not going to discuss the bill because it is not for that purpose I bring up the question at the moment. I bring it up in order to say that because of the experience we had gone through in western Canada, hon. members on the other side of the house should be warned, particularly those in the C.C.F. group, that the kind of suggestions they have been making here this afternoon are not the suggestions that are going to settle the wheat question in western Canada.
6036	HOUSE OF
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus I am speaking from memory when I say this, and I may be a little out on my figures -if my friends look them up and find I am a little out, I hope they will not say I was attempting to misrepresent the facts here or say something I knew to be incorrect-my memory is that back in 1929, after we had a strong wheat pool in existence for a little better than four years, the initial payment on wheat had been built up to a fairly high level. Just as gentlemen across the floor of the house are saying now: "You should make this initial payment as high as you can, you should make it ten cents higher than the price is now"-according to one of the resolutions-"and start off from there", well, that is exactly the same kind of argument that was used with the wheat pools back in 1929. And when the wheat pool did that-and I am talking about the Saskatchewan wheat pool- when they thought that a dollar was high enough, they were compelled by the delegates to put it at $1.25.
Now, we went through that year. We had enormous losses, because the price of wheat went down. I say "we", because I was a member of it and I am still a member of it, and had something to do with starting it up in the first place. And so we took the losses that year because we set the initial payment too high, and because we were not permitted to lower it until sufficient wheat went on the market for the pools to have very considerable losses.
Now, the next year Mr. Bennett agreed to become more or less responsible for the losses they had incurred by guaranteeing the pools at the banks, guaranteeing their accounts, and allowing them to go on for a time on the condition that they allowed him to appoint a chairman, a one-man board, who would go ahead and handle wheat. Mr. McFarland was put in charge of wheat. And then, during the year that followed, the provinces were appealed to to put up money or rather to put up security against money that had been lost by the wheat pools. And the three provinces did that.
The outcome of that was that the Saskatchewan government, a province where more than half the wheat is grown, became responsible for something well over $20 million. The legislation was put through the house while I was a member of it; as a matter of fact, while I was leading the opposition. And I opposed some of it. Nevertheless the legislation went through. But it tied up the wheat pool in Saskatchewan over a twenty-year period. And, do you know, it is only three or four years ago that the pool was celebrating having made the last payment on that loss that was taken at that time.


Why was it taken? It was taken because the delegates who met at pool meetings in 1929 insisted upon a high initial payment, putting the pool into a position where they had to get the guarantee of governments in order to be able to carry on at all. And so the government stated how the policy was going to be conducted, and they put Mr. McFarland in charge of handling the wheat.
I do not know whether Mr. McFarland was told what to do. I only know that what he did do was to build up a greater and greater surplus during the time he was there. And when we came into office, or shortly after we came in, he had 298 million bushels of wheat in store, in 1935. Well, we asked him to sell it. My hon. friends the other night were calling this a fire sale. We asked him to sell the wheat. Why did we ask him to sell it? We asked him to sell it because we were of the opinion that to pile up wheat in this country and to hold it off the market with the idea you are going to improve the price was a wrong policy to follow; and that, as a matter of fact, the only way in which you could improve the price was to have the wheat eaten up at some price people were prepared to pay.
So we said, "Sell it". He said he would not sell it; so we got a new board. The new board sold the wheat with the result that in 1936 wheat averaged $1.22 a bushel, whereas it had been in the 80's at the time the order to sell was issued. And then the next year it was $1.31 a bushel. And so the farmer made the difference between about 84 or 86 cents a bushel as it was when the action was taken and $1.22 as the average in one year and $1.31 in the other.
All I am suggesting tonight is, that in so far as the farmers of western Canada are concerned-and that does not include very many fellows in the C.C.F. group-they are not going to have a board that is operating for them take the same kind of position again. They know what the results are. They know that a minister who comes here to this house and indicates that he has a clear line of policy for selling this wheat and getting it on the market is right. I made a statement the other day similar to what I am making now. I was speaking out in Saskatchewan; and of course when you are talking in the open air at a meeting, where they have loud speakers, covering about 40 acres, you cannot judge the attitude of listeners very well. But three or four men came to me after the speech was over and they said, "There was only one remark we heard while you were making that speech". I might say that they were not all speaking to me at the one time. Each one said, "The only remark we heard them making was this, 'He is dead right' ".

If my hon. friends are doing as the hon. member for Rosthern suggested they were doing-that is, if they are just trying to get votes-then I suggest they had better change their tune a little bit. Because after all the farmers in western Canada, particularly in Saskatchewan where more than half the wheat is grown, know this question just as well as any member in this house. They know what is in their interests, and they know what is not in their interests. And because they know I believe they are in support of what the government is doing at the present time.
My hon. friends in the C.C.F. have been very anxious during the last two or three days to say that the farmer in Saskatchewan is prosperous. It is not a month since they were panning me in every newspaper and on every platform in western Canada because I had said that the farmers were getting along better at the present time than they had at any other time in my experience. And now they come here and try to compete with one another in telling us that the farmer in Saskatchewan is well off.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Mang).


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friends apparently are getting concerned about the hon. member for Qu'Appelle quoting their leader in the province of Saskatchewan, who happens to be the premier of Saskatchewan. Well, all the hon. member for Qu'Appelle did was to take the pamphlets that are being mailed through the mail every morning. I know that because I get one every morning. And the pamphlet quoted here the other night by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle was a pamphlet which I got a few days earlier telling me about the wonderful prosperity we have among farmers in Saskatchewan. As a matter of fact they said that while other provinces may be going down in the matter of returns and while other provinces may not be coming down in the matter of the cost of putting their products out, they went on to prove that Saskatchewan was in a better position than any of the other provinces.
Well, if they are I am very glad to hear it, because that is where I farm myself; and I know something about what farmers' returns are in Saskatchewan. I know something about what the condition of the farmer is today, as compared with the condition of the farmer in any other year since the beginning of the first war. And, knowing that, I am in agreement with some of the things which the Saskatchewan government said. But I am sure my hon. friends who represent the C.C.F. party in this house did not get very
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus much out of what he said to back up anything they have been saying lately. They have been suggesting that the farmer is going down and down. And when they are making that statement, knowing that probably there is not much to back it up, then they change it by saying, "If he is not going down and down, all right, he will be some day."
Well, we have been hearing that ever since the war ended. These gentlemen must pray every night that we will get a depression in Canada. When they get up to express themselves in this house and outside of it that is what they continuously say, and most people who do pray talk about the things they pray about. So these gentlemen over there no doubt hold forth on that ground. Is it the pamphlet published by the government of Saskatchewan which changed their tune?
Well, the farmer can stand more for his wheat. As a matter of fact, quite a lot of people thought he might get $2 or more for it. I recall one of them who was expressing these views very freely a while ago. A newspaperman came to me while I was out west there last week and asked me what I thought about it. I said: "Well, I have learned long ago not to be too free with prophecies with regard to the price of wheat".


Mr. Rowe:: That is only recently.


James Garfield Gardiner: He said: "You are just as bad to get a statement out of as my friend who was talking about it a short time ago and saying that we as farmers out here should not think of anything else but getting the high price which the governments were asking for their wheat at the time the international wheat agreement was under discussion". Well, I said to him at the time, and I am going to say it here, that fortunately or unfortunately, whichever it might be, depending on what you are thinking, we must depend on selling a greater part of the wheat, or at least more wheat to Britain than we sell to any other country in the world if we are going to market our wheat, and Britain no doubt will have something to say about what she pays for it.
We are not doing something any different from what we have always done in that regard. We do discuss these things with the British; we do discuss them with our United States friends to the south; and the only time, you know, that Canada did not discuss it with our United States friends to the south was back in 1932, and everybody knows that this government was not in power then. And what happened to wheat? When it was not discussed with the United States,

Wheat-Marketing of Surplus when they did not know what we were going to do and we did not know what they were going to do, then the price of wheat was, as the minister said the other day, as low as 46 cents a bushel. As a matter of fact, I remember selling wheat that year for 26 cents a bushel.


William Earl Rowe: Because you did not discuss it with the United States?


James Garfield Gardiner: Partly, because you did not when you were in the government.


William Earl Rowe: Because you did not discuss it with the United States?


James Garfield Gardiner: That question was not discussed with the United States.


William Earl Rowe: That was not the reason.


James Garfield Gardiner: But, as the minister has been telling you from time to time-


William Earl Rowe: That was not the reason.


James Garfield Gardiner: -we do keep in close touch with our United States friends to the south. We keep in touch with them with regard to the marketing of products in their country and with regard to feeding people in different parts of the world who require to be fed, and we try to co-operate in such a way as to get not only their farmers but our own farmers the best possible return for the products they are selling, and more particularly for their wheat.
Something has been said about the costs going up. I have been told during the last two or three weeks by people who sell the most expensive commodities that the farmer buys in western Canada that they are not making many sales out there at present. Now that is true. My friend says it is right. Of course it is right. But there is more than one reason why it is right. The chief reason is that during the war farmers could not buy new machinery at all. They were refused the right to buy, with the result that when the war was over the equipment on every farm in western Canada was run down to such a state that farmers had to get new equipment, and unfortunately perhaps for us we had to compete with the Korean war in getting it and the prices were high. But nevertheless the returns were sufficiently high that farmers could go and buy, in spite of that fact. As hon. members from Saskatchewan know, we have I think the most advanced implement legislation there is in any province in Canada out in Saskatchewan. It has been there for a long time.
I have no doubt that by the time this gets out in print the present government out there will be taking credit for it, but it happened away back in 1915, so that there is not much 

credit coming to them. It has been amended from time to time, and as the law now stands it is almost impossible for a man out in that province to get an implement unless he is able to pay about 50 per cent in cash. And that is not a bad thing for him either.
But he has been buying implements under that legislation and he has been getting himself equipped until today-I think every hon. member who comes from that section of the country will agree-he is as well equipped or a little better equipped than he ever was before, and equipped with expensive machinery. The only worry that some of us have had about it is whether he will get the machinery entirely paid for before he runs into difficulties in connection with the marketing of his wheat and the returns which he obtains for it when he does market it. If he is able to pay off anything that he owes on the machinery and go on operating from there he will be doing very well.
What the implement companies tell me is that during the last year, and more so during this year, their sales have been going down very materially. But they know that that is not only because there have been some reductions in the prices of commodities in 1953 as compared with 1951. They make their comparisons between 1953, and 1948 and 1949. They know that one of the reasons is that the farmers are equipped with good implements, and therefore at the present time they are not buying more. They are able to get along, and my hope is-I am sure it is the hope of every hon. member who comes from western Canada-that our farmers will go along with the kind of equipment which they require in order to do the job that they are doing efficiently, and that they will not be led into investing too much in farm implements and other equipment, particularly if they can get along well without getting that new equipment. The implement people think that that is what they are doing. They think the farmers still remember the days when they incurred considerable indebtedness in order to get the things that they required.
Hon. members on the other side of the house, and particularly the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough), said this afternoon: Yes, of course it is true that the indebtedness of the farmers has gone down. The mortgages are not as high as they were; they are paying them off and conditions are better today than they were at some other time, and what I am praying for-and I am sure my friends will pray along with me-is that we shall get along with the marketing of this wheat.
Why, we have had the three biggest crops that we have ever grown in western Canada.

Well, you can come here and quote statistics that the farmer has more wheat than he ever had before. The fact is that he grew so much wheat in the last three years-he grew more than he ever grew before-that he could not possibly have been in any other position than to have more wheat than he ever had before. I am still agreeing with the Minister of Trade and Commerce that it is not a bad thing for the farmers in western Canada after those three years experience to have some wheat on their farms and to be in the position that they are today where they can sell a whole year's wheat over the year that is ahead or over the months that are ahead, even if they have a poor crop. When they do, if they do get the return which is offered now, and if they do not get any more than that, the fact that they have produced on an average about twice as much, from 75 per cent to 100 per cent more than they did before in other three-year periods, they will have more in cash for the labour that they put forth in order to produce that wheat than they have ever had on any other occasion.
After all the labour he puts forth and the costs he puts into his implements and other requirements are the real costs of producing so much wheat. If he gets 50 per cent more than he expected to get or 75 per cent more than he expected to get, then it is not a case of his costs having gone up as compared with what he sells, it is a case of his sales going up as compared with what he had to pay in costs. And those farmers tell me that so long as we have a Minister of Trade and Commerce who is optimistic, who does think that he can sell the wheat-because he thinks he can sell it, he probably will-then they are in the best position that they can possibly be in.
Even my hon. friend who runs a hardware store in Moose Jaw will agree that if his business is run on that principle he will be all right for quite a long time.


Mr. Speaker:: I am in a very difficult position because, like myself, hon. members have seen the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) rise on three previous occasions, and perhaps at this time one of them might yield because I think that would be the best thing to do. I appreciate the cooperation of the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe).


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I will take only about five minutes, Mr. Speaker. I think there is one fact which has emerged in this debate so far. Whether hon. members come from the east or the west, whether they are Liberal, Conservative, C.C.F. or Social Credit, after listening to this 83276-382
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus debate I think they must realize that the western farmer today is having marketing difficulties.
We are in real trouble with our wheat. This is not a matter of levity in western Canada. Our granaries are jammed to capacity, our elevators are filled, and we have wheat lying out in the fields. It appears moreover, that we will have another bumper crop this year.
In view of these facts our farmers naturally are concerned. Thus it seems to me that the main purpose of this debate today should be to discuss what can be done about our huge wheat surplus; what can be done about this 700 million bushels of wheat which is presently on hand.
I listened to the spokesman of the Conservative party today. I heard their amendment to the effect that this house regrets the government has failed to deal effectively with the problem. I am inclined to agree with them, but what alternative have the Conservatives to offer? I listened to government spokesmen also, including the minister tonight, and I did not hear them propose any solution over and above what they have given us so far.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have two or three concrete suggestions I would like to place before the house if I can do it within the five minutes at my disposal. I do not think there is any easy or obvious solution to our wheat surplus. I do not feel there is any magic formula. I am convinced there is no simple answer. But I do believe there are a few steps which could be taken. I feel that no one in parliament should treat this wheat problem with indifference, and I do not thinir we should meet the problem with inaction. On the other hand, I do not think hon. members should panic.
Speaking personally I cannot get too worried about having had bumper crops in western Canada. I cannot get too worried about having too much wheat. It is a lovely problem to have. But despite the fact that we should not treat our surplus as a liability, there are some steps we have to consider taking without delay. I agree with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that following the United States procedure of cutting acreage is not the answer, and I do not think a price war is any satisfactory solution.
What can we do? First of all I think the Department of Agriculture should go out to our farmers in western Canada and urge them to feed as much grain as possible to livestock, hogs, turkeys, chickens, and sheep. I have always believed that in western Canada it would be a sensible thing to have a

Wheat-Marketing of Surplus more diversified agricultural economy. It is good insurance in case we hit low prices for grain, and it is good insurance in case we hit a drought.
Today with so much grain on hand, surely it is more sensible than ever for every single farmer in the west to get into diversified farming. I know some hon. members will probably say, "Well, if they go into cattle and hogs we will then have a surplus of meat." To a degree that may be quite correct. But, Mr. Speaker, I do not think our farmers today are taking full advantage of the Geneva agreement provisions, which permit us to sell these products to the United States.
For example, where cattle are concerned, there is today a cent and a half per pound tariff on the first 200,000 calves and the first 400,000 cattle of 700 pounds or more which we sell annually. Last year we sold to the United States only 2,000 calves and 45,000 head of cattle.
As far as hogs are concerned, under the Geneva agreement we are entitled to sell all the hogs that we can produce if we want to pay a tariff of one cent per pound. Yet last year we only sent 20,232 swine to the United States. As far as sheep and lambs are concerned, we can send unlimited quantities down there at a tariff of $3 per head. But last year we sent only 153 sheep to our southern neighbour.
As far as poultry is concerned there is a tariff of two cents per pound and there is no quota. But last year we sent only 227 turkeys and 45,000 poultry of other kinds. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I say again that if we can be sure that the United States will not renege on their commitments under the Geneva agreement, I think there is a very real market for our farmers in which to sell livestock and poultry in the United States. I suggest this is the first practical method which we should follow to get rid of our huge grain surplus. Let the government help the farmers to help themselves. I think that literally dozens of millions of bushels of wheat could be marketed in such a manner.
In the second place, Mr. Speaker, I am not convinced that the government is doing a good selling job as far as the iron curtain countries are concerned. The other day I mentioned that I did not think the Department of Trade and Commerce has done such a good job of selling. Only a month ago the Russian ambassador said that his country was willing to buy wheat. Two officials from the Russian embassy called at the Department of Trade and Commerce, but all our officials did was to give them a few prices. They


did not follow up the sale in any way at all.
I do not think aggressiveness was shown nor selling capacity. I do not feel that advantage is being taken of that potential market.
We know that Russia, China, and other countries behind the iron curtain are very badly in need of foodstuffs. When we have 700 million bushels of wheat in western Canada I simply cannot see why we cannot get together. I think something should be done by the government to increase sales to eastern nations.
In the third place, and I am rushing, I think our government should do a little more than it is doing as far as our immigration program is concerned. I think it is sensible for our government to bring people into Canada to consume our grain and foodstuffs. I fully realize that there is considerable agitation throughout the country at the present time for curtailing immigration. The trade unions are a little bit afraid of it. But as far as our farmers are concerned, Mr. Speaker, I think there is nothing more realistic than to have a larger domestic market right here at home. I hope the government will not yield to some of the pressure which has been put upon them recently to reduce the immigration quota. I think we are always likely to have a farm marketing problem as long as our population remains as low as 15 million.
I shall close in a minute but before I do so I want to say that I think the Minister of of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) should be interested in barter deals.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Huh!


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: The minister says "huh" but there may be some countries interested in buying our wheat which would like to indulge in barter. I admit it is not ordinarily a good way to do business, but if it is the only way in which we can sell wheat to Russia or some other country, then let us have barter. Even in my own business I sometimes have customers who cannot pay cash immediately and if that is the case I extend long term credit. Might I then suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that perhaps some potential purchasers of wheat need long term credit, and if that is so let us extend it to them. I believe too, Mr. Speaker, that it might be sensible for Canada to consider giving very modest gifts of wheat to some of the needy nations of the world. I certainly would not recommend going overboard-there are sensible limits to such a program. However, such a program should be considered.
Mr. Speaker, I have tried to stay within my five minutes. Before sitting down, may I repeat that there are several things this government could do. If they do not act the

western farmer is going to be in trouble; and as soon as the western farmer is in trouble, the difficulty will be like a snowball, it will react right through our economy as a whole.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


William Earl Rowe: May I move the adjournment of the debate?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Go ahead.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I think the house will realize that we sat beyond ten minutes past ten last night. Perhaps we could go further tonight without prejudice to a decision on any succeeding night. I think it is probably the desire of the house that we complete this debate so that there might be a recorded vote rather than having it go over until another day, although I realize that we shall have to make another motion to go into supply tomorrow. However, I think hon. members would like to dispose of this debate tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mrs. Fairclough:: I do not think so.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that we carry on with this discussion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, it is not my desire to break the rules of the house, even to please the government. It is now ten o'clock and I know there are many who feel-


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member has not much to say, anyway.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Speak for yourself.


William Earl Rowe: If I were sitting where the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is sitting, I would not have much to say having regard to the spectacle that is presented to the Canadian people today so far as the sale of wheat is concerned.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Carry on.


William Earl Rowe: I thank the minister for the privilege. I had it anyway. I have the privilege of carrying on in this house without its coming from the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Tonight, as I listened to the glibness of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) about the marketing situation of Canadian farm products and his reference to what had happened back some twenty years ago, several thoughts went through my mind.
83276-382J
15, 1954	6041
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus I know that every colleague of the Minister of Agriculture joins with me in saying that we are delighted to see him so much improved in health and back to his old-time vigour. I always had great admiration for the minister. I am delighted to see his physique improved to its old form, even though his mentality has not changed.
But even when the minister is not as physically fit as he is now, he is probably the most mentally agile and glib member in the house. When I hear him saying that the reason we took a low price for wheat in the 1930's was that we did not discuss the matter with the United States of America, I am reminded that he is harking back to and re-echoing the old-time policy of the party to which he belongs. As early as 1887 they proposed commercial union with the United States. Down through the years of reciprocity and all the rest of the years they have been looking north and south instead of east and west.
During the course of the very speech he made tonight, the minister re-emphasized on two or three occasions that the best market in the world we had for our wheat was the United Kingdom. Yet at the same time he said that the reason we did not seE the unsold wheat that was left by his party when this party came into power in 1930 was that we did not discuss the matter with the United States of America. Imagine his saying that, Mr. Speaker! If he had not said it so loudly no one in the house would have believed it; but, Mr. Speaker, when he said it so loudly, even the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) applauded. Can anyone fathom such ridiculousness?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Louder!


William Earl Rowe: Even if you did not hear me, you believe me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Even if we do not believe you, we enjoy it.


William Earl Rowe: I am not much concerned, Mr. Speaker, whether he believes me or whether he enjoys me. I know that no one in Canada will believe it. Certainly those intelligent farmers that he speaks of in western Canada will not do so. They are just as inteUigent as are the farmers in eastern Canada. Why in the barber shops, in the pool shops and in the garages in Canada they would laugh at such a statement. They would actually laugh at such a statement.


James Garfield Gardiner: We handed you only 76 million; you left us 298 nullion.


William Earl Rowe: You might as well talk about milhons as far as the other producers in Canada are concerned. What about the iron ore and the mineral producers in the
6042	HOUSE OF
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus thirties? What about the pulp and paper producers in the thirties? What about the producers of any other articles you like? Let me say this to you people who are always talking about getting farm implements cheap for the farmers of Canada. I bought implements in 1930 and I bought them for $110 whereas I am now paying $800.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: You now have the money with which to pay for them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Probably we did not have the money then; but Mr. Speaker, that is not the issue. If it had not been for the sharp interjection or interruption, Mr. Speaker, you would probably have called me to order for even answering something that is so irrelevant to the issue that is before us.
The Minister of Agriculture speaks about the way in which we sold wheat. Every hon. member within sound of my voice knows that every elevator in Canada was bulging and overloaded with unsold wheat when the Conservative party came into power in 1930, and that every lumber yard that had not been burned for insurance was overloaded with lumber that had not been sold. Nobody knows that better than does the Minister of Agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not burn any.


William Earl Rowe: There was not a sale for anything in Canada when his party went out of power and one of the reasons was that which the minister has mentioned tonight. From 1921 to 1930 their eyes were cast north and south again. In 1921 we sold to the United Kingdom more beef, more bacon and more wheat than we have sold in practically any other year until this late war came on. Whenever we mention an imperial conference they scoff at the suggestion. They think we are thinking of nothing but the old empire, the British commonwealth and the union jack.
On the hustings the Minister of Agriculture and his cohorts will say that this party talk about trade but keep themselves wrapped up in the union jack. But down through the years, for the last 50 years-yes, for the last 75 years-we have had a favourable trade balance with the United Kingdom. As the Minister of Agriculture has so well said tonight-and no one knows it better than he-the best market in the world available to the Canadian people for wheat and for mixed farming products is the United Kingdom market. The only other market that is better than that one for agricultural products is the market right here at home; and that


market is not improved by listening to Washington. To say that the price of wheat in Canada went down as low as it did in 1930 because we did not discuss it with Washington when the United States of America were selling their wheat in Buffalo at exactly the same price is just nonsense. Why, Mr. Speaker, such nonsense in this issue is not even politically attractive. It is only a political nuisance.


An hon. Member:: It surely is.


William Earl Rowe: I hear "carried" outside the curtains, the echoes made by those who keep speaking inside the curtains. I know that remarks like that are more popular out there than they are in here. But if you look at the spectacle of what has happened, here is what we find. The Minister of Agriculture will remember it very well. I cannot recall the exact statistics because I did not intend to speak and I have not any notes. However, I will do as the Minister of Agriculture has done so well in the past and say this: If my statement is not exactly correct, it is not an error of intention. In fact, I have heard him modify his remarks in that way on many occasions previously. It is a neat way of being reckless and yet having people believe that you are honest.


Mr. Dickey:: Go ahead. Be reckless.


William Earl Rowe: No, I am not as reckless as the hon. member even though he does not speak as much in the house as some others. I am not even reckless in my thinking. I suggested a few years ago that we should sell our wheat more or less according to the law of supply and demand and that we should not try to be so generous as to accept less than the world would give us for our wheat. In those years the farmers of western Canada, those intelligent friends of the minister, were losing $300 million to $400 million a year by having to take much less than the world price. I can well recall that at that time the minister said to me: You have not as much confidence in the British traders as I have. I remember saying to him that very shortly he would find that the British traders would buy wheat where they could buy it the cheapest. I wonder whether he does not recall that. He nods his head in approval. Thanks for the sporting gesture of indicating that I was right once.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh no, I just recall it.


William Earl Rowe: But now he suggests that we must sell where we can sell. I say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and others have said the same thing at election time, that

this Howe-Gardiner salesmanship corporation has brought about the greatest fiasco of a gamble with somebody else's money that has ever been seen in any corporation in Canada. The Minister of Agriculture has got more butter than he knows what to do with. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is selling pork to Russia for one-quarter of what it cost. They have more wheat now that they cannot sell than has ever been stored in Canada with the exception of 1929 before the Liberals went out of power. The two high record years have been while they were in power. They were in power from 1921 to 1930, and remember, Mr. Speaker, that during those years we practically lost our whole British market. Here in this house in 1926 and 1927 they said that the great hope for the farmers of Canada was to sell their farm products to the United States. We have never believed that.
We do not believe that we can hope for a permanent agricultural market in those southern areas, in that great climate, in that rich agricultural country that produces surpluses of wheat and surpluses of almost everything else. We sold 255 million pounds of bacon to Britain in 1921. We sold $80 million worth of beef at a much lower price than the price of beef today. We sold all sorts of butter, eggs and bacon products, but by 1930 we were importing Danish bacon to feed our own people. It was being sold right in the minister's own province of Saskatchewan. They were taking your barley from Saskatchewan to fatten their hogs in Denmark and selling the bacon back to you so you free traders could eat Danish bacon in western Canada.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, they tell you what they have done to establish these markets. Now we have the spectacle again. We have more unsold wheat than anyone ever anticipated since confederation, and these are the gentlemen who now tell you about the sales that were made back in the thirties. We now have the spectacle of a group of men who refuse to negotiate with Britain, so much so that Britain refused to remain in the international wheat agreement deal and proceeded to buy wheat where she likes. Instead of getting a price of $2.05 they are now intimating tonight that we may even have to take $1.42.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Who intimated that?


William Earl Rowe: I do not think it is a fair statement to suggest that the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that. I think he said it facetiously when somebody said we might have to take $1.42. He said we might have
Wheat-Marketing of Surplus to take another 10 cent drop, and I should not say that he suggested $1.42 because neither he nor anyone else would hope that we will have to take that. But it shows the trend of the times. It shows the change of policy. It shows the change of attitude that these gentlemen who refused $2.50 are now suggesting, even facetiously, that they will take the price that anyone else will give them. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said the other night that we will sell wheat where people will buy it. That is about the most sensible thing I have heard him say in the house in a long time-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: -because the old law of supply and demand must control. I hear some hon. member saying "hear, hear". Of course, Mr. Speaker, you can get "hear, hear" from that side of the house on any kind of issue. If I suggested the highest kind of protection policy I bet that the hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Schneider) would say "hear, hear". If I made the wildest free trade suggestion that has ever been proposed in the house I bet the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) would say "hear, hear". If I suggested a socialist program that would put my friends to the left to shame I bet there are three or four hon. gentlemen over here who would say "hear, hear" if they thought their leaders were not watching them. So, Mr. Speaker, it is a great party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is the only thing they are in agreement about, when you suggest they are a great party, because they involve every stripe, every brand, every political temperament, every fickle idea in politics that there is in Canada and out on the hustings. Nobody knows what they all stand for; God only knows what they each stand for.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: The result is that today we have no sound marketing policy. The Minister of Agriculture did not tell us what the policy is. The Minister of Trade and Commerce came here and said that we will sell as cheaply as anybody else in the world. We have no fiscal policy. God alone knows what the fiscal policy of the Liberal party is today. We have all sorts of textile products coming in here from other countries, heavy machinery, and men unemployed. Some of them on that side of the house want free trade, others want protection and the leaders are afraid to say. The right hon. gentleman

Wheat-Marketing of Surplus who is always glib would be afraid to rise tonight and say that he believes in free trade so far as these industries are concerned.


James Garfield Gardiner: You might be surprised.


William Earl Rowe: The Minister of Trade and Commerce would not rise tonight and say: We will sell wheat as cheaply as anybody else and we will buy for the western farmers textiles and heavy machinery wherever we can buy the cheapest. It would not be fair to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) now because he is going to be judge over all pretty soon. But I know that in his heart of hearts he knows that he has been associated with the greatest conglomeration of mixed policies that the party has had since confederation. They have been all things to all industries; all things to all men, and all types of protection for all phases of policy. The only one who can laugh through it all is the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) because he has been on both sides so often.
The Minister of Agriculture prompted me to rise tonight when he suggested that I was among those responsible for the fiasco between 1930 and 1935.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: Yes, they all say "hear, hear". Some of you younger members who are saying "hear, hear" were not even here. But, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance so well said the other night, because he has moments of sincerity, no particular party was responsible for the fiasco of 1930.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Who said that?


William Earl Rowe: He should explain that to these young hecklers.


Douglas Charles Abbott: You must have been dreaming.


William Earl Rowe: And they know it as well or they would not be worthy of being here. They know that there were 35 million people unemployed throughout the world, that there were 15 million people unemployed in the United States and two and a half million unemployed before this party came into power. Every elevator was filled with unsold wheat and every lumberyard was filled with unsold lumber. Every elevator today is filled with unsold wheat. If it had not been for pre-war, wartime and post-war policies that bailed the government out of a situation for which they had no policy this country would have noticed their weakness in fiscal policy long ago.
I am not going to delay the house. I do not believe in holding the house after ten o'clock.


The group that sits to your right, Mr. Speaker, no doubt like to rush things through when the session is drawing to a close. In fact, in the quarter of a century that I have been here I have noticed there is a cunning device used to try to get contentious measures through, either late on Friday night or some time after ten o'clock.


Mr. Sinclair:: You were never here late on Friday night.


William Earl Rowe: I am glad my hon. friend misses me because if he were not here the fact probably would not be noticed at all. I do feel that this is not a rule we should follow. I would have preferred an adjournment tonight and continue the debate tomorrow. I wish to say that the wheat problem in this country is a serious one. I know that everyone hopes we can sell all the unsold wheat possible.
I am not one of those to whom the Minister of Agriculture referred who is hoping for a depression in this country. We have a serious situation. Personally, I do not believe the government has handled it well. I believe they thought that No. 1 hard wheat could be sold for whatever they wished to ask for it. They refused to take a reasonable price. Fortunately, they have now changed their minds and are ready to deal on a sensible basis. Whether or not wheat prices go lower, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce said, the thing is, and I say this as a farmer myself-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: My hon. friend laughs, but J have always lived on a farm and have been responsible for growing quite a lot of wheat. While we do not grow as much as some of my friends in western Canada, and the Minister of Agriculture gibes me a bit, I think perhaps I have farmed more than he has. In the last two years his government has been chiefly farming the farmers, so far as selling their products is concerned.
I say that there is no farmer within the sound of my voice who wants to be pap fed by the state by means of subsidies. I believe we have to get down to a common sense business basis. On this point I do find myself somewhat in agreement with the Minister of Trade and Commerce, even though it is a new idea of his, that we must sell where we can sell. If the price is not as good as we had expected, it is an honest price. As a farmer, I do not expect other people to pay for my lower prices on wheat.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I realize hon. members are anxious to conclude the debate, but since I understand there are some other speakers I should like to move the adjournment of the debate at this stage.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: There have been two very provocative 40-minute speeches delivered from the other side since eight o'clock, and I think hon. members should not be asked to allow those provocative speeches to go unanswered at this time of night.
Business of the House
On motion of Mr. Nicholson the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: the adjournment of the house:
He said: We shall continue this debate tomorrow and if we get into supply we will call trade and commerce until one o'clock, then transport, secretary of state and agriculture.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Wednesday, June 16, 1954