1954-02-03

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received communications from two members notifying me that the following vacancy has occurred in the representation, viz.:
Of Charles Delmar Coyle, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Elgin, by decease.
Accordingly I have issued my warrant to the chief electoral officer to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



PRIVATE BILL


Mr. John Hunter (Parkdale) moved:: That the petition for divorce of Denise Marie Helene Laporte Woodhouse presented on February 2, 1954, together with the report made thereon by the clerk of petitions on February 3, 1954, be referred to the standing committee on standing orders for such recommendations as may be deemed advisable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, for the Prime Minister I move:
That on Wednesday, February 3, 1954, and every Wednesday thereafter to the end of the session, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence over all business except the introduction of bills, questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.
I should say by way of explanation that this has completed private members' days, so that-


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before the minister proceeds to discuss the substance of the motion I raise the point as to whether or not it is proper for this motion to be made at this time. I would call Your Honour's attention to citations 132 and 135 in Beauchesne's third edition. Citation 132 is as follows:
The proceedings of the house must be taken up in accordance with the order of business given in the order paper.
83276-109i
And citation 135 states:
The rule which requires a strict adherence to the order paper is absolutely necessary to prevent surprise.
The motion the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) is seeking to move on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is found at page 17 of the order paper for today under the heading of government notices of motions, which is a category away at the back of today's order paper.
Today's order of business has already been provided by the rules of the house, and I submit it is not proper to bring this motion forward, ahead of its proper position, and try to move it under the order for motions. I recognize that this has been done on some previous occasions, but it must also be recognized that on some of those occasions I have objected to that course being followed.
Another reference to which I would draw Your Honour's attention is standing order 17 at page 61 of Beauchesne's third edition which reads:
17 (1) All items standing on the orders of the day (except government orders) shall be taken up according to the precedence assigned to each on the order paper.
(2) Whenever government business has precedence, government orders may be called in such sequence as the government may think fit.
It is quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that part (1) of standing order 17 gives the government leeway as to the order in which it calls its orders when the category of government orders is properly before the house. This is reinforced by part (2) of that same standing order which makes it clear that the government has that right to choose the order of its own business, but only when government business has precedence.
If notice of this motion had been given a day or two earlier so that it could have been proposed yesterday, that would have been quite proper, and the house would have considered the matter on its merits. In view of the fact that notice was not given until Monday, it comes on today's order paper in the class which I have indicated, and since this is the first time that this issue has arisen in this parliament it should be settled in the proper manner at this time.
Apart altogether from references to citations and precedents that all of us can give -and some hon. members think I am adept at doing that-it seems to me that plain

Business of the House common sense makes it clear that it is unfair, the order of business for the day having been set out in the order paper, for it to be possible on that day for the government to change the day's order paper by trying to bring forward a motion of this kind. Despite the fact that on some occasions this has been done, and in my view done improperly, I submit it should not be done at this time.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Speaker, it had been my intention to raise this point but I had assumed that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration recognized the difficulty and was about to explain how he proposed to bring this motion forward. I believe that a very important consideration is raised and that the motion cannot be heard, except by unanimous consent, at this stage of the proceedings. The list of orders is clearly set out in the order paper for today as follows:
Questions; Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers; Notices of Motions; Public Bills and Orders; Government Notices of Motions; Government Orders.
This does not come under "notices of motions". This comes under the clear definition of "government notices of motions", which is the last but one on the order paper today. Questions are set forth; motions for the production of papers are set forth; and then on page 10 we have "notices of motions", which are obviously referred to in the next item in the order of precedence. Then we have "government notices of motions", then following that "public bills and orders", and after that "government notices of motions"- that is, the heading under which this motion is now presented.
The time or the day on which this notice of motion was entered has nothing to do with the question now before us. It appears in its proper place as a government notice of motion not because of the time it was entered with the Clerk but because this is private members' day. It will be seen that in the order of precedence the questions are questions of private members; the notices of motions for the production of papers are notices of private members; the notices of motions are notices by private members; public bills and orders are public bills and orders presented by private members. Only after all the business of the private members has been dealt with do we come to government notices of motions, and under the heading "government notices of motions" on page 17 of the order paper we find one motion, and that is the one now before us.
I submit that the rules are clear, Mr. Speaker, and the practice is clear on the basis of the status of private members'


business in this house and without unanimous consent this motion cannot be called for consideration until the orders appearing before it on the order paper for today have been called and dealt with.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If hon. members feel that it is necessary to carry on the debate on the point of order I will let them proceed, but I can assure hon. members that I have enough material to give a ruling.
If those hon. members who have participated in the debate have been consistent in opposing a motion of this kind being made in the manner that is being done today, I perhaps might be consistent with my predecessor's ruling on the same point. No one will deny that the government has a right to move a motion affecting the business of the house. What they are required to do is to put a notice in Votes and Proceedings in compliance with standing order 45, which reads:
45. Forty-eight hours' notice shall be given of a motion for leave to present a bill, resolution or address, for the appointment of any committee, or for placing a question on the order paper; . . .
I checked with the Clerk and I have Votes and Proceedings of Monday last before me, and I see that on Monday, February 1, 1954, there stands a notice under "notices of motions and questions", as follows:
The Prime Minister-On Wednesday next-That on Wednesday, February 3, 1954, and every Wednesday thereafter to the end of the session, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence over all business except the introduction of bills, questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.
Now, so far I think that no rules have been violated.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would you permit, sir-


Mr. Speaker:: If I may conclude, then I will hear the hon. member. Hon. members seem to question the propriety of the motion being made under "motions". The very citation that the hon. member read, citation 132, is the one that Mr. Speaker Macdonald had to deal with, when on Monday, September 4, 1950, a similar motion was moved by the Prime Minister. I am reading now from the Journals of that day.
A point of order was raised by Mr. Drew, that, as this motion appeared under "government notices of motions" on page 9 of the "order paper", it should not properly come forward for consideration at this time.
He developed this same argument today. Here is the ruling of Mr. Speaker Macdonald:
I may say to the Leader of the Opposition that last year I considered this same question, and it then seemed to me, as he says, that such a motion

should be considered at a later time. But under citation 132 in Beauchesne's second edition I notice the following:
"The motions allowed on routine proceedings are motions relating to the business of the house and for the discussion of reports from committees".
This motion definitely relates to the business of the house and should therefore be considered at this time. I think the misunderstanding arises from the fact that such motions generally appear under "government notices of motions". Actually, however, they are not "government notices of motions" in the usual sense.
In view of the citation which I have mentioned in Beauchesne's second edition and of the practice which has been established, I think the motion should be considered now.
Later in 1951 a similar situation arose and Mr. Speaker Macdonald ruled-and I am quoting from page 290 of the Journals of Monday, December 10, 1951-
Mr. Speaker ruled that, as the proposed motion dealt with the business of the house and was not a "government notice of motion" in the usual sense, it was in order at this time and that he had previously so ruled on Monday, September 4, 1950, when a similar point of order had been raised.
This I would say is a proper view of the situation. I do not think there could be any argument that would make me change my decision to accept the previous rulings of Mr. Speaker Macdonald on the point which I think are very sound.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, a member rising after such a clear indication of Your Honour's present opinion must appear to have a certain amount of temerity; nevertheless, since you have issued a cordial invitation, may I take a moment or two to express a different view.
I start, sir, with this premise, which I would ask you to consider carefully. I think it was yesterday, or it may have been the day before, that you indicated to the house you would be prepared under certain circumstances to undertake a review of a ruling made by a previous Speaker in connection with the rights of members or leaders of parties to ask questions or to make statements after statements made by ministers.
I draw attention to that fact only to ask you, if when you are prepared to review a ruling of a former Speaker on one matter, whether you should consider also the possibility of reviewing, and if necessary revising, a ruling by a former Speaker on another matter. I say that because I admit at the outset that the ruling of Mr. Speaker Macdonald, if accepted, would be a clear precedent against the point of view I now put forward.
I admit that in fact we are asking you to review that ruling, but I submit that there are good grounds upon which that request can be made. I shall not rehearse the grounds
Business of the House
covered by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) or by my leader, but I would ask you to consider whether the substance of the matter is not this: While routine motions may be taken up at this stage, what we have here is not a routine motion. We are now in that part of the daily proceedings, under routine proceedings, which embraces the presenting of reports by standing and select committees, and motions. Clearly a minister or a chairman of a committee can make at this time a motion which would be a routine motion. For instance, there could be a motion for the concurrence in the report of a committee presented to the house, or there could be statements on public matters.
Liberty is taken there, it is true; but by and large they are made under the heading of motions, because if the minister had wished he could make a formal or routine motion and then make his statement under that heading. I do not see how it is possible for anyone to argue that this is a routine motion. This is a motion which would upset the routine. It is a motion which seeks to change the order of proceedings.
I think I know what is in Your Honour's mind. This is a motion dealing with the routine of the house, dealing with the business of the house. I think it is straining the meaning of language to say that it is a routine motion in the sense that the word "routine" is used under routine proceedings. It is a most exceptional motion. It is made once a session at a time when the government considers it to be appropriate. It is not part of the routine business of the house or of the business of government.
It is on that part that I rest my case and ask you to reconsider Mr. Speaker Macdonald's ruling. This is a government notice of motion, it is true, but it is not a routine motion. As a government notice of motion, it can, I submit, under the rules which regulate the conduct of business on Wednesday, be moved only after routine proceedings including routine motions have been disposed of and when the order of precedence covering government notices of motions has been reached. I submit that the argument is sufficiently clear and sufficiently important to ask you to review the previous ruling which you have cited to us.


Mr. Coldwell:: Mr. Speaker, may I make just one suggestion. You are asked to reconsider a former Speaker's ruling. I think that is a good suggestion. May I say that in order that you may have time to reconsider the ruling, in the light of all the circumstances, the minister should ask the house this after-

Business of the House
noon to give unanimous consent. I think I can say that as far as we are concerned we are prepared to do that. That would give you the opportunity of taking some time to review the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I might put the minds of hon. members at rest by saying that I gave some time to the matter before coming into the house. I considered the ruling of Mr. Speaker Macdonald and also the methods which have been followed in the past with respect to motions presented under routine motions. Motions affecting the business of the house are moved under "motions", which in turn is under routine proceedings.
I have come to the conclusion that the ruling by Mr. Speaker Macdonald was a sound one. That is why I was prepared to give it so quickly and why I had before me the authorities which I cited, namely, the two former rulings of Mr. Speaker Macdonald. Hon. members can rest assured that had I not given it my full consideration I would have been very pleased to delay consideration of it and perhaps give a ruling at a later stage. Every day before the house meets I try to do my homework.
The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) and other hon. members must realize that I do not feel bound by the rulings of my predecessors. I do not feel absolutely bound to accept all the rulings which have been made by my predecessors. If I find that in my opinion a ruling is not a sound one I shall be glad to consult with my experienced colleagues in the house and change the ruling if in my opinion it is not a sound one for the conduct of the affairs of the house.
I am sorry to say to those who do not accept my view that I have considered the matter and I think the ruling is sound. Rulings of a Speaker are not supposed to be debatable. I allowed the hon. member for Kamloops to speak because I invited him to do so, and I also allowed the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar to speak. I thank them for their observations but I think we should now consider the matter settled.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: -from this point-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: -may I suggest to the minister that before he proceeds with his motion there is one consideration that might be borne in mind and that is that the views

to be expressed may take so long this afternoon that the object he seeks to attain might not be fulfilled.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should read the
motion. It is moved by Mr. Harris, seconded by Mr. McCann:
That on Wednesday, February 3, 1954, and every Wednesday thereafter to the end of the session, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence over all business except the introduction of bills, questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.


George Alexander Drew: It may be too late now, but
I made a suggestion in good faith which I think would have saved the time of the house. It had been my intention to appeal and I ask, with all deference, that you allow an appeal to be made, because of the strong views held that this practice is not consistent with what would be in the best interests of this house. I would hope that the fact that I had made a suggestion to the minister, whereupon your remarks came in, will not deny us the right to appeal which we certainly intended to do if the minister proposed to proceed with this motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if
I might say a word


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -on the request made by
the Leader of the Opposition. In my view his request that there be an appeal comes too late although Your Honour's generosity may prompt you to consider it. I suggest to the house that if there are some of us who feel strongly about the motion itself we could have a vote on that motion rather than a vote on an appeal from your ruling. I disagree with Your Honour's ruling, but in view of the fair and generous way in which you have handled this whole matter I hope there will not be an appeal.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member concludes his remarks by saying "I hope there will not be an appeal". On the other hand, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) asks that there should be an appeal from my ruling.
It seems clear to me that it may not be so much the ruling that would be appealed on this occasion, but rather that the ruling would be taken as a pretext to have a vote on the merits of the resolution itself. I want to say that-


George Alexander Drew: No.


Mr. Speaker:: -although I could perhaps revert to the former position and say I will allow the appeal, because of certain views

being expressed to the effect that there should not be an appeal, I do not think I should allow it. It is not that I am against my rulings being appealed, although there is, as hon. members know, a distinction to be made when it comes to an appeal.
The standing order which deals with an appeal against the Speaker's ruling is twofold. It states that when the Speaker decides on a point of order his ruling is subject to appeal, but not when he decides on a point of practice. It is my view that we are dealing much more with the practice of the house at the moment than with a point of order.
For example, hon. members will recall that when the Speaker decides that in his opinion a motion for adjournment under standing order 31 should not be allowed, his ruling is not subject to appeal. This was the view of Speakers Rhodes, Fauteux and Macdonald. They decided that when it was a question of practice and not one of order they would refuse the appeal.
I would imagine hon. members would be satisfied at this moment, now that the motion is being put, to discuss the merits of the question. That is where we now stand and I do not think I should revert to the former position.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, permit me, if I may, to place on record the fact that, with deference, I do not agree. I had asked for an appeal from your ruling and it relates not to the time but to the fact-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has asked too late and at this moment his remarks must be relevant to the motion which is now before the house.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the motion I quite realize that hon. members, particularly hon. members opposite, may feel that it is preventing them from bringing before the house during the session the motions which are on the order paper in their names; but that does not mean that they cannot discuss the particular subject on which they have given notice to the house, because I fancy there is hardly one subject that cannot be raised on the estimates at one time or another. For that reason there is not, in my opinion, a tremendous cause for concern that their opportunities are being curtailed. As a matter of fact, sir, I have been looking at the records since 1949 and I find that in that year there were 6 private members' days; in 1950 there were 9; in the special session of 1950-51 there were none; in 1951 there were 7; in the second session
Business of the House
of that year there were none; in 1952 there were 8; in the past session there were 6; and we have had 7 so far in this session. Therefore, I feel we are not in any way departing from what has been the practice in the past.
May I add by way of information that, as hon. members know, there are about 18 bills and motions of one kind or another on the government side of the order paper. There are in various stages of preparation about 30 additional bills which will be brought before the house, and the house is quite aware of the fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) will be introducing amendments to the Bank Act for special consideration by the banking and commerce committee. There will be other bills of a similar nature that will go to that committee and we have a good deal of business before us now. It does seem to the government that if there is any purpose at all in meeting here in November it is that we should complete the session some time before July 1, or at some such date, as has been usual in the past.
For this reason, and bearing in mind the business which will still have to be dealt with by parliament, we are suggestiing this would be the best course to follow under the circumstances.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, we now have before us the motion which, of course, we can discuss and on which we can explain the reasons why we approve or do not approve. I do not intend to refer to any of the comments that have been made in regard to the precedure itself. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that much more is involved in this motion than is ordinarily the case.
We have been discussing in this house for some days the importance of making it possible for private members to give full and unrestrained service, and the argument which has been presented in support of the substantial increases, not only for the hon. members of this house but for others as well, is that there should be no restriction on the opportunities open to hon. members to serve in this house their constituents and the people of Canada.
There are on the order paper a number of very important motions, motions which represent the one right, the one opportunity, which many private members will have at any time to place before this house subjects they believe should be given consideration. Unless we are to receive the cynical reply

Business of the House
that arguments do not mean anything anyway, and that there is no use placing motions or private bills before this house-which I hope will never be said-then in that case it must be assumed that the government as well as hon. members on the other side are prepared to give consideration to motions or bills placed by private members on the order paper.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that when so many arguments are being made in regard to the important services rendered by private members, which call for such an increase in the allowances, this is the very time when these private members who have supported these increases should stand up in this house and vote against the motion which denies private members their rights.
The issue in this motion is not an issue merely of the surrender of private members' rights this afternoon. It means the end of any regular debating day on private members' motions and bills, which it has been accorded to have been the practice for some considerable time.
The minister who has spoken in respect of this motion has said that in the last session there were 6 private members' days, and that this year there have already been 7. Mr. Speaker, the fact that the government used the axe so early last year is no argument in favour of hon. members permitting that axe to be used now when these hon. members have emphasized their own importance as private members in this house in the way they did by the vote yesterday.
I repeat that the members who should vote against the axe on private members' rights are those who by their vote have sought to place such high importance on the position of private members in this house. This is a chance for private members who believe in the rights of private members to assert their position and to say that whatever may have been the practice in the past, that will not be the practice now, when members are being provided with allowances which more adequately, at any rate, will compensate them for the time they spend here. If it should take a few days longer-and there can be no suggestion that it would be more than a few days longer, because this is only a part day-still that would be simply a slight justification for the speed with which so many members were prepared to deal with this subject already under discussion without the kind of inquiry some of us thought should be made.
Mr. Speaker, I rose to make a suggestion to the minister, and your ruling has in no way precluded my right to repeat that suggestion.

There are various proposals the minister can make if, for any reason, he attaches special importance to this debate proceeding this afternoon. He can do that without passing this resolution which does away with private members' rights on Wednesday for the rest of the session. I do not want to pick out particular motions or bills without admitting immediately that all motions and bills put forward by private members deserve equal consideration. However, I will say that amongst the private members' motions which have been on the order paper for some time, and in regard to which there has been no opportunity for a debate, is that by the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) which appears as item No. 6 under notices of motions. That motion dealing with the extremely important subject of research and the encouragement of research has received editorial support from one side of the country to the other and from speakers not of any one political party but from those associated with business and other activities of various kinds; there has been active and vigorous support for this motion.
I submit that this is the kind of motion that private members should be permitted to bring before the house, and that it is the kind of motion the government should welcome so that they could hear arguments by men and women who have been studying a subject of this kind and as a result, out of the suggestions made, possibly formulate plans which might not otherwise have been considered.
I hope the government will not suggest to us that private members can make no useful suggestions which they themselves have not already thought of. If they were to take that position it would surely be strangely inconsistent with the arguments which have been made in support of other measures still before this house for consideration. No; the government must, in view of the argument they have been making, support the argument that they believe that private members have an important place here and that private members have much to contribute. They have been urging that private members have plenty of time to devote to the study of problems and, presumably, to the making of suggestions here in this house which will help the government. These motions, the private bills or the public bills are not put forward merely for the personal satisfaction of any individual member. They are put forward here as part of the legitimate and proper business of this house.
No matter what number of days have been
permitted in the past before the axe fell,
with the arguments now being made as to

the importance of private members, this is the time to change the trend and to get back to a position where private members in this house are afforded the opportunity to assist the government by placing before parliament suggestions which are in keeping with the status of members as emphasized by the Prime Minister (Mr, St. Laurent) in his remarks in this house on at least two occasions.
When the minister says that any subject matter that is on the order paper can be dealt with on a motion by way of amendment when there is a motion that Your Honour leave the chair when we are going into committee of supply, may I point out to the minister and to hon. members just what that argument implies. That argument implies that these notices of motions, public bills and orders do not really mean much anyway. It implies that this is just so much eyewash and that if anybody has anything to present to this house he might just as well wait until we are going into supply when an amendment can be presented.
Mr. Speaker, that does not meet the situation. Hon, members of this house know perfectly well that while a number of motions may be made by way of amendment as we go into supply, it is not possible to present the number of motions that would correspond to the number of notices of motions, public bills and orders that are put on the order paper of this house. If the argument of the minister means anything at all, it means that private members' proceedings are really very unimportant anyway; that, once we have gone through the motions, we had better dispose of them as soon as possible and let the government, in its might, majesty and power, proceed to steam-roller the business of the house; and that we should then just seek the crumbs that are offered by way of amendments at some later time.
Mr. Speaker, I am using words that I hope will leave no doubt about my belief that what is now being done is utterly inconsistent with every argument made in this house in support of measures that have been presented to this house, one of which was voted on yesterday. I think it would be highly desirable that the minister should not proceed with this motion. There are before us notices of motions on important subjects. There are before us notices of motions that will call for useful debate. There are public bills and orders to be dealt with. Those can be dealt with if we proceed. But, Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance that many of the hon. members attach to this issue, it might 83276-110
Business of the House
well be that we could not proceed with anything this afternoon if it were sought to press this argument that we should not have an opportunity of this kind.
I hope that no suggestion will be made that the private members have not recognized the importance of these notices of motions, public bills and orders because there have been occasions when, in the last hour of the afternoon, that whole hour has not been taken up by discussion either of notices of motions or of public bills and orders. Members of the government know perfectly well that the reason there have been occasions when the whole hour was not taken up is that there have been understandings between ministers and certain private members in whose names these motions or bills stand.


Walter Edward Harris: You are only referring to bills, not notices of motion.


George Alexander Drew: So far as bills or notices of motions that have come up earlier in the session are concerned, there have been certain occasions when the v/hole hour at the end of the afternoon was not taken because there was an understanding with some members of the government that for reasons of public policy it was not desirable at that point to proceed with either the notice of motion or the bill. I do not need to identify the motions or bills because the government is well aware of those to which I refer.
I do believe that this is a subject with which we can deal in a manner that will be satisfactory to everyone. The bill that will be discussed, if this motion passes, is one presented by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). I can well understand why members of the government would wish the Prime Minister to be here while that measure is under discussion. There is a way that can be done, namely, to treat the motion before us simply as a motion to deal with government business this afternoon and not deal with any other Wednesday hereafter. I have not been able to consult the other hon. members of my own party but I personally believe that there would be every willingness and desire to deal with this matter by way of a special procedure this afternoon, when the Prime Minister will still be here, as long as the motion is not one which ends private members' days on Wednesdays. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe):
That the motion be amended by striking out the words "and every Wednesday thereafter to the end of the session."

Business of the House


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief in what I have to say. Although I am sorry the motion has been brought forward at this time, I do not think I would have anything to say if it were not for the arguments used by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) in support of the motion.
There is another reason I rise at this time; that is to protest the seeming impatience of private members on the government side of the house to finish the business of the house and get away from here as quickly as possible. Apparently what we did yesterday, and what I have no doubt we will finish in a few moments, has not made any difference in the world to them. All the time they spend here is spent against their will. They are impatient and everything that members on this side try to say is met with boos and jeers in an attempt to shut us off. It is time that private members on the other side of the house were set aright by someone in authority in the government.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration said that there was hardly an item in the name of a private member under notices of motions that could not be discussed on other occasions. If that is a valid argument, then surely it is a valid argument against having any private members' days at all. Why have any private members' days if we can discuss these matters on other occasions? There are other occasions on which we can discuss such items. One such occasion is on a motion to go into supply, but opportunities on such occasions are weighted very much in favour of the official opposition. Perhaps there should be some weight in that regard so far as the discussion of grievances and introduction of amendments on a motion to go into supply is concerned.
Take the notices of motions on the order paper today, which we would be debating if this motion were not before us. The first three items are in the names of members of the Social Credit group. I am sure that it is unlikely they would get very many chances during the session to discuss these matters on a motion to go into supply, but a notice of motion gives them an equal chance with the other parties.
The minister also said that we were going to try to finish our business so that we could get away from here some time before the first of July, or early in July. That was the old story before we were made $10,000-a-year men, before we were put on a monthly salary basis. From July to October is a period of four months, which is a pretty long vacation. That is one of the fringe benefits that members
fMr. Drew.]
of parliament receive, but it is out of line altogether with any of the fringe benefits that trade unions get.
I believe we are setting a bad example when we ask for such a fringe benefit for ourselves. There are a great many other fringe benefits which we get, but I will not touch on them today because this is not the time to do so. I regret that I did not refer to them before. As a matter of fact some members have the fringe benefit of nonattendance and still get their indemnity, or whatever you want to call it.
For these reasons I do not think the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has offered any valid argument for dispensing with private members' day. I realize it is desirable that the house should proceed with the business on the order paper in the Prime Minister's name, and if a request for that by unanimous consent had been made I certainly would have agreed. But that has not been done. The motion was moved, and in my opinion the minister has not supported it by any valid argument.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fori William):: Mr. Speaker, I do not minimize the importance of private members' days, but I must say that I was extremely disappointed the other day because I was prepared to speak on two questions that I thought were coming up. You, Mr. Speaker, called the whole list but not a private member rose to speak. As a result we reverted to government business. I know that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) has given a partial answer for this, but I do not see how cabinet ministers can get in touch with every private member who has a resolution on the order paper. As I say, I was disappointed because I thought that private members who had such resolutions on the order paper were making light of private members' day.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I do not blame you for seeing the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) because we always know that he is to be regarded as a one-minute man. But may I say that, according to the ethics of our procedure in the house, we of this group usually follow our friends of the C.C.F.
We are opposed to this motion, Mr. Speaker. I agree with what the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis) has said in respect of members now being on a little different basis. I do not know whether government business that is on the order paper is particularly urgent. Some of it may be. Some of it they may want to have passed at this session, so that we can wind up at the

end of May or June. But much government business is not particularly urgent for a month or two months, or even a year. And I do not see that private members should be crowded out.
Then, there is another principle that has disturbed me for many years. Are we to regard private members' resolutions and bills, and the sort of thing that we consider on private members' days, as merely formalities, merely an opportunity for us to expound as we wish on some resolution? Is that all it is? If that is all, then we might as well dispense altogether with private members' days.
The government may say, "Well, we have certain business that must be done. It is important to us." But what is introduced by private members is just as important to them as government business is to the government.
I do not believe private members' days should be withdrawn at all. However, we like to be accommodating, and if the government wishes to consult with these members in whose names notices of motions stand- and I am referring to Mr. Low, Mr. Quelch, Mr. Hahn, Mr. Maclnnis, Mr. Anderson, and so on-and suggest to them that perhaps they might very well withdraw their resolutions, we would like to be as accommodating as we can. If the motion before us is one of accommodation, we are not going to stand in the way of it. But on a matter of principle, we do not believe private members' days should be withdrawn.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to speak just for a moment to the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: In order to follow the order of rotation, I believe the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) should now be permitted to speak. I will then recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: It
seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we are in danger of drifting into a very unfortunate position. As I understand it the situation is this. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) has fully recognized the desire of the government to deal with certain business this afternoon. None of us wishes to inconvenience the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) or the government unnecessarily, and to that end the Leader of the Opposition made a proposal a short time ago which, to me at any rate, seemed constructive and co-operative. I was glad that he made it.
But it seems to me there must be two sides in co-operation, and it does appear that what is happening now is simply a case of 83276-110i
Business of the House
"heads I win, tails you lose". We have made a proposal. If it is an impossible one, then surely the reasons for its being impossible might have been outlined. I did not hear them outlined; I understood they were just tacitly refused.
As I say, we wish to help. On the other hand, when I read these notices of motions- and I shall not detain the house to read them in detail, although I have looked through them-it does seem to me that many of them are matters of importance, not only to those who put them forward but to all kinds of people in Canada. And unless some sign of co-operation is shown, it seems to me we are now left-and I am putting it mildly- with precious little opportunity for these to be presented.
The leader of the house has suggested that they might be presented in bits and pieces, here and there, on other occasions, but not on the occasions which we are now asked to give up. I feel very strongly that this is an occasion where sensible men ought to be able to find a reasonable method of co-operation, and I do feel that my leader has made a suggestion which seemed to me to be a reasonable one, but which has not met with response.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a word on the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and in doing so to make a suggestion to the government which I hope will receive favourable consideration.
At the moment we have before us, in the motion and the amendment, two extremes that are quite wide apart. The motion would call for the abolition of all private members' Wednesdays, starting today, and the amendment suggested the possibility that no other private members' days be taken away, with the exception of today.
The suggestion I offer for the consideration of the government, by way of a compromise and as an alternative to the one proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, is that today be made a government day, but that private members be given, let us say, the next two Wednesdays. Maybe the government will beat me down to one, but even that would be a compromise. Someone has suggested that I have to ask for two in order to get one.
It seems to me something like that should be considered by the government. I listened with interest to the statistics adduced by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris). I too was doing my homework before I came in here today, and I knew that those were precisely the statistics he would bring in. But what does it prove? He

Business of the House states that in certain sessions we had only a certain number of private members' days. In the years when I first came here there were sessions when we did not have any private members' days at all.
But surely the situation has changed. It might be well for us to look back into the early days of our parliamentary history- away back into the last century, when private members' days continued much longer in the sessions than has been the case in the twentieth century, so far as this parliament is concerned.
I respect the Prime Minister's desire to have today as a government day. He no doubt knows I will vote against the measures that will probably be brought on if this becomes a government day. That being the case it is not my desire to facilitate the bringing on of those measures. On the other hand I respect his desire to have those measures dealt with while he is still here. They stand in his name, and there is a certain amount of responsibility that goes with them. It appears to me that he does not want to go off on his world tour leaving to someone else the responsibility of piloting his legislation through the House of Commons, particularly because of the nature of it.
Therefore because I respect the Prime Minister's sense of responsibility in connection with these bills, even though I am opposed to them, I for one am prepared to accommodate the government so that this would be a government day. However, I do ask that the government consider letting us have another couple of Wednesdays as private members' days.
At the moment I am not saying how I will vote on the amendment offered by the Leader of the Opposition, because I hope that my conciliatory proposal might lead to a suggestion from the government side which would be generally acceptable to the house.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Is the minister going to close the debate?


Walter Edward Harris: No, I am speaking on the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: A suggestion has been made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and I imagine the house would be interested to find out whether or not the government is accepting the proposal.


Walter Edward Harris: In any event I would not be closing the debate. Before I say anything about the proposal made by both the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for


Winnipeg North Centre, may I just briefly comment on some parts of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition would be right in raising his point of order because the minister cannot speak twice on this motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is an amendment before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes; I am sorry. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has just brought to my attention the fact that the minister would be now speaking to the amendment and therefore has the right to speak. I am sorry; I wish to apologize.


Walter Edward Harris: In any event, my comments are not going to be controversial, I hope. But the Leader of the Opposition did, I think, unwittingly, I am sure, leave the impression that the government had in some way taken advantage at this time of those hon. members who had made other arrangements on bills by allowing them to stand in the past. In other words, because of the action of hon. members in making accommodations-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interrupt, but if the minister will recall, I made it quite clear that I was not suggesting the government took an advantage but I was anticipating the argument which was actually presented that hon. members have not taken advantage of some time which was available in those hours at the end of the day. I was merely pointing out that the reason it had not been occupied was that different arrangements had been made. I was not suggesting that any advantage had been taken. I happen to know what the arrangements were and I think they were entirely right. One of them was with the Minister of Labour. The subjects were very important and there were very important reasons why the debate should not proceed on the subject matter about which there was an agreement.


Walter Edward Harris: That is precisely what I was going on to say, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition apparently is not aware of the fact that notices of motions do not get called between five and six o'clock on either Tuesday or Friday, and that the arrangements that he is speaking about were arrangements for bills which are not being affected by this motion in any form. It is only the notices of motions which are not going to be called as a result of this, and the orders-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Bills could come on quite readily on Wednesday.


Walter Edward Harris: Quite so. That is another matter.


George Alexander Drew: They could and probably would come on today.


Walter Edward Harris: However, that is a matter of detail. I want to be sure that the house does not get the impression that we have in any way violated any of the understandings that have been made in the past, or by the presentation of this motion.
In view of the suggestions that have been made, Mr. Speaker, the government is prepared to withdraw the motion at this time and present it again to take effect two weeks from today. In other words, this would continue as a private members' day; next Wednesday would also be a private members' day; but sometime in the interval we would present the motion again so that two weeks from today would become a government day, should the motion carry.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: In these circumstances, does the Leader of the Opposition withdraw his amendment?


George Alexander Drew: In these circumstances I readily withdraw the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to withdraw?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion carry?


George Alexander Drew: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister wishes to withdraw the motion as well?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to
withdraw the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion withdrawn.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. W. G. Weir (Poriage-Neepawa) moved:: That the following members be appointed to act on the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons as provided in the motion of the Minister of Justice, passed by this house on January 12, 1954, having to do with a revision of the Criminal
Questions
Code:	Messrs. Boisvert, Brown (Essex West),
Brown (Brantford), Cameron (High Park), Decore. Dupuis, Fairey, Fulton, Garson, Lusby, Mitchell (London), Montgomery, Murphy (Westmorland), Shaw, Thatcher, Valois and Winch; and
That a message be sent to the Senate to inform Their Honours that the foregoing members have been appointed to act on behalf of the Commons on the said joint committee of both houses.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Since this is the period in our proceedings when ministers are in the habit of making statements, may I ask whether the Associate Minister of National Defence can give the house any information concerning the cause of and losses connected with the collapse of the new naval building at Halifax?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. members will
realize that today we will not reach that period where they may ask oral questions of the ministers. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich has indicated that perhaps under motions where ministers make statements he might get an answer to his question. I think it would be establishing a very bad precedent. I do not think the hon. member wishes me to allow his question to stand.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Argue:: 1.	What was the total quantity of deliverable wheat, oats and barley under the three-bushel quota, for the crop year 1953-54?
2.	How much grain was delivered under the quota as at December 31. 1953?
3.	How much wheat, oats and barley were delivered against quotas as at December 31, in the crop years 1951-1952, 1952-1953, 1953-1954?


Mr. Howe (Port Arfhur):: 1.	Approximately 246 million bushels.
2.	Owing to concurrent quotas and special authorizations for the delivery of malting barley and limited quantities of oats, it is impossible to state specifically the quantities of grain delivered under the three-bushel quota. Likewise, producers for reasons of their own may not have taken full advantage of the quota. Deliveries of wheat, oats and barley under all quotas and special authorizations to December 31, 1953 were approximately 291 million bushels. This compares with total deliveries of approximately 340 million bushels of all grains between August 1, 1953 and December 1, 1953, including Durum wheat, rye and flax, and including those grains delivered under the open quotas which prevailed from August 1 to August 15,
1953.	This total would include approximately 165 million bushels of wheat (except Durum) delivered under the three-bushel quota from
*See also page 2074.

Questions
August 17 to December 12, 1953 at which time the initial three-bushel quota was increased to 5 bushels per specified acre.
3.	Open quotas prevailed at various times for different grades and grains and at a number of different marketing points prior to December 31, 1951. Total deliveries of all grains under both restricted and open quotas amounted	to	approximately	340	million
bushels from August 1 to December 31, 1951.
Approximately 364 million bushels as at December 31, 1952. Total deliveries of all grains under both restricted and open quotas amounted	to	approximately	395	million
bushels from August 1 to December 31, 1952.
Approximately 291 million bushels as at December 31, 1953. Total deliveries of all grains under both restricted and open quotas amounted	to	approximately	340	million
bushels from August 1 to December 31, 1953.


GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS, B.C.- PHYSICAL ASSETS
Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Was a survey made of the physical assets of the government telegraph and telephone system in British Columbia and the Yukon to determine its value in connection with the sale now proposed?
2.	If so, when and by whom?
3.	What values were arrived at as a result of such survey and on what accounting principle is the valuation based?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	Yes, exclusive of the Yukon where government telegraph and telephone service operations ceased in 1952.
2.	(a) 1952.	(b) Department of Transport,
Canadian National Telegraphs, British Columbia Telephone Company.
3.	(a) Department of Transport, $4,436,556; Canadian National Telegraphs, $3,776,346; British Columbia Telephone Company, $2,357,298. The telephone company's valuation covers a portion of the system only, (b) The valuation was based on the appraised replacement cost of the system depreciated as of June, 1952.



R.C.M.P., REGINA-BUTTER AND MARGARINE

John George Diefenbaker: How many pounds of (a) butter; (b) margarine, have been purchased for use in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police barracks in Regina, month by month since the 1st of January, 1953?


Mr. Garson:: I should like to answer this question orally. The provisioning of messes in Regina and the selection of individual items of food is a joint responsibility of the mess committees, elected by dining members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and a

dietitian. Food purchases are paid for from mess funds. Based on the average cost of meals, a rate is struck from time to time and the mess funds are reimbursed from public funds. In turn, members taking meals in messes are charged a standard rate which applies generally throughout the country, and the amounts involved are stopped from pay and deposited as a refund to consolidated revenue.
Under these circumstances, I wonder whether my hon. friend wishes to press his question about the statistics that he requires?


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the fact that the purchases are paid for with government funds furnished by the people of Canada, this information should be available. Certainly we should know whether or not margarine is being purchased for use there when we have so much dairy butter on hand.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is answered?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the question stand or is it to be considered as answered?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

Mr. Hodgson:: What number of persons were being paid unemployment insurance, on (a) December 31, 1952; (b) December 31, 1953?


Mr. Gregg:: The number of persons who were paid unemployment insurance benefits during the last week of December, 1952- 164,000 and during the same period for December, 1953-218,000.



FUR IMPORTS FROM RUSSIA

John George Diefenbaker: What is the value of fur imports from U.S.S.R., in each of the years 1953 and 1954 to date?


Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):: Imports from U.S.S.R. of raw furs during the ten months' period ended October 31, 1953 (latest figures
available) were as follows:
Persian lamb, undressed	$319,521
Mink, undressed	 14,221
Squirrel, undressed	 71,291
Fur skins, undressed, n.o.p		342,066
Total	 747,099



WHEAT QUOTA DELIVERIES

Mr. Argue:: 1.	At how many marketing points was the three-bushel quota fully delivered as at December 31, 1953, and as at the latest date available?

2.	At how many marketing points was the three-bushel quota not fully delivered as at December 31, 1953, and as at the latest date available?


Mr. Howe (Port Arihur):: 1.	According to the records of the Canadian wheat board and as accurately as can be determined, space was provided for full delivery of the three-bushel quota at 2,002 marketing points as at December 31, 1953 and 2,058 marketing points as at January 23, 1954.
2.	According to the records of the Canadian wheat board and as accurately as can be determined, space was still required to be provided for full delivery of the three-bushel quota at 68 marketing points as at December
Orders for Returns
31, 1953 and at 12 marketing points as at January 23, 1954.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY

Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	What total mileage of road has been built and completed on the trans-Canada highway in each province during each of the years 1951, 1952 and 1953?
2.	How many miles have been built and 100 per cent paid for by the dominion government?
3.	How many miles are paved?
4.	What is the total mileage under construction by the provinces?
5.	What is the total cost to date to the dominion government?


Mr. Bourgel:: 1.	Equivalent mileage completed (paved):
Fiscal Year
Province	1950-51	1951-52	1952-53	1953-54	Total
					
Prince Edward Island	1-8	23-5	8-0	33-3Nova Scotia 	....	....	....	....New Brunswick 	9-0	24-1	12-5	45-6Ontario 	
46-2	69-7	34-7	97-7	248-3Manitoba 	
28-6	27-7	17-2	22-1	95-6Saskatchewan 	42-9	50-4	72-3	165-6Alberta 	13-3	38-0	58-0	109-3British Columbia 	
34-2	27-2	20-0	18-1	99-5Total 	
109-0	191-6	207-9	288-7	797-22.	Under the Trans-Canada Highway Act the federal government pays 100 per cent of the cost of that portion of the highway in national parks. Otherwise it contributes 50 per cent of the cost of construction. No mileage in national parks has been fully
completed.
3.	679-86 miles.
4.
Newfoundland	 225-5
Prince Edward Island	 10-6
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Ontario	 126-1
Manitoba		22-1
Saskatchewan	 115-1
Alberta	 87-1
British Columbia	 40-9
Total	 627-4
5.	$42,777,242.73 as at January 23, 1954.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Ellis:: 1.	How many persons in Canada have been convicted during the last ten years for any of the following offences; (a) failure to file income tax returns; (b) failure to supply information demanded by the taxation division of the Department of National Revenue; (c) fraud in cases arising out of payment or non-payment of income tax; (d) nonpayment of taxes deducted and withheld at the source from payments made by others; (e) any other offences in violation of any of the provisions of the Income Tax Act?
2.	What was the total amount of fines imposed following the convictions referred to under question 1?
3.	How many of the convictions referred to in question 1 resulted in jail sentences?



ADVANCES ON CRAIN IN APPROVED FARM STORAGE

Mr. Victor Guelch (Acadia) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration the advisability of enacting legislation at this session of parliament to provide for a system of approved farm storage under which the wheat board may make advances to farmers on grain held on the farm.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, may I with the
consent of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the house have a moment to offer a suggestion. I found some difficulty in understanding why the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) did not accept the amendment which would have permitted us to proceed today with government business with the Prime Minister here and particularly the bill standing in his name.
It is possible that the minister may have felt that if that motion were passed with the amendment it would in some way interfere with the subsequent introduction of the motion in the same form. If that were the thought may I say most emphatically that I for one, and I believe I am expressing the general feeling, am willing to afford every courtesy to the Prime Minister to have the business standing in his name proceeded with. I would certainly urge unanimous consent to let us proceed, if that is the reason the minister did not feel like going ahead with the amendment. We could then proceed to deal with that bill.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I am certainly very obliged for
the courtesies that are always extended to me by members of the house, but the bill
[Mr. White (Middlesex East) .1
that had been announced to be taken up today if this became a government day is just an ordinary bill and should not get any special treatment in this house over any other item of public business. For that reason I do not wish to have any exception made for that particular piece of legislation because it happens to stand in my name. I do not want the impression to be held by anyone that this bill was considered to be of more importance than any other item of public business on the order paper.
It is for that reason that I felt that the fact that the view had been expressed that there had not been a reasonable amount of time devoted to private members' notices of motions, or as has been suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that there should be two more Wednesdays devoted to that business, the business on the order paper as government orders should proceed in the normal course without any special place being assigned to any item that stood in my name.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Speaker, in moving this
motion I am not advocating that farmers should be paid storage for grain stored on the farm; I am merely suggesting that loans should be made to farmers against grain that is stored on the farm. I mention that fact because there seems to be some misunderstanding in the minds of hon. members regarding what is meant by the terms of the resolution.
It is interesting to note that the subject matter of this motion has been supported by a number of western farm organizations. In order that there may be no misunderstanding on that point I should like to quote from a memorandum submitted by the interprovincial farm union council to the government in November, 1953, as follows:
We would therefore recommend that immediate consideration be given for arranging, through the Canadian wheat board, for cash advances on farm-stored grain.
The recommendation then goes into further details with regard to interest. I might point out that the interprovincial farm union council represents farm unions in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Then there is also a recommendation made by the Saskatchewan wheat pool delegates in annual meeting. I quote one recommendation as follows:
To bring into effect a plan of interim farm financing which will enable farmers unable to deliver grain at country elevators to secure cash advances against grain in store on the farm.

I find it necessary to quote from those statements by those farm organizations because I know there is an impression in the minds of some hon. members that farm organizations in western Canada are not favouring the subject matter of this resolution. No doubt that arose in part from a certain letter written to hon. members by Mr. Marler. However, I think Mr. Marler made it quite clear at the annual convention of the association in Alberta that he is not opposed to farm loans being made if the situation should arise where they were necessary. I should like to quote from an address he made to the convention as appearing in the Alberta Wheat Pool Budget of December, 1953, as follows:
At the present time the federation is not asking the government to back loans on this grain but if the wheat board payments presently being distributed, deliveries which farmers are unable to make and normal credit facilities do not meet the needs of the farmers, the federation is prepared to pursue the matter.
That shows quite clearly that he has quite an open mind on the matter. If the occasion should arise when they consider that farmers do need this assistance, they would be prepared to support it.
I am going to confine my remarks on this matter to four points. First, are the grain growers of western Canada in need of this assistance? Second, is the wheat board the best agency to handle it? Third, is the present situation merely a temporary one, something that may clear up in the near future? Fourth, the need for a long-term farm production program which, if adopted, would require action of this kind.
Coming back to the first point, whether or not the farmers are in need of the type of assistance proposed by this motion, I am not suggesting for one minute that there is a crisis. I admit quite frankly that in my opinion the majority of farmers in western Canada are not in need of assistance. I am speaking mainly about Alberta; I am not in a position to speak about Saskatchewan.
The reason they are not in need of assistance is that there have been three large crops. As a result of having harvested the first two crops they have been able to build up a reserve and are able to use that reserve at the present time to meet the cost of their farm operations. But while I say that, I would also stress the fact that there are at least two groups of farmers who are not in that fortunate position and who represent a considerable number of farmers.
In the first group are those farmers who have suffered one or two crop failures in the past three years. As most hon. members from the west know, there have been some
Grain
areas which have been heavily hailed during the past three years. The farmer who suffered a crop failure in 1951-52 or in 1952-53 has had to use any reserve he had in order to meet his obligation. Hence he has not those reserves available to help meet the cost of operating his farm at the present time. For that reason he is in need of more money, money that would be available if he were able to sell his whole crop.
In the second group I would place what might be called the new farmers, those who have been in operation only since the end of the second world war. Among those I would place returned soldier veterans who have settled under the Veterans Land Act. I think most hon. members are aware that the veteran who settled under that act was able to get only $6,000. He might have had $1,000 or $2,000 of his own, so at the best he would not have more than $8,000.
I think we all agree that to start farming today is quite an expensive operation. A good half-section of land will cost in the neighbourhood of $12,000, or a three-quarter section not quite so good will cost around the same amount. In order to equip that land with a modest line of machinery you would need in the neighbourhood of $8,000. So to start operations on a farm today requires a $20,000 investment.
Under the Veterans Land Act people can get only $6,000. Therefore a man is placed in the position that he has to go into debt to various institutions in order to acquire the machinery he needs for the farm and in *order to increase his land holdings. Consequently, when farmers do have a good crop they have to use the return on that crop in order to repay some of their obligations, or for the purpose of investing in the farm. Men in that position are hit very hard when they suffer a crop failure or when we have a situation such as exists today, where they are not able to sell the whole of their crop.
In addition to the farmers I have mentioned we have the small businessmen who, in many of the smaller towns, act as the farmer's banker. They help to finance his farm operations; they allow him to build up a store bill; they allow him machinery repairs on time, and they allow him to charge his fuel. Consequently, when farmers are unable to sell their crops these men in many cases have to carry these debts on their books for a considerable period of time, and in some cases it puts them in a very difficult position.
On the other hand, I am not suggesting for one moment that the farmers who do not

Grain
need this assistance would apply for it. The only farmers in need of assistance would be the type I have referred to.
On the second point, as to whether or not the wheat board is the best agency to handle advances of the type I have mentioned, it is interesting to note that the interprovincial farmers' union has suggested that the wheat board would be the logical organization to handle them. There are a number of reasons why I feel the wheat board would be the best agency to handle a policy of that kind. In the first place it will be remembered that the wheat board has agents at all delivery points. At many of these delivery points there are no banks. In many cases you will find delivery points 40 and 50 miles from the nearest bank. Therefore the local elevator agent has a far better understanding and knowledge of a farmer's circumstances, the amount of crop he may have harvested, or the amount of crop he will have on his farm, than would a banker who might be 40 or 50 miles away.
Another point it is well to remember is that prior to the time we had the wheat board, it was a common practice in western Canada for the local elevator agents to make advances or loans to the farmer against grain which he had in storage in the elevator. Let us go further and suggest that these advances and loans could and should be made against grain held in storage not in the elevator but on the farm, provided it is a suitable type of storage.
I am not suggesting that loans should be made against grain piled in heaps in the fields. That might mean a substantial loss, although I understand no such loss has been suffered in the past. The reason I use the term "approved farm storage" is that if a motion of this kind were adopted then it would be the wheat board which would lay down specifically the type of granaries in which grain could be housed and on which loans could be made. It would only mean specifying the type of building which would be required to protect the grain from the elements, from livestock, and to a certain extent from theft.
The next point I would like to refer to is the fact that all commercial wheat has to be marketed under permit. Therefore the wheat board agent would be in a position to make deductions against deliveries of grain as they came in for the purpose of repayment of loans. For that reason I would point out that there would be very little danger of the wheat board suffering any loss under a proposal of this kind. There is no comparison between this proposal and the

policy we had in operation a year or so ago, when loans were made against wheat standing in the fields. There was a great deal of risk in that. No one knew whether a crop standing in the fields and which had to go through the winter would ever be harvested, and many people I believe were surprised that losses were not greater. In so far as this motion is concerned I would say there is practically no danger of any loss being suffered providing the local agent exercises his right to demand that early deliveries of wheat be used for repaying loans.
In the motion I have not suggested what the amount of the loan should be. I believe that should be left to the discretion of the wheat board. I notice that in a brief submitted by the interprovincial farmers' union they suggest $1 a bushel, on 15 bushels to the acre. That in my opinion would not be altogether satisfactory because in some districts the total yield might be only 15 bushels an acre or less, and I feel that as a safeguard it would be better to say, using the figure of $1, $1 a bushel up to a certain percentage of the total yield. That would allow for any error in estimating what the total crop had yielded. Therefore instead of saying 15 bushels per acre I think it would be far better to say a certain percentage of the yield per acre.
It is interesting to note that in the United States a policy along these lines has been in operation for a number of years. I believe in the United States it is called sealed storage, but at any rate under this policy advances or loans are made against grain held on the farm in sealed storage. That matter has been brought to my attention on many occasions by farmers in western Canada, who wanted to know why if this was considered sound in the United States where the policy had been followed without causing any heavy loss, a similar policy could not be carried on in this country. I told them that personally I thought it could be carried out here, but it was a question of government policy.
On the third point I would like to pose the question whether the present situation is merely temporary, one that will disappear as soon as we have one or two crop failures. My answer to that question would be that the present situation definitely cannot be considered a temporary one, but rather a recurring one. Perhaps if we had a crop failure next year or the year after these surpluses would disappear, but it is almost just as certain that we are going to have big crops in the future; and while this congestion of today may disappear in two years it is quite possible it may recur four or five years from now.

I can recall many occasions during the past 30 years when we have had congestion at local elevators, and many occasions when farmers have not been able to sell their wheat. This is what happened when local elevator agents received two or three cars at the shipping point. The elevators would open one bin, but of course they could not mix the wheat in that bin. The elevator companies might decide to only take No. 3, with the result that those farmers who had No. 1 and No. 2 wheat and who desired to sell that wheat would have to take No. 3 grade, or not be able to sell it at all. That is what happened in western Canada every time there was congestion under a system of this kind.
Under this proposal, instead of a farmer having to sell No. 1 or No. 2 for a lower grade he would be able to get advances against his grain, and hold it until there was room in the elevator for his type of grain. That would unquestionably be of great assistance to the farmer.
Another reason I believe the present situation cannot be regarded merely as temporary is, as the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) pointed out some time ago, that owing to the great improvement in our farming operations a dry year will not reduce farm yield to as great an extent as in the past. If we go back 20 or 30 years, when most of us were farming with horses, we find that most of our summerfallowing was done with a plow. In those years it would be the end of July before we got through with summerfallowing. By that time there would be a heavy growth of weeds. A lot of the moisture would have been lost. When those weeds were turned over in the loose open furrow the land dried out. Unless we had an excessive amount of moisture the following year we were almost certain to have a crop failure. As a matter of fact, in circumstances of that kind a farmer would be lucky to get his seed back.
That is not the situation today. With the mechanization of farming and the utilization of large surface cultivators, the one-way disc, the rod weeder and other machines, it has been possible for a majority of farmers to get over their summerfallow early in June, thereby preventing the growth of weeds and also conserving the moisture. I therefore do not think there is as great a danger of the kind of crop failures we have had in the past. There will, of course, be short crops, but they will not be nearly as prevalent in the future as they have been in the past. There has also been a greater utilization of fertilizer.
Grain
On the other point, the need for a longterm production program, the reason I am dealing with this matter is that I feel that if a program of this sort is adopted the need for the motion I have moved will become immediately evident. We all know that successful farming today requires that a farmer produce the largest yield he can of the highest possible quality of grain. For a number of years, as a matter of fact, ever since 1945, the United Nations Organization has been urging that all those nations that are able to expand their production of food should do so. I think all members of this house will agree that the farmers have answered that challenge in a magnificent way until today, as a result of good farming operations, they have built up quite a substantial reserve of food in the form of wheat and many other commodities.
While the United Nations Organization has been urging an expansion of the production of food, unfortunately they have not, at the same time, provided the machinery for getting that surplus food to the nations that need it. Hence today we have people in many places, some holding quite responsible positions, bewailing the fact that we have built up a large surplus of wheat and suggesting that it should be sold at fire-sale prices.
Let me quote just one man as an example. I may say many times I have heard statements similar to this. In the Ottawa Journal, under dateline of November 18, appears a statement by Mr. H. A. Stevenson, the president of Barclays bank, speaking at the annual meeting in Montreal. The article reads in part:
He urged every possible effort be made to dispose of Canada's balance of 800 million bushels of wheat available for export, "even if it means, as it probably will, a big sacrifice in the price".
As I say, that statement could be duplicated many times. I would say that these people cannot have it both ways. They cannot, on the one hand, urge the farmers to maintain their production of food at a high level to feed the starving masses of mankind, and then almost in the same breath suggest that, when they have accomplished that purpose, they should be prepared to make heavy sacrifices as a result of it. It seems to me that argument is entirely illogical.
I therefore feel that it is high time the government announced what is their policy in this regard. Is it the desire of the government that the farmers should produce to meet that great potential market represented by the starving people in many parts of the world, or is it the desire of the government that the farmers should limit their production

Grain
to meet the restricted market, namely that market represented by those nations that are able to pay for their imports in dollars?
I think that is an important point, and one that should be made clear to the farmers before their seeding operations start. If the first is to be the objective, then I think the farmers have a right to expect a guaranteed price. In other words they have a right to expect that the government will not allow that increased production to force the price down. On the other hand, if the farmers are to be advised to produce to satisfy the restricted market, then the farmers in this country would be fully justified in reducing their production in the same way as in the United States. During the last year the farmers there were given the option of maintaining their production at the high present level and having a drop in the support price down to, I think, 50 or 60 per cent of parity, or of restricting their acreage by 25 per cent and receiving 90 per cent of parity. I think everyone will agree that the farmers did the sensible thing. They agreed to reduce their production in order to get a satisfactory price.
I would say that if in this country the government is going to say to the farmers, "you have to produce for the restricted market, otherwise your price will be made subject to the law of supply and demand", then the only sensible thing for the farmers would be to do as was done by the farmers in the United States and reduce their production. But let me point out that we in this group are not suggesting that this is a policy that should be followed. We argue that just so long as hunger exists in any part of the world we have an obligation, along with all other nations which have the ability to maintain production at a high level, to do so in order to help feed those starving people. Otherwise the result well may be revolution.
On the other hand, until the United Nations Organization has provided the international machinery by which the surplus food can be gotten to the people who need it, it locks as though the responsibility will have to rest upon each individual government. I notice that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), speaking before the FAO conference at Rome, said that in so far as Canada was concerned the government intended to carry the surplus partly in the interest of the farmers and partly in the interest of the people of all nations. That being the case,
I do not think we are justified in trying to put too much of the burden upon the farmers because they have done the very thing they were asked to do.

I believe that there are ways in which we can help that situation. I do not want to get into that point too deeply because perhaps I would be getting out of order. However, I would remind the house that some years ago the Canadian Federation of Agriculture made a recommendation which was endorsed by the international federation of agricultural producers, and that based upon that recommendation, the FAO council produced a plan which was known as an international commodity clearinghouse. Unfortunately that plan was turned down.
It is interesting to note that one of the main provisions of the international commodity clearinghouse was that the currency of the importing nation would be accepted in payment for the exports of food. That is what we have been advocating in this house on various occasions, namely that we should be prepared to accept sterling in payment of our wheat sold abroad. I am satisfied that procedure would make it possible to export more of our grain to Europe and other parts of the world.
I want to stress the fact that when we advocated the acceptance of sterling, we were not advocating the acceptance of convertible sterling. If you are going to insist that it must be convertible you might just about as well insist on payment in dollars, because the intention would no doubt be to immediately convert the sterling into dollars. What we suggested was the acceptance of nonconvertible sterling to be used either for the purchase of goods in those countries concerned or for investment in those countries. If that action were taken it would hasten the day of convertibility, because by investing the sterling in a country you would make it possible for the country concerned to balance its payments with other nations.
I am not going to get into that point because I realize that perhaps it might be considered outside the bounds of this motion. Nevertheless I mention it for this reason. If in the future we intend to adopt a policy of maintaining our production at a high level to help satisfy the needs of people in other countries, then the logical thing to do would be to try to build up a reserve to be held in this country in order to offset the danger of a crop failure.
If it is to be the policy to build up a substantial reserve so that in the event of a crop failure we will have food to ship to other nations, then it is only fair to say that the cost of maintaining that reserve should not be placed entirely upon the farmers. If any of that reserve has to be held on the farms because there is not room in the elevators,

then at least a system such as that proposed in the resolution could well be adopted, whereby advances could be made against such grain provided it was properly stored. If we are not going to take action of that kind it seems to me that farmers may be forced to curtail production against their will.
That has been pointed out by all the farm organizations. It has been emphasized at some length by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and if we do adopt a policy of reducing production then I say we are making a mockery of the principles to which we agreed at the United Nations.
We blame Russia to a large extent for our failure to achieve peace, but I do not think we can blame Russia for our failure to provide machinery by which surplus goods can be supplied to people who need them. Therefore the policy of this group is that we should maintain our production at a high level, that we should provide the machinery by which our surplus production can be made available to the people who need it, and that to the extent that any of these surpluses have to be stored on the farms advances should be made against food so stored so the farmers will not be financially embarrassed.


Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, speaking very briefly, I should like to support this resolution. I am not going to take very much time in doing so because the major portion of my remarks in the speech from the throne debate consisted of arguments in favour of some form of assistance to farmers who are in need of cash and who are, have been and for some time to come are likely to be unable to deliver the major portion of their crop. The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) spoke of the percentage of farmers who are in need of some assistance of the type envisaged in the resolution, and he referred to certain classes.
When this matter was the subject of debate previously the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and others expressed the opinion that the great majority of the farmers of western Canada had enjoyed quite a profitable number of years during and since the war and were not in need of any great assistance. As the hon. member for Acadia pointed out, that is true in a large proportion of cases; nevertheless a considerable percentage of the farmers of western Canada have had difficulty in their farming operations in recent years. They have had bad luck in the way of hail, drought or other misfortunes. I do not know what the percentage may be of farmers in western Canada who are not in a position to continue to finance
Grain
themselves, pay their store bills, feed and clothe their families and finance their next year's farming operations without some form of loans or cash advances, but I would think it would run upwards of 25 per cent. It may be more than that, but I think that might be a fair estimate of the number of farmers who need assistance of this kind.
As was pointed out on numerous occasions before Christmas, the situation is quite bad. The amount of grain that may be delivered was initially three bushels to the acre and is now five bushels, and the minimum was of course 500 bushels for a small farm, now increased, I believe, to 1,000 bushels. Such an amount of grain does not by any means provide sufficient money for the farmer to finance himself, carry on his normal operations and put in his next year's crop. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said not long ago that he could not indicate how soon an increase in the quota will be put into effect, but I do not think it is going to be very soon. The indications are that no increase will take place for some time, and that by the time the next crop begins to come on there will still be a great deal of grain from last year's crop remaining on the farms.
Without any question there are over 300 million bushels of wheat and hundreds of millions of bushels of oats and barley from last year's crop still in the farmers' hands which they have been unable to deliver to the elevators. With the best possible luck in selling these grains either locally in Canada for feed purposes or abroad for human consumption or for animal feeding, we are not going to be able to sell that amount of grain as far as we can foresee. In other words, when the harvesting of the crop commences next fall there is still going to be a considerable amount of last year's crop in the hands of the farmers. Therefore it looks very much as though it will not be possible to have any delivery quota in many places so far as this year's crop is concerned.
Under these circumstances I think it is absolutely essential that some measure such as is envisaged in the resolution be put into effect so that cash can be provided to farmers who need it in order to meet their current living expenses and carry on their operations.
In addition to a method of this sort, I suggested another method in the speech from the throne debate, which I am not going to revive. Guaranteed loans on the part of the government were suggested as another method. I do not need to point out to the house that the resolution does not involve

Grain
the house voting government funds for the relief of western farmers or anything along that line. The resolution reads:
. . . the government should take into consideration the advisability oi enacting legislation at this session of parliament to provide for a system of approved farm storage under which the wheat board may make advances to farmers on grain held on the farms.
In other words the money out of which loans or advances would be made would be the farmers' own money. I get quite tired of hearing certain members who come from other parts of Canada say, either in the house or in the corridors, "You are asking for another handout to the western farmers". Every time any legislation of this type is sought that cry goes up. I should like to make it quite clear that the resolution involves no demand for any handout from anybody to the western farmers. It is a matter of legislation to enable the wheat board, which is handling the farmers' own money, to use that money in a certain way to relieve distress which I think it is quite apparent is going to exist next fall in the case of a considerable number of western farmers, which exists to some extent at the present time and will certainly be very much aggravated a few months from now.


Mr. Tucker:: Mr. Speaker


Mr. Argue:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add my voice to those who have spoken in support of this measure.


Walter Adam Tucker: I suggest that the hon. member let the Speaker say who has the floor. He is taking it for granted that he has it.


Hazen Robert Argue: I stood up, I did not see the hon. member, and I began to speak.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am not so small that I cannot be seen.


Hazen Robert Argue: I was not looking at the hon. member. I am sure I might have seen him.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You are not fading
physically.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Rosthern.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, I thought there would be no harm in my getting the floor once because we have had to listen to members opposite hour after hour repeating the same thing over and over again. I felt that for once there would be nothing out of place in somebody being heard from this side of the house. I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not desire to delay the house very long on this matter. I wish to support what the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) has just pointed out, that in this resolution the government is asked to take action which may cost the farmers a lot of money. It is not going to cost the taxpayers much money. It is going to cost the farmers money because if handled by the wheat board the cost will be taken out of the money for which their wheat is sold.
Two years ago I was inclined to agree with the arguments of the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), that this method of giving farmers advances on wheat stored on their farms, through the wheat board, was perhaps a very easy way of handling the problem then existing. But it has been pointed out to me since that time by many people that there are large numbers of farmers who have grave doubts whether the wheat board, which is a grain marketing organization, should be asked to handle a system under which farmers who did not want to borrow money would have to pay the losses in respect of those who did borrow, where there were losses. They think the wheat board should be kept as a grain marketing organization and not turned into one to finance farmers in western Canada.
People who took that view took the attitude that the legislation passed by the government in 1951 to guarantee loans through the banks was actually more favourable to the farmers because it guaranteed the advances, and if there were any losses they would be met by the people of the country as a whole, the taxpayers of Canada, and not by the farmers. In the event of a calamity such as we had two years ago it is pointed out that it was fair that the taxpayers should bear their fair share of the risk and the loss, rather than loading it all upon the farmers.
It is not generally realized that the cost of financing the wheat board, the cost of storing our wheat, even the cost of carrying it so it will be available when needed, is taken out of the sale price of the wheat, and is carried by the farmers themselves.
The question is as to how far we should go in loading the cost of any measure which may be desirable on the farmers themselves. I refer to a measure such as financing farmers when they cannot sell their grains. How far should we expect the government to go in shouldering part of that responsibility? So far as I am concerned, as I listened to these arguments I developed some doubt as to whether we should ask the wheat board to enter this

field. It was pointed out to me that to have a system like this would cost a great deal of money for purposes of administration. I am told that in the United States, where they have a system of this kind, the cost of administering the plan, involving inspectors who go around to make sure the grain is still in existence and that it is not deteriorating by reason of being attacked by mites and the like, is very considerable indeed. I am also told that there are great losses through grain being stolen, and disappearing. And of course under a system administered by the wheat board the farmers who were ready to get along in the ordinary way would have to help pay these administrative costs, and would also have to help pay for these losses.
I must admit I am beginning to be very doubtful of the wisdom of putting that burden upon the wheat board, because it has the job of marketing our grain and then paying out what is received from the sale. It is very doubtful if we should place further obligations upon it as a result of which it might lose money, and then people would be in a position to say, "Well, perhaps it is not as successful an organization as it should be". In this way the very existence of the wheat board might be endangered.
This is an argument which has been put forward to me by those who have opposed the measure now advocated by the hon. member for Acadia. I believe the wheat board has done such a good job in the marketing of our grain that its existence should not be threatened. It has saved our farmers hundreds of millions of dollars. I am quite satisfied that two years ago, when we had so much low-grade wheat, had that wheat been pressed upon the market, with no buyers in sight, and had there not been an organization such as the wheat board to buy and hold that wheat until it could be disposed of, the results would have been disastrous. At that time the head of the Saskatchewan wheat pool said that instead of our getting $1 for our wheat we probably would have had to sell it for around 40 cents.
I believe that in this way the wheat board at that time saved the producers of western Canada about a hundred million dollars. And I am satisfied that under present conditions, with an oversupply of wheat on hand, were it not for the co-operation between the wheat board in Canada, the commodity credit corporation in the United States, and the wheat board in Australia, enabling wheat marketing to be done in an orderly fashion, the price would have sunk to a very low level. Past history shows this to be so.
Grain
This is a matter of great concern not only to the farmers in Canada but to everybody else, because we know that the first thing leading to the great slump in the thirties was the fall in the prices of primary products. Once the primary products fell in price, farmers and other primary producers lost their purchasing power; and then of course those people who made things to sell to the primary producers were thrown out of work, and we were in the midst of a depression.
So I think anything that in any way endangers the wheat board, any extra obligation placed upon it when it is doing such valuable work not only for the farmers but for all people in Canada, should be looked at very carefully. We should ask ourselves, "Are we asking the wheat board and the farmers to finance and carry an obligation that should be carried by the country as a whole"?
Faced with these arguments, as it was the farmers' own money that was being spent I wondered about the propriety of members of parliament, who were elected to act on behalf of the country as a whole, undertaking to spend the farmers' money. That is exactly what is proposed here. If we passed this resolution and the government decided to set up a system of this kind, conceivably we could run our farmers into terrific losses. If a situation is to be developed under which there may be tremendous administrative costs, and ultimately losses, then it should be carried by the people of Canada as a whole, and not by the farmers alone.
If the farmers decide they wish to run that risk, then that is another matter. I have heard so many differing views on the question that, so far as I am concerned, I do not think I should undertake to say what I believe the farmers really want in the matter. Some say they want it, while others say that on no account do they want it. I have wondered how the government could handle this problem, when it has set up a board to handle farmers' products and everything done by that board is paid for by the farmers. I have wondered to what extent the government should decide everything, according to the decisions of parliament, when the producers who pay the shot have but a very small proportion of the representation. Is there not some other way for the government to ascertain the wishes of the farmers? If their wishes are made clear then I believe that our government, being a Liberal government, would want to carry out the wishes of the people whose money they are administering.
i744

Grain


Mr. Blackmore:: I guess we all would.


Walter Adam Tucker: Well, I am speaking for myself.


John Horne Blackmore: You are speaking for us, too.


Walter Adam Tucker: I have no doubt that other
hon. members will agree with that basic idea, but I do not want to undertake to speak for them. It reminds me of the argument for responsible government. There used to be the idea abroad that people could be sent out to govern other people, and they would make wiser decisions than the people would make themselves. Well, it was found that that did not work with human beings. They wanted to have the right to run their own affairs. They might make the same decision as the irresponsible governor might make, but they would not be satisfied unless it was their decision.
In the long run, if this wheat board is going to continue to operate satisfactorily and not be subjected to attack for making some decision which a large group of producers might not agree with, some way should be found to leave the decision in the hands of the producers themselves, letting the government take the attitude: "We are handling your money; we are handling your product; we want to do exactly what you people wish". If the government could take that attitude it would put the responsibility right upon the people who may pay, and they are the people who should have the responsibility.
It would lead to this situation, Mr. Speaker. If any decision was pressed upon the government there would not be the feeling that if we got this through we would be getting something out of the government. There would be the feeling and the knowledge that if anything was decided that might cost money, they would pay it themselves. It would lead to a greater feeling of responsibility and a greater feeling that it was their board and that they should take all necessary steps to protect it. Farmers would be very alert as to the effect of any decision taken.
If the government, say in a matter like this, were prepared to leave it to the holders of permit books whether or not they wanted a system such as this set up, then they would understand that if they voted for it, it might lead to the setting up of an expensive administrative system. It might lead to tremendous losses; it might lead to the wheat board getting into difficulty on account of the propriety of losing all this money realized from the sale of grain. Then if the government could say to the farmers: "You are the ones who are going to pay for this; you are the ones who should now decide it.

We are ready to handle this as you want it handled", the debate would go on amongst the farmers: Is this good, or not?
The farmers are just as anxious to have the wheat board succeed, to preserve it and have it go on and do good work in the future as it has done in the past, as anybody else. They would be very careful about asking it to do anything that in any way might endanger its sound functioning and the successful carrying on of their business.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the hon. member
permit a question? How would he ascertain the wishes of the farmers, by referendum?


Walter Adam Tucker: I was coming to that. I
think the idea should be adopted, in matters where the government is not going to have to spend any of the people's money, that the people who pay should decide; and as I understand it that is the basis of the resolution of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore) asking the wheat board to deduct money to pay dues to farm organizations. There again the wheat board is being asked to do something other than market wheat, and it should be left to the farmers to decide whether they want it to go into that field of activity. The farmers should decide. If it were left to them they would be very careful to make the decision they thought was in the best interests of the wheat board.
I suggest to the hon. member who moved this resolution that it would have been much better to suggest to the house that we approve the idea of asking parliament to ask the government to consider the advisability of empowering the wheat board to conduct a mail ballot of the grain producers holding permits to ascertain the wishes of such producers in regard to setting up a system such as this, or in regard to paying farm storage, where the same argument would apply. Many believe that to pay for farm storage when grain cannot be delivered is a good thing. I think it is a good thing to pay for farm storage when the wheat board is not ready to take the grain, provided the board is given the right to stop paying it when they want the grain delivered. Those who disagree say it would mean that the small farmer would be paying tremendous storage charges to the big farmer and it would work out unfairly in many other ways. Again I ask; why not leave it to the farmers to decide these things? Let them debate it and decide it among themselves, and then give their views to the government.
I am quite aware of the fact that farm organizations at times think they know for sure what the wishes of the farmers are in such matters. Perhaps they do; but we have recognized, by having a system of secret

ballot, that the sure way of finding out what people want is to let them cast a secret vote as to what they do want. On an important matter such as this, which is perhaps a new departure in regard to the handling of our grain, it should be left to the farmers, by secret ballot, to decide what they want.
Just as an example, I might recall to the house what happened in regard to the handling of oats and barley from Manitoba by the wheat board. It was said by certain farm organizations that the farmers of Manitoba were against the wheat board handling oats and barley. Other people said the farmers were favourable to it. Nobody knew for sure what the farmers really did want. Some of us were rather alarmed when the government of Manitoba decided to hold a plebiscite on the matter, because the position then was that unless all the provinces came into the scheme the wheat board would not handle oats and barley for any of them. We wondered whether the people who said that the Manitoba farmers were against the wheat board handling oats and barley really knew what they were talking about.
You, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members will recall that when the plebiscite was held most people were astonished at the strength of the vote for the wheat board handling oats and barley. I think none of the farm leaders expected such an overwhelming vote in favour of the wheat board handling oats and barley. That was an example of the farmers having certain definite opinions and being glad to express those opinions when they got the chance.
I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider how much surer the government must have felt in going ahead with that plan, when they knew that the overwhelming majority of the farmers wanted them to go into that field. There could be no doubt about farmers wanting them to go into that field, for undoubtedly an even greater proportion of the farmers of Saskatchewan and Alberta wanted them to go into that field than did the farmers of Manitoba. Therefore when the government moved it knew that it had the farmers solidly behind it in the matter.
Similarly, in regard to any of these other matters such as the recognizing of voluntary requisitions, the question of paying for farm storage and an approved system of advances by the wheat board, the government through the wheat board could take a mail ballot of the producers of grain who are going to pay, asking, "Are you favourable to this or not?" If they decide that they are favourable the government can proceed then and feel that if there is any loss the producers have definitely asked for it and they have no right to
Grain
blame the government in any way. On the other hand, if the producers say "No, we do not want it", the government is not made to appear to go against the wishes of the people.
Therefore I suggest we should make sure we do what the farmers really want us to do. I do urge the government to consider this idea in regard to the activities of the wheat board. The system I am suggesting would be very useful and would be more certain to lay a solid foundation for the future successful functioning of the wheat board than any system of an advisory board or anything else that could be set up. By this means you would be getting the decision of the farmers themselves. If the farmers themselves felt they were running their own wheat board they would be behind it even stronger than ever.
I feel that the wheat board has proved such a success in putting a solid foundation under western agriculture, in introducing a measure of stability into our western farming operations, that I should like to see the most solid foundation possible put under it. I do not think a more solid foundation could possibly be put under it than to base it upon decisions which are made always in line with the wishes of the people themselves. I would ask that this be considered in regard to this resolution, along with the other suggestions I have mentioned.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to congratulate the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) upon having proposed a resolution dealing with what I believe is a most timely question. I shall certainly not talk out the motion, because I hope it will come to a vote. I hope members of the government party will not talk out the motion but will allow the house to vote on this important question.
I was interested in hearing the remarks of the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker). It seemed to me that during most of his remarks he failed to say whether he was for this motion or whether he was against it. I do not really know, because he left me at a loss. He stated at one point that he doubted the propriety of members of parliament discussing a matter such as this.


Walter Adam Tucker: On a question of privilege, I did not say that I doubted the propriety of members discussing it. I said that I doubted the propriety of our deciding how the farmers' money should be spent.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is just about the same thing. Finally the hon. member for Rosthern got around to saying what he wanted to suggest, that parliament should ask the government

Grain
to ask the wheat board to take a referendum to see if the farmers would bear the cost involved in the proposal of the hon. member for Acadia. That is not my suggestion as to the best method of dealing with this problem.
I feel that the problem of large surpluses of grain, together with a shortage of ready cash in western Canada, is going to bring about an economic crisis for many farmers on the prairies this coming spring, even though the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), the hon. member for Rosthern, or any hon. member may stand up in this house and say that the marketing situation is fine, that prices are good, that everything is all right in western Canada, that we do not need advance payments, and that we do not need to adopt some policy of getting more money into the hands of the farmers.
When I was home for the Christmas recess I made a survey of businessmen in my neighbourhood. I asked them this question: "How much have you on your books now owed to you by farmers, and how much did you have at this time a year ago?" I would say from the answers I got to that question that today the oil dealers, the implement dealers and the garage operators in that part of Saskatchewan have 50 per cent more credit on their books in their localities than they had one year ago. Many of those merchants are being put on a thirty-day credit basis. I think I would be safe in saying that most of them are being put on a one-week or ten-day credit basis.
Whether we like it or not the operation of farms in western Canada is dependent upon the farmer being able to go to his local oil dealer, his local garage operator or his local implement dealer and obtain credit with which to carry on his farming operations. A large part of that credit which normally would be available will be frozen this spring unless the government does something about it. I suggest that to ask the government to ask the wheat board to conduct a referendum among the farmers, to see whether the farmers are prepared to accept the whole burden of such a problem, is not a sound suggestion.
Representing as I do an agricultural constituency, I am quite prepared to say what my ideas are in regard to this question, and I believe I can speak for the majority of the farmers whom I represent. I do not agree with those who have said that this is not a problem facing the majority of farmers, that the need for cash is a problem facing only 25 per cent of the farmers or the few farmers who have had bad luck. I do not agree with that at all. I say that the matter of getting additional money into the pockets of

farmers within the next twelve months is an important problem to the whole agricultural industry.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce quotes all kinds of figures and makes optimistic pronouncements in an attempt to overlook the real problem that exists. Whether you want to believe it or not, we have a huge surplus of grain in Canada now. We are not going to have a harvest until next August; yet compared to a year ago, as the weeks and months go by those surpluses become greater and greater. So far in this crop year our markets overseas are falling.
How many hon. members of this house realize that from August 1, 1953 until the end of December, or until January 13, the date of the latest figures available, we have lost as compared to last year 30 per cent of our overseas markets for wheat. Instead of the trend improving it is getting worse. I have here the dominion bureau of statistics figures covering Canadian exports of wheat and wheat flour, and I should like to give the comparative figures month by month.
In August, 1952, Canada exported 40 million bushels of wheat; in August, 1953, we exported 34 million bushels, or 85 per cent of the year before. In September, 1952, Canada exported 27 million bushels of wheat; in September of the present crop year we exported 22 million bushels, a drop of 5 million bushels or again 85 per cent of the previous year. In October, 1952, we exported nearly 36 million bushels of wheat; in October of this year we exported 30 million bushels of wheat. Again there was a drop of 6 million bushels or 85 per cent of the market of the previous year. Then we come to November, 1952, when Canada exported 36 million bushels of wheat. In November, 1953, we exported 24 million bushels of wheat, just two-thirds of the amount exported in the same month of the previous year. In December, 1952, Canada exported 44 million bushels of wheat; in December, 1953, Canada exported 23 million bushels of wheat. In December of this year we exported just 52 per cent of the quantity exported a year ago.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is it a lost market if the customer happens to have a large domestic crop and does not need wheat? I would point out to my hon. friend that he is comparing this year's statistics with the statistics of the biggest year we ever had, a year when there were shortages in a great many countries and when there were crop failures in a great many countries in Europe. To talk about lost markets is talking nonsense, of course.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister can call it nonsense when in a five-month period Canada's exports fell by 52 million bushels, but the farmers do not call that nonsense. This trend which began in August of this year has been getting worse each and every month as the months have gone by.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not want to start an argument-I have no right to do that -but I merely wish to point out that Canada shipped a greater proportion of world wheat this year than last year. In other words, our proportion of the total wheat trade of the world this year is bigger than last year.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am not suggesting the wheat board is not doing as good a selling job as it is possible for any organization handling wheat in Canada to do at the present time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You are talking
about lost markets.


Hazen Robert Argue: The markets are gone as compared with a year ago. That might be because of larger crops abroad, or because of greater competition from other countries, or it might be for a variety of reasons; but Canada's exports of wheat in that period dropped by 52 million bushels and farmers are noticing that loss of exports in their pocketbooks.
The minister has not yet announced the final payment for the 1952 crop. A year ago the final payment for the previous wheat crop had been made weeks before, and the minister was announcing an interim payment for the following year's crop. The wheat board has apparently not sold all of its 1952 wheat. The account has not yet been closed. In other words it will be a long time, unless some other action is taken by the government, before the wheat board can make an interim payment on 1953 wheat because the wheat board, according to its accounts, has not yet started to sell 1953 wheat. Wheat markets and wheat exports are going down at a very alarming rate.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is what the hon. member says.


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes, I do. The minister says "No". The minister thinks that anything said about a 52 million bushel drop is nonsense. I say it is not. I say it is important. The price for wheat is satisfactory. I have no complaint-


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is the only time I have ever heard my hon. friend admit anything was good.


Hazen Robert Argue: If that is correct then I have been patterning myself after the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). I have yet
Grain
to hear him admit any of the many mistakes the government has made. I do not intend to advance a one-sided argument, and then ask the minister how often he thinks I am wrong. If the minister can refute these facts I am placing before the house I and other hon. members and the wheat producers of Canada will be very glad to hear from him.
Wheat prices have been reasonably satisfactory. The price of class II wheat is down, but the price of I.W.A. wheat as compared with a year ago is up. But in considering prices for wheat it should be remembered that the prices are being averaged out back to 1945. For the first time since 1945, the last time when the wheat producers had an increase in the price of wheat, the purchasing power of a bushel of wheat, according to the economics department of the University of Saskatchewan, has dropped 40 per cent. What is keeping the farmer going? What is maintaining the prosperity that has prevailed in western Canada in terms of the prices farmers have received in relation to the cost of production? Nothing but a series of greater than average crops.
What is happening to the price of barley? That is a story in itself. I am sure the wheat board is doing the very best possible job under the circumstances. I believe members of parliament are unanimous in their support of the Canadian wheat board. However, according to the weekly statistics of the Department of Trade and Commerce-and I am referring to the issue dated January 13, 1954-the wheat board's initial price for No. 1 feed barley, the most important grade of barley grain in western Canada, is 87 cents and the wheat board's selling price is 90 cents. That is a 3-cent margin. Even a marvellous organization such as the wheat board cannot operate on a 3-cent margin.
What does that mean? It means that the farmers who in the past have expected an interim payment of around 15 cents a bushel and perhaps a final payment of another 15 or 20 cents a bushel cannot hope to obtain them if these prices prevail for the rest of the year. They cannot even hope to obtain an interim payment, much less a final one. There will be little or no payment at all for barley other than the 65 or 70 cents a bushel farmers receive when they haul barley to the local elevator. I say that the loss of-


Walter Adam Tucker: What do you suggest the wheat board should do?


Hazen Robert Argue: Don't worry; I will come to that and I will put my suggestion against the referendum suggested by my hon. friend.


Walter Adam Tucker: You do not believe in democracy, of course. I know that.

Grain


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to rule on the interjection made by the hon. member for Rosthern, and I would ask you to request the hon. member to withdraw his statement. I think it is unparliamentary for him to say that I do not believe in democracy.


Walter Adam Tucker: The hon. member says he will put his idea against my idea of the referendum. Such a referendum would enable the people to decide. If he does not believe in the people deciding, he is not in favour of democracy. That is my conclusion.


Hazen Robert Argue: I believe the hon. member should withdraw his assertion that I do not believe in democracy. I think it is an assertion that should not be made by any hon. member of any other hon. member of this house; and I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to make a ruling on that point.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have taken into consideration the hon. member's point of order, but under the circumstances I do not think I can possibly rule on the matter.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, if the remark of the hon. member for Rosthern that I do not believe in democracy is parliamentary we shall have a very interesting Hansard of this debate today, and we shall continue the debate outside of this house among the people and the producers whom we represent.
The hon. member for Rosthern asked me what my solution to this problem is. I said I would come to it soon, and I will suggest that even the hon. member for Rosthern, if he has any judgment whatsoever-which is very doubtful-will have to admit it is very much better than his escapist solution. His is no solution at all. He talks around the question. He has great ambitions, Mr. Speaker, which are well-known to members of this house-


An hon. Member:: No, he hasn't.


Hazen Robert Argue: Well, he did have on a provincial basis, but now he has them on a federal basis. The hon. member is very envious of certain hon. members or a certain hon. member in this house, so he would not dare suggest anything to the government that really amounted to anything; so he says, "Well, now, please consider conducting a referendum amongst the producers of western Canada, because I would not dare to suggest any ideas of my own on this question."


Walter Adam Tucker: But, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I remind hon. members that the hon. member who has the floor cannot be interrupted unless with his consent.


Walter Adam Tucker: But, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member has said I would not dare suggest anything to the government unless I thought they would be ready to accept it. I say that what the hon. member is suggesting is quite untrue and it is known by him to be untrue, when he says that. I do not care whether he withdraws it or not, I am telling him it is untrue and he knows it to be untrue.


Hazen Robert Argue: That statement is a good measure of the stature of the hon. member for Rosthern and explains far more adequately than I can why the hon. member for Rosthern is here instead of being the premier of the province of Saskatchewan.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a very important problem, and something will have to be done soon if the farmers and the agricultural industry are to avoid a real crisis in western Canada. The wheat market is down by 52 million bushels, and the final payment for 1952 wheat has not yet been made. The wheat board has not yet started to sell 1953 wheat. There cannot be an interim payment soon because apparently there is not one dollar in the 1953-54 wheat account. They have not yet sold any wheat for that account. The barley price is down near the wheat board's initial price. The farmers will not likely get cheques this spring for a interim payment on barley. They will not be getting soon, as they have in the past, a substantial interim payment for wheat.
Of course the government always gets around to big payments just before an election. Just before the 1949 election there was a payment on wheat of 20 cents a bushel. The supporters of the government went around western Canada saying, "Return us; from the wheat board there is going to be another substantial payment". They did not say how much. We got back here and found there was 3 [DOT] 8 cents a bushel in the fund.
They did not do it in quite the same way before the last election. They again provided an interim payment, but this time they took off the quotas. In the dying weeks of the election they said to the farmers, "Go a hundred miles, if you can afford it, find a truck and plug every cubic foot of space in every elevator in western Canada". They said, "We will do that in order to make it look as though there is a market for wheat and there is not going to be a problem until after the election; then we will let them know that the elevators really are plugged, that there is really not a shortage of box cars but that there is just no room at the lakehead".

Grain
When the minister answered my question the other day I think he gave me a very good reply-he caught me off base-about the opening of the navigation season; he said he could not forecast when the ice would go out. But with the terminals at Montreal and Halifax full of ships in the harbours loaded with grain, ready for the ice to go out, they will not need to hurry up-


Clarence Decatur Howe: What harbours?


Hazen Robert Argue: Montreal.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are no ships in Montreal.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister can say that. He has interrupted me so often, so many times, with statements that later were proved to be wrong, that I do not think that statement of his even requires a reply from me. They have put the wheat quotas on a different basis. The wheat quota now is five bushels per cultivated acre. I am willing to forecast- and no member of parliament should do so because usually we are wrong, but I am willing to take a chance-that on July 31, the end of this crop year, there will not be a wheat quota, all of which farmers can deliver, greater than eight bushels per acre. I say that on a quota of eight bushels an acre there are going to be tens of millions of bushels of wheat and other grains that farmers will not be able to market. The farmer is greatly disappointed, naturally, when the weather has been bad-


Mr. Gardiner:: Just so we will understand the situation, will my hon. friend permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes, surely.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend means eight bushels on a cultivated acreage basis?


Hazen Robert Argue: That is exactly what I said. I said the quota now is based differently on a cultivated acreage basis. But let us go into the Regina plains and look at a farmer who is farming there; or let us go up to Melfort or Tisdale, in the area where they have the greatest yields and where they usually crop two-thirds of their acreage. An eight-bushel quota will mean about 12 bushels per seeded acre, when many of those farmers have threshed 30 bushels, 35 bushels and 45 bushels per acre, on an average basis.


Mr. Studer:: They are lucky.


Hazen Robert Argue: The quota works best down in my hon. friend's constituency of Swift Current-Maple Creek, so that when there is no crop failure you have a chance. But that kind of quota has its drawbacks for farmers who ordinarily farm smaller units
because their land is more productive. Hence there is going to be just oceans of wheat on farms in western Canada this year.
I was saying that farmers feel badly, naturally, when they do not get a crop because of bad weather, drought, rust, grasshoppers, sawfly, hail or the hundred and one other things that can happen to a crop in western Canada; they feel badly about it, but they do not blame anybody. They know that next year the weather may be better and that if they go on, year after year, the weather will improve and the crops will come. But nothing angers a farmer more, in my judgment, than to have grain on the farm, and his pockets empty of money, and be unable to market any of that grain which he has on the farm. More and more farmers are coming into that kind of position all of the time.
Mr. Speaker, I think we as a nation should be mighty glad that we have such a large quantity of wheat, namely 713 million bushels, available over and above domestic requirements, for export and for carryover as of December, 1953. We should be pleased that we have those large stocks of grain at a stage in the world's history when two-thirds of humanity go to bed hungry most of the time. I say we should be doing something as a nation to see that fellow human beings in other parts of the world are properly fed. With the huge carryover of wheat looming ahead and the fact that when other nations see that this wheat will be available for export it cannot help having a deterrent effect on the price, I suggest that the government should establish a strategic reserve of wheat, let us say 300 million bushels, that could be taken out of the ordinary market channels. That reserve should be maintained for export to countries when people are hungry and starvation is rampant; and that reserve should be there in case of the drought that is bound to occur at some time in Canada's future.
I suggest that the government should finance that reserve and not the farmers, as was suggested by the hon. member for Rosthern. The government, the people of Canada, should finance this strategic reserve, which is a reserve in the arsenal of democracy for all Canadians and all the people who believe in our way of life.
I have a further suggestion as to how the benefit of that program can be brought down to the farmers on the farm. If the Minister of Trade and Commerce stands up and says the farmers do not want a loan such as that which he provided for them in 1951, I would say to him, "You are right". If the Minister of Trade and Commerce says there is no great destitution and no great hardship, in

Grain
the sense that people are going without clothes, are starving and so on, I will agree with him again. But I think a producer of food in the world in 1954 should have the right to be able to dispose of that food at a fair value. I say that by an amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act, the farmers of western Canada should be given the right, not to get loans-for which they go cap in hand to somebody-on grain they have in storage on their farms, but the right to sell the grain they have in storage on their farms and to keep that grain, if necessary, on the farm.
I think the machinery for that kind of program is already in existence. We have the wheat board. All over western Canada we have elevator agents-thousands of them, who are good operators, working for elevator companies, pool companies and line companies-acting as agents for the wheat board. I say the farmer should have the right to go to his local elevator agent and to say to him something like this:	"Look, John, I
have a 1,000-bushel bin of wheat at home. You have no room to enable you to put it in your elevator, so I want to sell it to the wheat board through you, acting as the agent. I should like you to come out, survey that granary, grade it, test it for dockage, and give me my advance payment". Then there could be a further provision that when the elevator agent ordered the grain hauled out, if there should be a shortage or overage as to amount, dockage and so on, that small variation could then be adjusted. I believe the cost of financing such a program, of making provision for farmers to sell grain on their farms, should be borne by all the people of Canada, because I believe that such a policy is in the interests of the people of this nation.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is leaving tomorrow on a world tour, and I want to join with those who have wished him bon voyage. We wish him happy landings; we wish him success in his important trip; we hope that he will have a safe return to Canada and will be able to give us an interesting and valuable account of his world tour. But, with such a strategic reserve of wheat now in existence, I should like to see the Prime Minister placed in such a position by parliament that when he goes and sees the manner in which people live in the various countries of the world he visits, when he himself sees the hunger, he would be able to say to the governments of these countries that when he returned to Canada he would recommend to his colleagues and to the House of Commons that we take steps to help alleviate that hunger. If Canada would take such a lead I believe

we would make a magnificent contribution to world peace, and it might go down as the greatest single act of statesmanship in.
1954.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to speak at length, because I do not wish to talk out this measure. I am sure the house is very anxious to hear the reaction of the minister to the resolution before us, and is also looking forward to an opportunity to vote on this most important question.
Certainly the storage problem has become very serious. There are several hundred million bushels of grain on hand today, and in view of the fact that the storage problem will be a continuing one in the days ahead it becomes necessary to consider whether or not the government should consider the advisability of enacting legislation at this session of parliament to provide for a system of approved farm storage under whiclr the wheat board may make advances to farmers on grain held on farms.
Certainly the storage problem today is a costly one. Recently I asked a question in the house for the purpose of ascertaining what it was costing to store Canada's wheat. The answer given by the Department of Trade and Commerce was that the amount paid by the wheat board for storage of wheat from the 1st of January to the 31st of December, 1952, was $17,043,000 and that during the period from the 1st of January, 1953 to the 31st of July, 1953, the amount was $12,733,000; or, taking the entire period, over $50,000 a day. That amount is increasing and has increased at an accelerated rate during recent years, compared with the amounts paid previously.
Even on the present basis elevator companies are apparently asking for an increase in storage rates. The minister indicates that is not so, but I have a press dispatch here from Regina which reads as follows:
J. H. Wesson, president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, said it is essential that handling and. storage charges on grain be brought into line with actual operating costs. He told the pool's annual meeting here that handling charges have changed little since 1938, but cost of labour and operating expenses have increased greatly. Under average production with lower volume, present rates would result in a deficit.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no change in the rates this year.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister says there will be no change in the rates this year, but nonetheless it is apparent that there will be an endeavour shortly to obtain an increase in these rates. Certainly storage facilities have been taxed to the utmost. The plan

envisaged in the resolution before us is the only one I can conceive of which can meet the situation. I do not go as far as to say that storage should be paid on all wheat on all farms; but certainly, subject to reasonable limitations on the total amount of wheat to be stored on a farm, there should be provision for something in the nature of storage payments to be made. Certainly the problem we face is not one for a period of only a few months. Our accumulating surpluses are such that they demand either one of two things, the provision of storage facilities or, alternatively and more satisfactorily, the security of markets for our wheat.
I think the minister might well place before the house something of what is being done to secure markets. I understand that representatives are now or have been in the Far East, and also in Central America and Washington, whose purpose is to endeavour to secure markets. That is a laudable purpose. Is the minister in a position to say whether or not the price at which we hold Canadian wheat today is such as will deny us within the days and months ahead, within the next year or so, sales that otherwise might be available to us?
That brings up a suggestion on which I endeavoured to secure an answer the other day during the course of the debate on foreign affairs. It has to do with markets in the U.S.S.R. What is being done to that end? Is wheat considered a strategic material? Is the minister in a position to say anything more than he said on the 4th or 5th of January, when he was reported to have stated that larger and more extensive trade with the U.S.S.R. was being contemplated? Certainly the Canadian farmer is concerned.
The minister says we are not losing any markets. He says the fact that other countries are growing wheat in excess of their previous production, thereby denying us sales, is not to be considered as a loss of markets. What else is it? We are speaking of markets, the opportunity of selling at a reasonable price, and however that loss is caused it is nonetheless a loss of markets.
I suggest to the minister that he place before the house and country something of the nature of the negotiations that are taking place today. We read about them in the newspapers. In today's Ottawa Journal we read that the British Chancellor of the Exchequer said in their House of Commons that the finance ministers of the commonwealth countries have decided to take advantage of trade with the communist bloc whenever possible. He was reporting to the
Grain
House of Commons yesterday on the finance ministers' conference at Sydney, Australia. He went on to say:
It was agreed that restrictions on trade with China were stricter than those on the Soviet bloc. The finance ministers saw the advantage of extending east-west trade and decided to take advantage of it wherever possible.
Is the minister in a position to say whether, if there is going to be trade, that trade will include wheat and other agricultural products? Those are things the people of Canada want to know. Those are the larger issues that today face the Canadian people in the marketing of their wheat, and in the piling up of these surpluses which are becoming colossal in extent and which must necessarily have a detrimental effect upon prices in the days ahead.
The hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) says, in so far as this problem of storage is concerned let us have a referendum. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that meets the situation. I think members from western Canada have found everywhere in rural constituencies a demand that something be done to compensate farmers for providing suitable storage facilities for the wheat lying on the farms. If the farmer markets it, then storage is paid to the elevator companies, so the situation is no different whatsoever in so far as the final amount the farmer will receive is concerned.
Farm unions have asked that something be done along the lines of what is asked in this resolution. Certainly in those parts of western Canada-northern Saskatchewan, for instance-where there are small farms, there is a pronounced demand even today for something in the nature of loans by the wheat board on wheat in properly accredited storage bins. This debate has made it possible for the minister to give the house facts rather than roseate pictures, and I ask him when he speaks to let the country know what is being actually done in connection with the securing of markets for this surplus.
The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) says, let us give it away and provide assistance to underdeveloped countries. Well, that has its dangers. Today we are fearful that the United States of America is going to dump hundreds of millions of dollars worth of farm products at fire-sale prices in various parts of the world. We want a certain course followed here in order to dispose of our surplus, and at the same time we view with the greatest possible alarm the fact that the United States will do that which some hon. members so glibly advocate as a solution for our problem.

Grain
Certainly there is something to be said for elevating living standards in other parts of the world. I saw that three years ago when I was in the south Pacific. At that time I came back and advocated assistance under the Colombo plan, and I have heard about it ever since. I believe that a reasonable extension of the amount being expended under the Colombo plan-certainly a doubling of the amount that is being expended today-would not be a very heavy load for Canada to carry. That would make $50 million altogether, which would go a long way toward raising the standards in those countries to which the Colombo plan applies.
There are arguments on both sides. I know that Paul Hoffman, the American administrator, said very recently that if between 1942 and 1945 we had expended $500 million by way of assistance to China in agricultural products and the like, China might never have become communist. On the other hand we must realize that we live in the world of today; and if we in Canada, in order to get rid of our surpluses, embark upon such a policy as some advocate, a policy of gifts or of selling at reduced prices in order to assist countries in other parts of the world, we will find ourselves criticized in the United States to the same extent that we in our own country today fear the danger of the United States doing that very thing.
I would like the minister to explain what is being done. We have learned from Mr. Butler, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Great Britain, what is being done over there. We know something of what is being done about surpluses in Australia. We ask our minister to let the house know the policy of the government with respect to east-west trade, and to what extent, if any, the tremendous surpluses we have in Canada will ultimately find markets, either through east-west trade or through trading with other countries of the world.


Irvin William Studer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to be permitted a few minutes in this debate on the subject of advances on farm-stored grain. I can assure the house that I shall not take more time than was taken by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), who is so anxious to have a vote on the matter. I shall try to discuss it within the same time limit, and also from the point of view which I suggest holds the greatest interest of farmers in western Canada.
I refer to the effect of advances on farm-stored grain, or the effect of any other measures that may be proposed in connection with farm operations or farm financing

upon ultimate wheat board operations in western Canada. I refer to the effect it would have upon an organization the farmers in western Canada have spent almost all their lives in building up and bringing to the point where it has become the selling agency for the grain produced by those farmers.
I have been farming since 1916; and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers I know are not going to be parties to any arrangement that would have a detrimental effect upon the wheat board. And I say that if any other member in the house does not take the same stand, then he is doing a disservice to western Canadian farmers. We are not going to spend all our lives building up an institution that has been of such great benefit, as the wheat board has been, and then proceed to enact some measure which will have the effect of destroying it.


Hazen Robert Argue: Do you not trust your government?


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: You don't apparently.


Irvin William Studer: We have been operating under the wheat board for a number of years. It has done a magnificent job as a selling agency, the most magnificent of any similar agency anywhere in the world. It has done the job under difficult conditions. We have to export more of our grain than any other country in the world. In other words we in Canada, with 1 per cent of the world's population, are producing 7 per cent of the world's supply of wheat. If anyone knows of any other country carrying on with the same success, then I have not heard about it thus far.
Our wheat board has been selling wheat. We now are faced with a situation in which the government is asked to provide that the wheat board can lend the farmers' own money back to them by way of advances on approved storage. Those with approved storage facilities would be eligible for advances. What about it if any losses should be sustained? Are the farmers going to be asked to pay them? I do not know very many farmers who are going to be willing to accept losses caused by some other farmer's inability to repay the advances.
In that connection we have had the experience of the British wheat agreement, and we have had the experience of the $65 million wheat payment to western farmers. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if the people of this country are going to be called upon to pay any losses in connection with western wheat through the operations of

Grain
the wheat board, then that will be the end of the wheat board. I believe I am correct in saying that.
Why do I say that? I say it because not more than 7 per cent of the people of Canada want the wheat board. Are we living in a democracy, or are we not? If we are, then we are dependent upon the rest of the people of Canada; we are dependent upon how they advise their members to vote. If we are only 7 per cent of the people of Canada who want the wheat board, then we are in this position. After all, it is only the farmers of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta who want it, and not all those farmers. I do not know of anyone in British Columbia that wants the wheat board. I do not know of many east of the great lakes that want the wheat board. I do know of a large number of people who might be satisfied to have no wheat board.
I say that not more than 7 per cent of the people of Canada want the wheat board. But our socialist friends ignore that entirely. They say that the government should operate this system irrespective of the wishes of the rest of the people of Canada. I would tell every person in Canada that the Liberal members of parliament over the years have been protecting that wheat board and have made it operative.


Mr. Zaplitny:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Irvin William Studer: What is worrying you?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Is the hon. member in favour of the coal subsidies?


Irvin William Studer: Well, what has that to do with an organization that has been set up on behalf of the western wheat growers?


Hazen Robert Argue: What has your speech got to do with it?


Irvin William Studer: The coal subsidy is not a permanent affair. In any event, I am saying that the overwhelming proportion of the people of Canada are, to say the least, uninterested in the wheat board of this country. Perhaps it is our duty to subsidize the coal miners and even the gold miners. Saskatchewan has a few subsidies, but I have not time to go into that now.
In any event, those things are temporary. We are supposed to be on a permanent basis in connection with our wheat operation. That was the argument when the British wheat agreement was discussed in this house. Everyone in this House of Commons agreed with that wheat agreement. Was not 83276-111
that the basis upon which the wheat agreement was discussed? All hon. members in the house were in favour of it.
Then, after the wheat agreement with the "have regard to" clause in it was not kept, in our estimation, what was the story in this House of Commons? It was not the same at all. None of us was satisfied with the British wheat agreement and particularly our socialist friends, although at the beginning they were in favour of the agreement. Therefore when there were no results, or no payments under the "have regard to" clause, our socialist friends asked the people of Canada to pay $325 million on account of the fact that their socialist friends in Britain would give no consideration to the "have regard to" clause. That was what they asked us to do, and the talk was that the people over in Britain, the socialist government, were telling us here in Canada that our wheat growers were better off than the farmers in Britain, and why should they be taxed to pay us, who were better off? It may be good socialist theory, but it works both ways.
While I am at it I should like to say this. We hear socialist advocates-these give-away gentlemen, some of whom have never produced anything to give away, but who are always willing to give away someone else's production-suggest that we should give away our production. Our socialist friends are so generous with other people's money. They say we should feed the underprivileged people of the world. I agree with them. I do not like to see starvation anywhere. But I should like to point out that if production in this world in the past years had depended upon the socialist system we would not be able to feed the underprivileged people of the world; we would not have enough to feed ourselves, because the socialist system cannot produce. The socialist system is non-productive.
With respect to feeding the underprivileged people of the world, I think the government would be prepared to make an agreement with the socialists and say we would double what they might give; we would give two bushels for every one they give to the underprivileged people on earth. We will match them. Let them give us an example of what the socialist countries have been doing to feed the underprivileged people of the world, and we will match them. In other words we will outdo them. We will give so generously in proportion to what these socialist countries do that they will be put to shame.
I should like to have time to say a few words more about Saskatchewan and about

Grain
the attempts to alleviate the crisis of wheat under the snow. We have heard about crises in Saskatchewan. We have had the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) make the same speech, with the odd change in a word here and there, in 1949, in 1950 and 1951. I think 1950 or 1951 was the year the wheat was under the snow. I never heard anything quite so sad as a speech that was made by that hon. member in that year. According to him the people of Saskatchewan were starving. This government made some provision for them by guaranteeing the banks. Of course the socialists held up their hands in horror when the banks were mentioned. Don't forget, the farmers are going to have to pay interest on the advances from the wheat board, because the wheat board has to borrow that money somewhere and has to pay that interest. That interest will be paid by the wheat board and charged back to the farmers.
I do not know whether it is against socialist theory to have advances. I am glad to get advances made by anyone. I have had quite enough to do with advances, I can tell you that. My trouble has been that I have always had so many cash advances that I have not been in a position later on to cover them. I do not say that all the farmers are in that position, because most farmers are good farmers, but I would not care to say that of myself.
Under the snow cash advances were provided for to the extent of $20 million. Of that $20 million some $635,000 was used to eliminate the crisis that existed out in Saskatchewan at that time. Then along came the foot-and-mouth disease crisis, and we are still feeling the effects of it. The argument of the hon. member for Assiniboia at that time was that the poor farmers out there had lost their herds of cattle through foot-and-mouth disease and the government refused to pay them, or the government would not give them sufficient to cover their losses.
The government, as it always does, took care of those crises as they arose from time to time. At least this government does that. Therefore the government paid these farmers who had losses through foot-and-mouth disease, and I have not heard a complaint from a single one of them. In fact I understand that most of them were tickled to death because they received more for the herds that were lost through foot-and-mouth disease than the market would have given them later on. Then the hon. member for Assiniboia said, "The reason the government paid you is that an election was coming along". Elections are the only things the

hon. member for Assiniboia ever thinks of. That is the only thing he is thinking of now. That is all he ever does. That is exactly what happens. From day to day in this House of Commons he refers to elections.
The government met its commitments under all causes and under all circumstances. Then they talk about the loss of markets. Well, what are the socialists going to do about this? What I should like to know is, what are they going to do about it? They have the standard remedy for everything- give it away. Well, if you took all the wheat that ever grew in this country and gave it to the underprivileged, who comprise about two-thirds of the people of the world, would that be a permanent solution? Would it eliminate communism? It is said that hunger causes communism. I want to know what causes socialism.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Go and look in the mirror.


Irvin William Studer: It is suggested that payments should be made on approved farm storage. Who is going to approve it? These socialists are always arguing against too many government inspectors, too many people going around the country in the pay of the government investigating other people's business and disturbing them. There are quite a few disturbed people in this House of Commons. I have never attended here without hearing someone saying that he is disturbed. In any event they will continue with that point of view, that while the purpose might be good there would be too many inspectors.
In any event it is not the approved people who need help, I think it is the people who have their grain in places which even the socialists would not approve who need help. In the southwestern section of Saskatchewan there have not been sufficient crops over the years to permit the building up of permanent storage space. As has been mentioned in the house before, I think by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras), out of every 100 bushels stored outside on the grass of the prairies there would be a loss of 8 bushels.
Working that out on the basis that over the years in southwestern Saskatchewan at least half the time we do not have any crops, we would have to build substantial structures to conform to these requirements, and it is just a little bit doubtful whether it would be a paying proposition. The same thing applies to machinery. You do not hear the university people in western Canada advocating the building of elaborate structures to house machinery, because the investment in those buildings would be greater than the deterioration of the machinery over

a period of years. There would be only a few people in southwestern Saskatchewan who would come within this category. They would have to depend on that storage for the advances that would be made, and therefore they would not be helped. Those are the people I want to help, the people who need it.
I think perhaps some solutions have been offered here today that would fit in. The hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) has made some suggestions. There has been criticism, ridicule and all the rest of it, but we are used to that in Saskatchewan. There is merit in what he said. We used to have the Saskatchewan farm loan board in that province, but that was taken over by the dominion. It was a good thing regardless of what happened to it. The province of Saskatchewan had that board to meet the farm crisis, but it was not continued by the socialists. I am suggesting it was a pretty good farm loan board. The Liberals operated it for quite a number of years.
I would not suggest the setting up of a provincial farm loan board. I suggest that they set up a provincial wheat loan board and make some effort by means of guarantees to the banks through the municipalities, as was done when advances were made during previous years. The municipality was guaranteed by the province, which in turn was guaranteed by the federal government. They operated in western Canada, and over those years about $118 million was distributed.
Perhaps some system could be worked out to provide assistance to those people who could not obtain the approval of any board or any organization or any people. Perhaps we could work out machinery whereby the municipalities could give consideration to applications by farmers, because no one knows the farmers better than the municipal officials. The advances could be made to the farmers on behalf of the provincial government through the banks. After all the farmers have to pay the interest anyway, under any system, and most of these needy people could be helped.
As I was saying a minute ago, in southwestern Saskatchewan it is not the surplus of wheat that causes the crisis, it is the lack of wheat that has been the cause of most of the crises in our country. If we have had crises they have been crop failures. If we are going to have any kind of crisis, I would like to have this kind, with too much wheat. If I had to make a choice, I would like to have a wheat crisis.
If we could have had that kind of crisis throughout all our history in southwestern 83276-llli
Grain
Saskatchewan then we would be in the same category as the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), who is always talking about the unbearable burden of income tax payments in Saskatchewan. We hear about a group of Saskatchewan farmers who are paying more income taxes than all the people in any other province in Canada, and we are told that those poor people who are paying income taxes should not be paying them. I do not think the hon. member's figures are correct in respect to that. I doubt whether many of his figures are correct.


Hazen Robert Argue: Are you for it or against it?


Irvin William Studer: I have not much political acumen-whatever that word means; I did not go to school for very long, so I have not the vocabulary of some of these university graduates who went to university to study socialism. If I had it I would say that that kind of crisis is the one that can best be overcome. I think we would suffer less from that type of crisis than from any other that I know of.
When I hear talk about these income tax payments by the farmers of Saskatchewan the only thing I object to is that I am not in the same category. I would like to be in that same group. If all the people of Saskatchewan, including those who could not obtain these approved loans, were in the position of having to pay income tax, many more people in Saskatchewan would be happier than they are. I do not particularly like the income tax situation, but I think the government is trying to make it as fair as it is possible to make that situation. I think if you make a study of it and obtain the actual facts you will have to admit that it is fair.


An hon. Member:: Are you for or against it?


Irvin William Studer: It is not one policy for one province and another policy for another province, as was the case with the socialists in Saskatchewan. I have been trying to suggest how we can overcome or circumvent this crisis. I have been suggesting that if there is a crisis-the socialists always have one-the solution should be on the basis of the protection of our wheat board.
As I mentioned at the beginning, every one of us should be doing a service to our people in protecting that wheat board. We should not allow it to get in a position where the other 93 per cent of the people of Canada may say, "The farmers of western Canada do not want this organization". The Liberals of western Canada over a period of many years have done a magnificent job in convincing the other 93 per cent of the people who may be uninterested in the wheat board that it is a good organization.

Prime Minister's World Tour


Stanley Howard Knowles: This Liberal is trying to talk the motion out.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: would direct the attention ol the hon. member to the fact that it is six o'clock.


Irvin William Studer: I still have not spoken for as long as the hon. member for Assiniboia.



THE PRIME MINISTER


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) will not be in the house tomorrow and will not be here for some time, I think it might be appropriate before we leave the house this afternoon to wish him every success on the trip he is making and to repeat what has already been said in this house, that in the good will and friendly sentiments which he will be conveying to the other nations of the common-weath and other countries he will be carrying a message of unanimous good will and understanding from every member of this parliament and from all the people of Canada.
Later this week he will be lunching with the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and I know it will be the wish of many of us that he convey a message of good will to him. Also later, when he goes to France, I know it will be the wish of all of us that with that special aptitude he has for speaking to the people of that great country he assure them of our common concern for the great causes that they are serving at this time.
In every other country he will be speaking, in his expressions of good will, for all the people of Canada; and we wish him well on his trip.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), and on behalf of the members of this group, I wish to join with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) in saying bon voyage to the Prime Minister and in expressing our very best wishes to him for a happy and useful trip. We are indeed glad to know he is going as Canada's ambassador of good will. We shall follow his trip with interest and await with keen anticipation his report on his return.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I was not in the chamber at the moment the Leader of the Opposition rose to


express best wishes on behalf of his party to the Prime Minister. I happened to be out recording a broadcast, and it might be of interest to the Prime Minister to learn that the member of parliament who was recording a broadcast before I arrived-a member of the opposition, incidentally-was telling of the Prime Minister's proposed trip. He did it quite delightfully and concluded by trusting the people of Canada would follow the Prime Minister on his trip.
He might well have added that all the people of Canada wish him the very best of luck. Such is the expression of our democracy. I am sure the members of this group join with other hon. members who have spoken and wish the Prime Minister the very best the Lord God in heaven can give him on this trip. May that include his protection, much pleasure, usefulness, and a glorious and safe return.
(Translation) :


Mr. J. W. Dufresne (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I was not in the house last Monday when good wishes were extended to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on the occasion of the round-the-world trip he will be starting on tomorrow.
However, I did send to him, this very day, a personal letter in which I said that, although we sometimes take divergent views, the member for Quebec West has nevertheless much respect and admiration for the first citizen of this country. On this occasion when he is setting out on a tour around the world, during which he will certainly know how to put clearly the Canadian viewpoint and show other countries how we practise true democracy here in Canada, I want to extend to him, in my own name as well as in the name of the electors I have the honour to represent, my most sincere wishes for a good journey and a happy return. I ask Divine Providence to protect the right hon. Prime Minister, my famous neighbour, from any untoward incident, so that he may come back to continue the work he has so valiantly begun.
(Text):
Mr. Jean-Fran?ois Pouliot (Temiscouala):
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Liberal rank and file-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Pouliot:: -I convey our best wishes to the Prime Minister. May I say bon voyage, good success in his diplomatic mission which is of the highest importance, and a safe return to his Canadian friends and fellow men.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I do wish to express very sincere thanks to the Leader of the

Opposition, the spokesmen for the other groups, the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne) and to the hon. member for the county where I had the advantage of spending some delightful weeks during the summer a year ago, for the good wishes they have expressed. I confess I do feel that I have the good wishes of all the people of Canada in undertaking this visit to several countries where, I can assure you, I shall be very proud to be received as an ambassador of Canadian good will.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: May I just add that I feel had Mr. Speaker
Prime Minister's World Tour been in the chair at this moment he would have seen fit from the chair here in this chamber to endorse the expressions of good will which have been expressed from all sides of the house to the Prime Minister.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall take the amendment to the Post Office Act, and then continue with the Criminal Code.
It being seven minutes after six the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Thursday, February 4, 1954