1955-02-21

INCOME TAX ACT


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 163, to amend the Income Tax Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill makes two changes in the Income Tax Act. First, it provides for hearings before the income tax appeal board, when the appellant is a corporation, to be held in public and not in camera. Second, it removes in part, although only in part, the secrecy provisions of the Income Tax Act with respect to information contained in corporation income tax returns. This bill makes no change in the strict secrecy provided in the act with respect to personal income tax returns.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to introduce the said bill?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I hear some hon. members saying "No". Leave is not granted as a matter of course, and if some members say "No", I shall have to put the question.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 127, for the relief of Berthe Mont-petit Goupil.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 128, for the relief of Joseph Albert Roland Archambault.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 129, for the relief of Evelyn Held Schulman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 130, for the relief of Antoni Dmysz.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 131, for the relief of Eunice Levine Yelin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 132, for the relief of Joyce Hodkin Gilhooly.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 133, for the relief of Pauline McDonald McDerment.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 134, for the relief of Velma May Robinson Macaulay.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 135, for the relief of Mary McDonald Gauthier.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 136, for the relief of Andrew Henry Pytel.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 137, for the relief of James Wong, otherwise known as Yon Hong Ark.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 138, for the relief of Ruth Nathan Finkelman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 139, for the relief of Richard Robert Tomlinson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 140, for the relief of Sheila Elsie Clarkson Flintoft.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 141, for the relief of Joseph Edouard Alexandre Brunelle.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 142, for the relief of Ruth Evans Silver.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 143, for the relief of Mania Riss-man Neftin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 144, for the relief of Lucien Gagnon.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 145, for the relief of John William Newton.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 146, for the relief of Rita Forest Leblanc.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 147, for the relief of Marcelle Topping Paradis.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 148, for the relief of John Edward Foran.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 149, for the relief of Evelyn Woolls Gallagher McDougall.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 150, for the relief of Edward Satel. -Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 151, for the relief of Mollie Litvack Rabinovitch.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 152, for the relief of Nora Elizabeth Wolverson Powell.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 153, for the relief of Hazel Miller Clark.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 154, for the relief of Zofia Janina Hurny Slesicki.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 155, for the relief of Carmen Cortez Leigh Pitt.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 156, for the relief of Paraskevy Moshonas Moshonas.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Mary Lee Wilson Couttie.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 158, for the relief of Giacinta Villarosa Colucci.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 159, for the relief of Irene Dora Baker Pearson.-Mr. Hunter.
[Stage Direction]
Questions
Bill No. 160, for the relief of Gisela Kunz Cobel.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 161, for the relief of Aline Rousseau Laporte.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 162, for the relief of Dorothy Arlin Wintrobe.-Mr. Hunter.


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many employees have been laid off by the Canadian National Railways since September 1, 1953?
2.	How many of such employees were, at the time of their being laid off, between the ages of 60 and 65?
3.	How many of such employees between the ages of 60 and 65 are in receipt of any pension from the Canadian National Railways, and what is the average amount of such pension?
4.	How many of such employees between the ages of 60 and 65 have been laid off without any pension?
5.	What steps are being taken by the Canadian National Railways to provide a pension for such employees?


Mr. Marler:: Perhaps I might be allowed to deal with this question orally, Mr. Speaker.
The management of the Canadian National Railways informs me that to answer an inquiry of the general character of part 1 of the question would necessitate the examination of innumerable local records in 42 divisions of the railway all across Canada, and would require the services of a considerable staff for many weeks.
In this connection, it is pointed out to me that the Canadian National regularly compiles a substantial volume of statistical data of all kinds relating to the business of the company, and these statistics are regularly published by the dominion bureau of statistics in a monthly report entitled "railway operating statistics".
Referring specifically to parts 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the question, the management advise that lay-olfs, when made, are strictly in accordance with the seniority principles prescribed in the agreements with employees' organizations, and that it would be most unusual for an employee aged 60 or over to have his employment status indefinitely, but not permanently, severed. Eligibility for pension under the Canadian National Railways pension rules depends on the attainment of a certain age and the accumulation of a certain number of years of service.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question? I appreciate the general principles the minister has stated, but is it not possible to give specific answers to some of the questions, for example, to parts 4 and 5, as to the number of persons involved?


George Carlyle Marler: I do not believe I can answer more clearly than I have. I feel that for the reasons I have just given it is not practicable to give the complete information the hon. member has requested.


Mr. Speaker:: Question answered.



Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many section and maintenance men of the Canadian National Railways have been laid off by (a) regions; (b) divisions, since the 1st day of January, 1955?
2.	Is it anticipated that there will be further lay-offs and, if so, what are expected numbers by
(a)	regions; (b) divisions?
3.	What is the total number of employees of Canadian National Railways in (a) office staffs,
(b)	all other positions, laid off either permanently or temporarily, since the 1st day of December, 1954?
4.	How many employees of Canadian National Railways have had their working hours reduced, since the 1st day of January, 1955?


George Carlyle Marler: This is another question which cannot be answered completely without the assignment of a special staff. Here again, the information would have to be assembled at the 42 divisions of the company, and would then have to be consolidated. This would take many weeks, and by the time the figures had been compiled they would no longer be currently accurate. Seasonal employment, with resultant lay-offs at the termination of seasonal programs, has a very marked impact on figures relating to the strength of working forces.
These comments apply particularly to parts 1 and 3, and similar difficulties exist as to part 2 of the question.
With regard to part 4, I would answer that no employees have had their working hours reduced since 1st January 1955, except perhaps that in certain cases of illness an employee may be working part-time pending complete recovery.
I might also refer the hon. member to a publication of the dominion bureau of statistics that may be helpful to him, namely "Railway Operating Statistics".


Mr. Speaker:: Answered.



POST-GRADUATE MATERNITY TRAINING OF NURSES

Mr. Forgie:: What assistance has been given in the past two years through the national health program for post-graduate training of nurses in the care of mothers and children?


Mr. Robertson:: With financial assistance provided under the national health grants program, short post-graduate courses have been given for public nurses in British Columbia, and for both public health and hospital nurses in Nova Scotia, Ontario and Manitoba. Training has been provided in

Questions
this way for 200 nurses. This has resulted in increased activity on the part of these nurses in the field of pre-natal classes in both Ontario and Manitoba. The hospital nurses trained under these projects are working in maternity and1 new-born departments of general hospitals. In many centres in Ontario and Nova Scotia the nurses thus trained have been able to improve the care they are giving to the mothers and children of Canada.



HEALTH GRANTS

Mr. Shaw:: With respect to general health grants:
1.	What was the maximum amount of grant available to each province, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, for each fiscal year since the start of the payment of such grants?
2.	What was the total amount actually paid to each province, during each fiscal year and what was the total amount spent in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory during each such year?


Mr. Robertson:: 1.
-	1948-49	1949-50	1950-511	1951-52	1952-532	1953-543	1954-554$	$	$	$	S	$	$Nfld	-	923,518	1,013,060	1,027,005	1,058,505	1,229,702	1,139,313P.E.I	293,913	278,504	297,069	301,269	313,,547	325,376	346,635N.S	1,542,084	1,541,613	1,667,101	1,699,039	1,699,904	1,623,263	1,740,471N.B	1,226,191	1,226,248	1,343,758	1,365,796	1,382,959	1,342,203	1,451,971Que	8,986,080	9,009,775	9,911,636	10,164,182	10,559,509	10,219,388	11,138,887Ont	9,668,425	9,739,949	10,622,784	10,898,076	11,369,158	10,948,791	11,955,576Man	1,806,331	1,803,150	1,971,964	2,017,850	2,023,595	1,952,260	2,095,561Sask	2,002,077	1,990,483	2,133,948	2,175,435	2,138,225	2,035,061	2,205,596Alta	1,969,032	1,985,460	2,173,663	2,238,981	2,410,632	2,322,764	2,548,168B.C	2,529,236	2,568,418	2,819,068	2,890,267	3,015,861	2,906,018	3,155,257N.W.T	-	-	-	-	48,100	57,699	89,922Yukon	' 	-	-	-	28,600	34,634	53,682All provinces5...	30,123,369	31,272.266	34,262,101	35,188,600	36,561,495	35,510,059	38,433,9391	The 1950-51 total includes an amount of $50.00 unallotted by province.2	A re-vote	of	$17,306,914	under	the hospital	construction grant for	1952-53	is	not	included	here.3	A re-vote	of	$12,993,767	under	the hospital	construction grant for	1953-54	is	not	included	here.4	A re-vote	of	$10,000,000	under	the hospital	construction grant for	1954-55	is	not	included	here.5	The public health research grant, unallotted by province, is included in the totals and consists of: $100,000 for 1948-49; $205,148 for 1949-50; $308,000 for 1950-51; $410,700 for 1951-52; $512,900 for 1952-53: $512,900 for 1953-54 and $512,900 for 1954-55.
2.
1948-49	1949-50	1950-51	1951-52	1952-53	1953-54	(to Feb. 1, 1955)$	$	$	$	$	$	$Nfld	-	607,657	722,252	735,769	823,786	854,415	282,699P.E.I	158,939	184,271	216,710	235,406	233,993	222,894	116,112N.S	423,311	671,855	1,022,077	1,104,154	1,276,972	1,516,340	774,941N.B	460,741	464,651	617,993	1,092,289	1,160,570	1,532,949	568,526Que	2,591,620	4,978,087	6,165,074	7,315,940	7,971,458	9,612,178	7,539,965Ont	1,445,760	4,109,969	4,493,101	7,068,260	8,292,081	7,339,568	4,163,097Man	445,986	749,358	1,060,320	1,134,332	1,485,358	1,704,410	870,543Sask	655,934	1,294,955	1,436,930	1,538,755	1,980,965	1,931,167	764,648Alta	307,706	1,407,341	1,483,756	1,616,149	2,106,153	1,821,858	1,376,016B.C	1,170,777	1,277,604	1,701,011	2,481,398	1,986,277	2,617,624	1,741,371N.W.T	-	-	-	-	4,782	20,901	827T ukon	-	-	-	-	10,960	9,624	9,851All provinces...	7,660,774	15,745,748	18,919,224	24,322,452	27,333,355	29,183,928	18,208,596



SCHOOL ATTENDANCE, RESTIGOUCHE COUNTY, N.B.

Mr. Boucher (Resligouche-Madawaska):: Is the Department of National Health and Welfare aware that there are some sixteen hundred school children not attending school in Restigouche county. New' Brunswick, whose parents are in receipt of family allowances?


Frederick Greystock Robertson: The officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare are in touch with the school attendance authorities for the province of New Brunswick and for Restigouche county with regard to this matter. Family allowances records of cases under suspension in Restigouche county for failure to

Questions
attend school as required by provincial law do not show an unusually large number of suspensions for this county.
While the Family Allowances Act and regulations disqualify from receipt of the allowance any child of school age who improperly absents himself from school, the policy of the Department of National Health and Welfare is to accept the interpretation of the provincial school inspection authorities on this point. The provincial authorities certify to the Department of National Health and Welfare which children are not in regular attendance as required under provincial law and the departmental officials take action by suspending family allowances in those cases until the children return to school.
Provincial authorities do not ordinarily certify to the department as truants from school, children who are willing and anxious to attend, whose parents are willing and anxious that they should attend, but for whom school accommodation is not available. Nor was it ever the intention of the Family Allowances Act that such children should, through no fault of their own, be deprived of the benefit of family allowances.
POSTAL REVENUE, PEACE RIVER AREA Mr. Low:
What was the revenue for the fiscal years 1950-51 to 1953-54 inclusive, of each of the following post offices in the Peace river area of Alberta; Beaver-lodge, Peace River, Spirit River, Hythe?


Mr. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouih-Clare):: 1950-51	1951-52	1952-53	1953-54Beaverlodge, Alta	$ 6,013.53	7,609.23	8,896.58	10,087.09Peace River, Alta	
26,731,63	33,141.13	34,194.75	31,597.57Spirit River, Alta	
8.451,01	9,668.33	9,587.84	8,514.88Hythe, Alta	
4,050.43	4,708.09	4,884.02	4,650.67



MARITIME MARSHLAND REHABILITATION ACT- EXPENDITURES

Mr. Brooks:: How much money has been spent by the federal government under the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act for each of the three maritime provinces for each of the past five years?


Mr. Gardiner:: fiscal Prince Edward	New
Year	Island Nova Scotia Brunswick
1949-	50
1950-	51	27,863.151951-	52	160.661952-	53	114.041953r54	185.30156,807.88	199,989.22616,374.69	338,671.03646,872.74	548,954.19867,997.47	777,453.58986,997.03	1,006,011.10 * 1 2
Total $28,323.15 $3,275,049.81 $2,871,079.12 Grand total-$6,174,452.08



FAMILY ALLOWANCES ACT-PROSECUTIONS

Mr. Proudfool:: 1.	How many prosecutions were instituted under the Family Allowances Act during the calendar year 1954?
2.	What were the results of these prosecutions?


Mr. Robertson:: 1.	Eleven.	,
2.	Eight have resulted in convictions. Three cases are still pending.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


Mr. Proudfoot:: How many immigrant children were registered for family allowances in the calendar year 1954?


Frederick Greystock Robertson: 32,716.



INDIANS

Mr. Small:: 1.	What is the total Indian population of Canada?
2.	How many Indian reservations are there in Canada, and where are they located?
3.	How many Indians reside in each reservation?


Mr. Pickersgill:: 1.	151,942 (information obtained from most recent band list.)
2.	2,223, located as follows:
Prince Edward Island	 4
Nova Scotia	 40
New Brunswick	 23
Quebec	 22
Ontario	 164
Manitoba	 107
Saskatchewan	 120
Alberta	 90
British Columbia	 1,628
Northwest Territories	 10
Yukon	 15
2,223
3.	Statistics are not maintained by reserves but rather by band membership.



CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING

Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: 1.	During the year 1954, how many housing units were inspected by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?
2.	Were fees collected in any of these inspection services? If so, what was the total amount collected during 1954 for these inspections?
3.	What was the total amount of receipts for services of all kinds rendered by Central Mortgage and Housing during 1954 for housing units?

4.	What was the total expenditure by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation lor all services during 1954, including office rents and cost of upkeep of head office and staff?


Mr. Winters:: Units
1.	(a) Houses financed under the national housing acts of 1944 and 1954 55,700
(b)	Houses built by agency agreement for the Department of National Defence; Department of Transport;
Atomic Energy of Canada, and houses
built in federal-provincial projects ..	3,250
(c)	Property under CMHC management	 18,256
Total inspected	 77,206
2.	Yes. In respect to;
(a)		 $1,502,617.00
(b)	D.N.D.; D.O.T.; Atomic
Energy of Canada		691,550.96
(c)	  Nil
Total	 $2,194,167.96
3 and 4. This information is being compiled and included in the annual report of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the balance sheet for 1954 which will shortly be tabled.



PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION ACT


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What was the total amount spent by the federal government under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act in each of the four provinces, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and British Columbia, to date?


Mr. McCubbin:: Expenditures under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act to March 31, 1954.
Major Irrigation and
P.F.R.A. Reclamation Total 4,112,038	1,756,769	5,868,80735,683,307	5,299,521	40,982,8287,014,168	32,559,691	39,573,859127,673	2,989,459	3,117,13246,937,186	42,605,440	89,542,626



STONY RAPIDS INDIAN OFFICE

Mr. Bryson:: 1.	Was the Indian affairs' headquarters at Stony Rapids closed for any period during the months of June, July or August, 1954?
2.	If so, what was the reason for closing the establishment?
3.	Did the Indians of the community have meat stored in the refrigerator at these headquarters?
Questions
4.	If so, was any provision made to enable the Indians to get meat out of the locker when the headquarters was closed?
5.	Were any complaints received by officials of the Indian affairs' branch in regard to the closing of the headquarters?


Mr. Pickersgill:: 1.	Yes, from June 18, 1954 to July 16, 1954.
2.	The establishment was closed because the official responsible was absent for purposes of making annuity payments to Indians in outlying areas.
3.	Yes.
4.	No, but on June 18 the Indians who had meat in the refrigerator were informed by the official in charge that he would be away for several weeks and that as a consequence he would, on that day, issue to them supplies of meat to meet requirements during his absence on duty.
5.	Yes, on July 14, 1954.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD LIBRARY

Mr. Girard:: How many films now available in the national film board library are edited (a) in both official languages; (b) in English only; (c) in French only?


Mr. Pickersgill:: (a)	The national film board has 471 films available in both English and French versions.
(b)	The national film board has 271 films available only in English.
(c)	The national film board has 95 films available only in French.



CBFT TELEVISION FILMS

Mr. Deschaleleis:: 1.	Have any protests been received by the CBFT authorities, regarding the quality of some French films shown on channel 2, in the province of Quebec?
2.	If so, what steps are being taken with respect to such protests?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	Very few critical comments have been received.
2.	At all times the corporation endeavours to obtain the best films in the French language available for television broadcasting.



SALK VACCINE

Mr. McMillan:: What is the Department of National Health and Welfare doing to ensure that supplies of Salk polio vaccine are made available to the provinces for their use this year?


Frederick Greystock Robertson: In anticipation of the
ultimate availability of an effective vaccine for poliomyelitis, planning and expansion of activities in the Department of National Health and Welfare have been geared to cope
Manitoba
Sask	
Alberta . . B.C	

Questions
with the demands expected to result from a development of this nature in the poliomyelitis field. At this time it is not possible to offer any prediction on the outcome of the vaccine trials in the United States. Nevertheless, in co-operation with the provinces the federal government has taken steps to ensure the availability of supplies of a vaccine for further trials this year.
Important steps have been taken in two general areas, research and the production of the vaccine.
Under the national health grants program, a special research effort is being supported at Connaught medical research laboratories in Toronto and the Institute of Microbiology and Hygiene in Montreal. At the former, investigation of the antigenic types of poliomyelitis present in Canada, studies of the poliomyelitis virus, its cultivation in tissue culture and the development of a vaccine have been assisted. At the Montreal institution, research on neurotropic virus, epidemiology of the disease and studies of poliomyelitis virus in tissue culture have also been supported with special grants. Altogether in these and other institutions in the present fiscal year over $83,000 has been earmarked for research in the field of poliomyelitis and related problems out of the public health research grant. During the previous year allocations for research in this area approximated $60,000. Neither of these amounts takes into consideration the extensive support provided under the national health grants program for blood fractionation and the production of gamma globulin.
In the laboratory of hygiene of the Department of National Health and Welfare, a special section dealing with virus research has been actively engaged in studies on the poliomyelitis virus and methods of testing a vaccine. There is another section in the laboratory which deals with tissue culture which is important in the propagation of poliomyelitis virus for the development of a vaccine.
Funds under the national health grants program are being provided for the processing of sufficient vaccine for the Canadian trials this year. The Connaught medical research laboratories have been engaged in preparing a large part of the culture fluids for poliomyelitis virus which were used by pharmaceutical manufacturers in the United States last year. It was possible therefore for them to undertake the preparation of the vaccine on behalf of the federal and provincial departments of health. For this purpose assistance is being provided under the general public health grant with the total expenditure

being shared by federal and provincial governments. This broad project involves the commitment of up to $375,000 national health grant funds with an equal amount from provincial sources. It has been planned that each provincial department of health will receive a proportionate share of the vaccine and will arrange for the trial of this material.
The biologies control and virus sections of the laboratory of hygiene have given special attention to poliomyelitis vaccine during the past three or four months. In close co-operation with the Connaught medical research laboratories, the vaccine is being retested for safety before it will be released to provincial authorities. This work is carried on under the authority of the Food and Drugs Act and is designed to give added protection as regards safety.



FEDERAL AID


Mr. Follwell:: What, if anything, is being done by the federal government to aid children with cleft palates or with other severe dento-facial deformities?


Frederick Greystock Robertson: Under the national health grants program the federal government has provided financial assistance totalling $236,018.00 for the support of the following activities:
(a)	an orthodontic study of cleft palate, being conducted at the Hospital for Sick Children at Toronto;
(b)	another special project of a medical-dental nature, being carried out at the Royal Victoria hospital, Montreal;
(c)	a study of the underlying causes of dento-facial abnormalities, being carried out at Burlington, Ontario, with a view to arriving at the best methods of preventing or ameliorating them;
(d)	the operation of a clinic in Toronto for the diagnosis and prevention of early dento-facial abnormalities in young children.



SALES TAX APPEAL BOARD

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has consideration been given to the setting up of a sales tax appeal board, similar to the income tax appeal board, so that appeals against any alleged unfairness in the imposition of sales taxes might be heard?
2.	If so, what is the result of such consideration?
3.	If not, will such consideration be given?


Mr. McCann:: Mr. Speaker, I shall answer this question orally. The answer is, of course, that we already have an appeal board for that purpose. It is known as the tariff board.


Mr. Speaker:: Answered.



PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION


Mr. Purdy:: 1. On what date were operations under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act started?
2. On what date were operations under the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act started?
3.	What has been the cost of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act to the federal government to the 31st of March, 1954?
4.	What has been the cost of the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act to the federal government to the 31st of March, 1954?


Mr. Gardiner:: 1.	Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act passed April 17, 1935. Operations started same year.
2.	Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act passed June 30, 1948. Operations started in 1949.
3.	$89,542,626.
4.	$6,174,452.08.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Balcom:: 1.	In what year was the National Harbours Board Act proclaimed?
2.	What has been the cost of operation for each of the fiscal years from coming into effect to the last fiscal year, under the following headings (a) administration; (b) capital expenditures; (c) maintenance; (d) all other expenses?


HARBOURS BOARD PROPERTY, HALIFAX
Mr. Nowlan:: 1.	What firms or persons are occupying or using property, (excepting piers, cold storage plant and buildings and equipment incidental thereto) of the national harbours board at Halifax?
2. What are all of the terms and conditions of such use and occupation?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Stanley Howard Knowles: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the office of the national co-ordinator of civilian rehabilitation and the corresponding provincial offices, dated at any time since January 1, 1954, regarding proposals for, and the amount of federal contributions to, the rehabilitation budgets of the various provinces.


Mr. Gregg:: The federal departments concerned with this motion have no objection to its passing, subject to the usual rider as to consultation with the provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: 


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Zaplitny:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda, and other documents, exchanged between the government or any department thereof and the following companies or any representative thereof: (a) the Aluminum Company of Canada
Motions for Papers
Limited; (b) Gatineau Power Company; (c) Saguenay Power Company Limited; (d) the Bell Telephone Company, since January 1, 1946, relative to the question of tax liability and/or tax remission for the years 1946 to 1952 inclusive.


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, I will have to oppose this motion, and suggest to the hon. member that it be withdrawn. I oppose it on the ground that this is private correspondence between a taxpayer and the taxation division of the Department of National Revenue and that, according to the secrecy provisions, it cannot be disclosed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that it be withdrawn?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Would the minister agree to having it stand today? It would save the time of the house if he did.


James Joseph McCann: What I am saying is that we will have to oppose it in this form. If the hon. member wishes to put his question in some other form that will not call for disclosure which we are not permitted to make, then we will give consideration to his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion stand, for the moment?


Some hon. Members:: Dropped. .


Mr. Speaker:: Is it dropped?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that this motion be withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. This motion is defeated; it is lost.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What was the question?


Mr. Speaker:: Motion negatived.



TAX LIABILITY DECISIONS

Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: For a copy of the decision of the exchequer court and of the income tax appeal board hearing upon the dispute as to tax liability between the government of Canada and the following corporations; (a) the Aluminum Company of Canada Limited; (b) Gatineau Power Company; (c) Saguenay Power Company Limited; (d) the Bell Telephone Company.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, February 17, the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace (Mr. Hamilton) asked this question:
Is the minister investigating the refusal earlier this week of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

Canadian Wheat Board
television authorities in Montreal to co-operate with police and citizens during the disappearance, leading to the death, of a two-year-old child?
The hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace asked the other day about a reported refusal by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation television authorities in Montreal to co-operate with police during the disappearance of a two-year-old child. The hon member apparently had been incorrectly informed. The C.B.C. advises that its Montreal office had a call at 9.45 p.m. from a police official on the day in question, and that appropriate television and sound messages were carried that same evening. A Montreal newspaper carried an erroneous report the next day.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


Mr. John Decore (Vegreville) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of empowering the Canadian wheat board to conduct a ballot, by mail, of the grain producers holding permit books to ascertain the wishes of such producers as to the wheat board complying with orders signed by such producers directing the wheat board to pay membership dues to farm organizations from money due such producers from the sale of their grain by the wheat board.
He said: May I first of all express my thanks and appreciation to you, Mr. Speaker, for having on my behalf asked for unanimous consent to have this motion retain its place on the order paper during my unavoidable absence. I also thank hon. members for having granted such a request.
The purpose of this resolution is to consider the advisability of the government empowering the Canadian wheat board to conduct a ballot by mail of grain producers of the three prairie provinces, who hold permit books, for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not it is the desire or the wish of farmers to have farm organizations' dues deducted by the Canadian wheat board from moneys owing to them from the sale of their grain. Hon. members know, of course, that in the three prairie provinces the farmer is required by law to sell his grain through the Canadian wheat board. The farmer receives an initial payment, followed by subsequent interim and final payments. The producers hold permit books, and of course the balloting which is referred to in this resolution would be confined to the three prairie provinces. Therefore, if the producers who hold permit books, through such a ballot, were to express a desire to have farm organizations' dues so deducted, and if the wheat board were to agree to this arrangement, then such moneys owing to

permit holders would be deducted by the wheat board to pay farm organization dues.
I know that many hon. members hold very strong views with regard to the check-off system. Let me point out that in supporting this resolution hon. members are not dedicated either directly, or even by implication, to the support of the check-off system. What they would be doing is to leave it to the farmer to decide for himself whether or not he is in favour of voluntary requisition of farm organization dues. Let me read the resolution as it appears on the order paper:
That, in the opinion ol this house, the government should consider the advisability of empowering the Canadian wheat board to conduct a ballot, by mail, of the grain producers holding permit books to ascertain the wishes of such producers as to the wheat board complying with orders signed by such producers directing the wheat board to pay membership dues to farm organizations from money due such producers from the sale of their grain by the wheat board.
It can be readily seen, therefore, that it will be up to the farmer alone to decide whether or not he is in favour of the voluntary requisition. Assume that this resolution was to pass the house, and assume further that the government considered the matter carefully and did in fact empower the Canadian wheat board to conduct such a ballot. Then, as I say, it is up to the farmer to express his views or desires through such a ballot as to whether or not he would like to have this kind of plan in operation.
The procedure is quite simple. There is nothing unusual about it. It is just one method in our democratic system of finding out what the views of the farmers are in this regard. If the producers through such balloting showed their opposition to this plan, then of course the matter would end right there. On the other hand, if the results of such balloting indicated to the satisfaction of the wheat board that a substantial majority of the producers were in favour of having their farm organization dues so deducted by the wheat board and in the manner suggested by this resolution, then what would the position be? Let me point out that in this resolution there is nothing which suggests compulsion either to belong to any farm organization or to compel the farmer to have his farm dues deducted by the wheat board. And of course there certainly should be some provision for the revocation by the farmer at any time he so desired of an order that he may have directed to the wheat board. In this case it would apply only to those farmers who voluntarily, of their own free will, signed an order to the wheat board for the deduction of such dues.

One of the objections that might be raised to this plan by some hon. members would be the argument that there may be a considerable number of farmers who would not want the wheat board to undertake such a task. It might be argued that every farmer in the country would be forced to pay the cost of deduction, bookkeeping and transmission of funds involved in this plan. In other words, those farmers who are not prepared to become members of a farm organization, or will not wish to have the deduction made at the source, might say that they should not be penalized by being forced to help pay the cost of a scheme when they get no benefit from it. Let me point out that all such expenses or costs should be borne by those who wish to have their farm membership dues so deducted, should this plan eventually come into operation. I might also point out that the interprovincial farm union council have stated that they are prepared and are willing to pay for the cost of administration and the collection of those dues. Furthermore, the taxpayer of Canada will not be required in any way at all to contribute to the cost of placing this plan in operation.
Some question has been raised with regard to the initial cost of the conducting of this ballot. There again I think the Canadian wheat board and the interprovincial farm union council should get together and find out a method of financing this type of ballot.
It will be noted that the resolution calls for the conducting of the ballot by mail. Although it will no doubt involve a considerable amount of work and some expense, it will be nothing of the type that one would envisage in the conducting of an election.
I am proposing this resolution, Mr. Speaker, at the request of the interprovincial farm union council, which includes in it the farm union of Alberta, the Saskatchewan farmers union and the Manitoba farmers union. I have in mind also another important farm organization, namely, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I am not certain whether or not they have direct membership dues payable, but I do feel that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture could also benefit from this scheme or plan, should it be found necessary for them to change their constitution.
In proposing this resolution, Mr. Speaker, I am motivated by the desire to see strong and healthy farm organizations. I think a good, strong farm organization is invaluable in making suggestions and giving advice, whether it be to provincial or to federal governments. I think it is something that is necessary in our Canadian economy. If you were to consider the past history of farm 50433-85
Canadian Wheat Board organizations in Canada you would find that it has been one of ups and downs, due mainly to financial instability.
A very substantial percentage of their budget each year is spent in collecting membership fees. Should a good majority of the farmers agree to this plan, then all this unnecessary expense, as well as the time consumed in the collection of farm union dues, would be eliminated and would leave the farm organization leaders with a greater share of their budget and more time for the expansion of their programs.
Agriculture is our basic industry, especially so in the three prairie provinces. In a healthy democracy such as ours the rise of influence and power of farm organizations must be met by a corresponding rise in the measure of responsibility of their leaders. The farm organizations in the three prairie provinces have in recent years risen to considerable influence and power, with the result that this is accompanied by corresponding rise in the measure of responsibility on the part of such organizations.
I am convinced that our responsible farm organizations in Canada are past the point now where they consider a program of protest alone as being fitting or proper. It does not mean that at times protest is likely to be undesirable. What I wish to bring out is that responsible leaders of farm organizations realize this, as is indicated by Dr. Hannam in his message to the nineteenth annual convention of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture held recently in Edmonton. In referring to responsible farm organizations, he said that such an organization:
-cannot merely voice a demand, toss all Its serious problems on the doorstep of the government and then pack up and go home. On the contrary- it is expected to tell the federal ministers how what they demand might be accomplished. In other words constructive leadership to its industry, and a constructive approach to national programs, should go hand in hand with the maturity and the strength achieved by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
I am sure that all of us in this house will agree with those words of Dr. Hannam. That is what every sound-thinking Canadian would expect from leaders of large farm organizations in this country.
In urging hon. members to support this resolution let me point out, first, that they are in no way dedicating themselves to the support of the check-off system, not even by implication. They are leaving the matter for the farmer to decide in a democratic way, and to decide for himself as to whether or not he is in favour of the voluntary requisition of farm organization dues.
Should a substantial majority of farmers favour this plan, there is no compulsion,
1334	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board either to belong to any farm organization or to have dues collected. Finally, I feel that in voting for this resolution hon. members would be expressing their desire to assist in the building up of farm organizations in this country, which I believe are necessary and desirable in our Canadian economy.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, from time to time the question of the check-off has been aired in this house with reference to industrial labour organizations. I believe that this is the first time we have had an opportunity of discussing the voluntary revocable check-off in connection with farm organizations. I should like to express appreciation to the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore) for providing an opportunity for such discussion through his resolution.
It is a matter of only a week or so ago that the house voted on this issue as it applied to industrial organizations. As the topic was very thoroughly aired at that time, at least the mechanics of the subject, it will not be necessary now to go into all the details.
The idea of the check-off is gradually receiving acceptance across Canada among various groups. Many of the industrial organizations have it, teachers' organizations have it, and some civil servants-the postmasters, for example-have the check-off.
I am particularly interested in this resolution because it does not ask hon. members of the house to declare themselves either for or against the principle of the check-off. As the hon. member for Vegreville indicated in his opening remarks, it is merely recommending that the farmers themselves be given an opportunity to express their desires in this regard. I believe that this places the responsibility of decision right where it should rest, at the farm level itself.
It is quite significant that farm organizations should be thinking at this time in terms of the check-off. I agree with the hon. member for Vegreville that it is a healthy sign when we find farmers becoming concerned and preoccupied with problems relating to organization. It has always been most difficult to organize farmers because of the peculiar geographical conditions under which they live. They have had to work against the problem of isolation. Whenever unions have been organized or farm groups have been organized on a union basis it has been necessary for them to have an indirect type of membership because of the difficulty of collecting annual dues. Almost 50 per cent of the amount collected annually is eaten up in the expense of collecting by this method.
IMr. Decore.]

When we have an indication from the farmers themselves that they desire a more solid financial base for their organizations, that should be recognized. If the principle of this resolution is carried out it would give the farmers an opportunity of expressing their wishes on the subject.
One of the reasons why farmers are becoming more interested in organization today is the difficult conditions prevailing in the agricultural industry. Prices are going down and costs are rising. As a result of this price squeeze the farmers are becoming more concerned about the necessity of getting together as organized groups so that they may speak with a united voice on agricultural matters.
In the past, because of the difficulty of organizing farm producers, there has been a tendency in Canada for farm protest to express itself in the form of political outburst, upsurges of political movements and political parties. This was the case back in the twenties with the rise of the progressive movement in Canada; it was largely a farm political party. The experience of that party has demonstrated that it is not necessarily in the best interest of Canada as a whole for any one group to organize itself as a direct political expression. I therefore think it is imperative, if the farmers are to have the necessary united voice to speak on problems relating to their activities, that they have some method whereby they can form a solid farm organization.
Of course there are precautions that are necessary in carrying out a program of this kind. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore) has referred to some of them. When a subject of this nature is discussed I believe there will be the tendency to criticize it from this point of view: the resolution suggests using the wheat board organization as the means for deducting farm union dues. I would imagine that in this discussion criticism will be raised to the effect that once you open the door to deduction from wheat board funds for one particular purpose, you must face the possibility of having wide open blanket assignments. For example, a suggestion might be put forward that a creditor, wishing to collect a debt that he holds against a farmer, could approach the wheat board and ask for a similar assignment. If that criticism should arise, I think it is beside the point; because it should be quite easy to define the terms of any check-off arrangement so that it would be quite specific as to the purpose of the deduction. There is also, of course, the other matter that should be emphasized-and I believe the resolution mentions this fact-namely that the proposed

check-off scheme on which the farmers would be voting under this plebiscite arrangement would be a voluntary scheme; that is, they would have a choice in the matter. It should also be revocable. These provisions would put them in a position almost similar to that with respect to hail insurance where the farmer can take it out if he so wishes and he can withdraw from any scheme of this kind if he so desires after having once participated in it.
Generally, Mr. Speaker, with these reservations and brief statement of some precautions, I support the resolution that is before the house.


Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkton):: impression that action was going to be taken a year ago. As far as this group is concerned, we not only support this move but urge it in every possible way. When the resolution passes we hope that the government will take action immediately to institute a voluntary requisition plan as soon as possible.


Mr. Victor Qu-elch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, we in this group intend to support the resolution. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore) has pointed out that in supporting the resolution members are not committed to support of the voluntary requisition or check-off of farm union dues from payments owed the farmers by the wheat board. On the other hand, we have supported the principle of the voluntary check-off so far as labour is concerned, and we will certainly support it so far as the farmers are concerned.
The resolution is of a very general character. If it passes it does not actually commit the wheat board to take any action even though the government brings in a bill to empower the wheat board to take a ballot, because if you empower a body to do a certain thing you do not necessarily force it to do it. However, I presume if such a bill were introduced the wheat board would no doubt take action. The hon. member for Vegreville stated that if the majority of farmers supported the idea of such requisitions being honoured the wheat board could then go ahead, but even if only a minority of the farmers support the idea I can see no reason why the wheat board would not be prepared to accept requisitions from such minority instead of waiting for a majority to sign. The majority would not be penalized in any way by the wheat board honouring the requisitions of the minority.
A ballot could be conducted at very little expense. No doubt forms could be printed which could be sent to the farmers at the time their cheques are mailed to them, so there would be no extra expense involved. The interprovincial farm union has stated that if there is any objection to the expense entailed they would be quite prepared to pay the cost of executing the requisitions. The principle of the voluntary check-off has been very widely recognized throughout the country both in labour and in other organizations. I would say that there is actually far greater need of such action with respect to farm organizations than there is with respect to labour organizations for the simple reason that the farmers are so widely scattered throughout the country that it is very difficult indeed to get in touch with them in order to get them to pay their dues. In the past it has been necessary to do that each year.

I know that tor many years that job used to fall upon me in our locality. I invariably seemed to be one of those chosen to go around and collect farm union dues, and it meant a great deal of driving. Half the time it would happen that the farmer was away from home or somewhere out in the fields where he was very hard to find. It took a lot of time, and the whole process had to be repeated the following year. If the procedure outlined in the resolution is adopted and the requisitions are honoured by the wheat board, then they would remain in force indefinitely until such time as they were revoked by the farmers. I think the procedure would be a very simple and inexpensive one and would certainly be of great value to the farm organizations.
As some other members have pointed out, it is essential that we do all we can to help the farm organizations to build up their strength. Farmers today are beginning to face quite a critical situation. You have a situation where farm organizations, in one way, have to compete with labour organizations. Labour organizations are strongly organized, but farm organizations are weakly organized. I should like to see the farm organizations build up their strength so that they would be as strong as the labour organizations. When farm organization leaders came to Ottawa they could then speak for a very large percentage of the farmers of the country. I am satisfied that the government would pay far more attention to the representatives of farm organizations if they could say that they represented 60 per cent, 70 per cent or more of the farmers of the country. They would be speaking with a strong voice and, as I say, the government would be more liable to pay attention to their requests. While the resolution does not commit a person to the support of the voluntary requisition, I can say without hesitation that so far as this group is concerned we support a system of voluntary requisition.


Mr. W. A. Tucker (Rosihern):: Mr. Speaker, it will be noted by the house that the whole purpose of the resolution is to give farmers the right to indicate whether they want the wheat board to honour orders to pay dues to farm organizations. As the wheat board is now constituted, no assignment of any money coming to a farmer and no order on money in the hands of the wheat board that is coming to any farmer is honoured, the idea being that the money in the hands of the wheat board should be free from any possibility of being seized by creditors or in any way attached or assigned. In other words, the purpose is so that the farmers can be
Canadian Wheat Board sure of getting their money. That has been the established basis upon which the wheat board has been operating.
When the farm union people suggested to me that an exception should be made in regard to farm union dues, I pointed out to them that that would be a change from the established basis of operation. I expressed some doubt as to whether farmers in general would want to change that situation in any way. If this were done in connection with farm union dues, then the money might no longer be regarded as the farmer's and might be subject to assignment or attachment. I said that so far as I could find out I thought the majority of the farmers in the area where I lived would be against making that change in the wheat board act.
The response of the farm union representative to me was that he was satisfied the farmers would support that change. As he pointed out, other parts of our community are strongly organized. The professional field is strongly organized and certain branches of the labour fields are also strongly organized. The argument was that we seem to be coming into a period where the farmer is facing a declining income but his costs are rising or, in some respects, remaining stable. It was felt that if the farmer, in his turn, did not organize he was not going to get a fair deal under our economic system.
The representative of the farm union said, if the farmers want this, and it is their money, why should they not have the right to dispose of it as they see fit, especially if it is on a voluntary basis. He said, if there is any difference of opinion as to whether or not farmers want this privilege, why not make some provision for a vote to be held to decide the matter? My response to that was, in effect, that I could easily understand that the government, being responsible for the operations of the wheat board and answerable to the farmers and to the people generally if the wheat board were not successful, could not abdicate its right to make decisions as to what should be done by the wheat board concerning matters vital to its success. If the wheat board did not operate successfully then, of course, the government would be held responsible. Since the government must answer to the farmers for the manner in which the wheat board operates, they could not make that right subject to the outcome of any plebiscite.
If the matter did not affect the successful functioning of the wheat board as a marketing agency, and if it merely concerned the right of the farmer to dispose of any money to his credit in the hands of the wheat board, then whether it was done or not done

Canadian Wheat Board did not seem to me to have any possible effect on the successful functioning of the wheat board as a marketing agency. Since the question did not go to the root of whether or not the wheat board could function successfully, it seemed to me that the democratic way of dealing with the matter would be to permit the farmers themselves to decide. Of course, the purpose of the motion made by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore) is just that. By voting for this resolution no one says he is favourable to the check-off or whatever you might call it, and no one says he is against it. All he is saying is that the wheat board should be empowered to hold a vote of the permit holders to ascertain whether or not they would like the right to give the wheat board an order to pay dues on behalf of farmers to farm organizations.
I realize it could be said, and might be argued, that if parliament authorized the holding of a plebiscite some basis would be given for the suggestion that we were favourable to the idea. I believe, however, that everyone understands that governments often hold plebiscites to ascertain the attitude of the people on certain matters, without the government having anything in mind beyond finding out the wishes of the people. The liquor question has been handled this way many times in different parts of this country. All this resolution says is that the wheat board should have the power to conduct a very cheap plebiscite amongst the permit holders to ascertain whether money in the hands of the wheat board should be subject to an individual's order that the wheat board turn over some of that money to pay farm union dues.
It will be noted that it is suggested that this plebiscite should be held by mail. The wheat pool delegates elect directors to run the business of the wheat board by means of a mail vote. The cost of conducting a plebiscite in this manner is very small indeed. It seems to me that when some farmers strongly hold the view that money in the hands of the wheat board should continue to be inviolate, not subject to attachment or assignment, and some farmers take the view very strongly that if farmers are going to maintain their position in our economy they should be given a chance to organize, and this is a way in which they could be assisted to organize, then we should give them a chance to decide whether or not it shall be done.
If this government were to introduce a change in the wheat board act and give the wheat board the power to conduct such a plebiscite, ballots could be sent to the permit holders and they could say whether they are favourable or unfavourable to this measure.


The farmers would then decide this matter. I say again, Mr. Speaker, that I am not suggesting the wheat board should be run by plebiscite. I am satisfied that at least 90 per cent of our farmers today believe the wheat board has done and is doing a splendid job of marketing their grain. The farmers do not want to do anything that would impair the efficiency of the wheat board as a marketing agency for their grain. If the farmers thought that such a move as this would in any way impair the efficiency of the wheat board or in any way weaken it, they would certainly vote against it. My submission is that the farmers themselves are the ones who can be trusted to decide whether or not it is the safe thing to do. After all, they are more concerned about the future success of the wheat board than members of parliament who are not farmers could possibly be. So far as this question is concerned, the future of the wheat board can be safely left in the hands of the farmers.
I submit that in asking members to support this measure they are being asked to uphold the idea of letting people run their own affairs as much as possible; that is all this resolution means. I am aware of the fact that some of my friends who strongly favour the check-off idea have pointed out to me that I voted against the idea of writing the check-off principle into law. I voted against it upon the understanding I got from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) that if the vast majority of the employees in an industry demonstrated they wanted the check-off they could get it written into a collective bargaining arrangement; that was the policy. It was a matter that should be left in the hands of the workers themselves, and not interfered with by parliament. I say that is the principle of this resolution, in the sense that the farmer would come under the policy of the government in regard to labour. If we want to have this right to have money in the hands of the wheat board available for assignment by the individual, and if he is to have the right to assign that money to pay farm organization dues, and if the farmers vote by a good majority in favour of that prooedure, then it means of course that the farmer can assign his money to pay those dues. It means there will be no cost upon those people who do not sign these assignments, because it has been said that the cost of operation will be taken out of those moneys ordered to be assigned.
So this procedure does not hurt the person who does not join. And it does mean that if a majority of farmers want to have this right, then they shall have it, just the same as people engaged in industry have a similar

right. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that we should take the same attitude toward the farmers in giving them the closest possible approach to what is enjoyed by labour, where they have the right to make an order on their salary cheques or pay cheques. I believe this resolution oilers the closest approach by the farmer to that procedure, when it puts the matter in the hands of the farmers themselves, and lets them decide. That should be the privilege enjoyed by people under our system of government and, so far as is possible, having in mind the efficient functioning of the operation, the farmers should be permitted to decide for themselves.
I am not suggesting, let me repeat, that the wheat board should be run by plebiscite. But in this manner, after the wheat board has marketed the grain and has the money available, the farmers could be asked: "Do you, by a large majority, want to have the right to assign money only to the extent of paying farm union dues?" I suggest that this resolution is correct when it asks that the farmers be given the right to decide what should be done with the money received from marketing their own grain.


Mr. W. G. Weir (Poriage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is a little unfortunate that I should be the first among my colleagues, and others, to rise at this time to state a somewhat different point of view. I think in the House of Commons we recognize that we can differ, and at the same time remain friends. I hope this instance is no exception.
I would refer first of all to the resolution. It may be considered that to a point what I am about to say this afternoon would be considered in the nature of technicalities. Nevertheless it is important to point out that the resolution suggests the taking of a ballot by mail of grain producers holding permit books.
Well, from my understanding of the permit book arrangement in connection with the delivery of grain, by no means all farmers hold such permit books. As recently as last fall I had brought to my attention cases where there were as many as five people interested in the production, sale and delivery of a certain block of grain, but only one of those persons had a permit. And in my own case, where I have a reasonable interest in a quantity of grain, I have no permit book. It is delivered in the other fellow's name.
So that this plebiscite to which reference has been made would not in any sense cover all those who are interested in grain. Of course we realize that difficulty could be overcome by taking a canvass of those who
Canadian Wheat Board do not have permit books. Perhaps in that way that objection would be overcome.
But I go further-and I think this is important, having in mind what was said by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker). It will be noted that the resolution refers to the payment of membership dues to farm organizations. Well, that is pretty broad. Does it include agricultural societies? Does it include 4-H clubs? How far down the line is this inroad to go, when being applied to the principle to which we have adhered in connection with moneys held by the Canadian wheat board? Perhaps this would be set out in whatever amendment might be proposed to the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
But the principle of the resolution goes beyond what I believe was in the mind of the hon. member who proposed it. I think we should know exactly what it means.
I voice my opposition to the resolution at this time-and I say "at this time" deliberately-in so far as it applies to the province of Manitoba-and again I draw attention to the words "as it applies to the province of Manitoba".
My main reason for doing so at this time is that we have in that province two farm organizations which for some time have been attempting to amalgamate, and to bring themselves into one organization. Up to now they have not succeeded, and I do not know whether they will succeed. But until that time is reached I do not wish to be on one side or the other, so far as those two organizations are concerned.
For my own part, let me say to the house that in my younger days I had a good deal to do with the activities of farm organizations. I was interested chiefly in the federation of agriculture, and the organizations which preceded it. But when one picks up a newspaper today he cannot fail to see the type of controversy going on between those two organizations in Manitoba. I submit we would be unwise to project ourselves into that controversy at this time, so far as that province is concerned.
The hon. member has brought up another point of view, which has been pretty strongly held, particularly by farmers delivering to the Canadian wheat board. I refer to the fact that up to now they have not wanted any procedure which would mean a prior claim on their money in the hands of the Canadian wheat board. The procedure set out in this resolution would be, I fear, the thin edge of the wedge. Once the principle is established, then claims of a similar nature and following the same principle might be made.
I know there are those who subscribe to the idea that the farmer should have the

Canadian Wheat Board right to have his membership dues collected by the Canadian wheat board. There are those who, improperly I suggest, look upon the Canadian wheat board as the employer with whom the farmer can negotiate and make a bargaining arrangement. The fact is, on the contrary, that the farmers have looked upon the wheat board as their employee. So it is not possible to work out a bargaining agreement in this respect between the Canadian wheat board and the farmer.
It may be urged that the taking of a plebiscite would be a reasonable approach to the matter, in that it would permit the farmers to say whether or not they want the adoption of this principle. But from everything I can gather it seems clear that the majority of farmers do not want it.
If in this instance we place the choice before them, then I think we are dodging a responsibility which we should accept in connection with declaring our attitude on this subject. But, even assuming the plebiscite is a reasonable approach, having in mind the controversy taking place in Manitoba now, it seems to me that the holding of a plebiscite would carry with it the implied direction that this is the desired procedure, and I am sure the holding of that plebiscite would influence many people in their votes.
In other words the government makes provision for the taking of a plebiscite asked for by one farm organization, and it would be assumed by a good many people that the government wants to lend its support to that organization. I do not think that is the case. I go further and I say this to you. You are asking the wheat board to conduct a plebiscite. It is true that the wheat board has the necessary documents, permit books and all the rest of it. But by so doing you are projecting the wheat board into a controversy that might do it more harm than good. If, in the wisdom of parliament, this step should be taken, then I suggest that a much more logical course to pursue would be to set up some other type of organization to take the plebiscite rather than the wheat board. I do not know what that would be; but I do subscribe strongly to the point of view that as far as possible the wheat board should be kept out of this thing which would inevitably become political one way or the other, and in the end it would do more harm than good.
I know that the argument of the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) is a very practical one. Having gone through that experience over a number of years I know some of the difficulty in collecting farm membership dues. I do not know whether it is reticence on their part, but the practical fact is that

owing to the sparse settlements it is somewhat difficult to collect the annual dues. Let me suggest this. If an easier indirect method is found, I feel that in the end it will do more harm to the farm movement than anything else could do. I believe that the farmers' movement will be successful and strong so long as it keeps active and virile within the various localities where it is established; and if farmers are strong adherents of their particular cause, they should come forward on their own to make their annual contributions of dues just as we do to our churches, clubs and other organizations. This reminds me that a few days ago I received a notice from an organization to which I belong. I thought my dues were paid but I received a notice that they were overdue for two or three years and that I should either put up or get out. Naturally, I responded.


An hon. Member:: By getting out?


William Gilbert Weir: No, I responded by paying my dues, and did so gladly. A person should be just as willing to support his farm organization in regular payment of dues as he supports his church or any other body of that kind, and it has the added advantage of retaining control.
I am reminded, Mr. Speaker, when the problem of collection of union dues is cited, that in this city a campaign is carried on each fall for the purpose of collecting charitable donations. That campaign is carried out in one single night all over the city of Ottawa. I should like to suggest to my farmer friends that if they work up the type of enthusiasm that is necessary in a voluntary organization and provide for a membership week, they will be surprised at the response that they will get by doing so.
As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, this resolution has been suggested in the first instance by the farm union movement of western Canada. They are now making themselves into a national organization, which is their privilege and their right. They propose to have their dues in one section of the country collected from moneys held by the Canadian wheat board. I do not know how they are going to develop a similar policy with respect to those who may be primarily interested in the marketing of other types of grain or the marketing of livestock, or the means by which they will apply a similar principle in other parts of Canada. In my judgment, up to the present time, this thing has not advanced to the point where I at least can subscribe to this principle. But that is not all, Mr. Speaker. I know there are a lot of good sound thinkers in the farm union movement, and I would hope that steps can be

taken in my own province of Manitoba to bring those organizations together in a strong grass-roots organization. That is possible if the leaders of the two movements will merge some of their differences and difficulties and recognize that the farmers themselves are the first essential.
I am reluctant to do this but nonetheless I think it is important. I refer to a radio broadcast that was made here not so long ago in which the leader of the farm union movement participated. It is important to have some knowledge of the point of view of some of these people. In this radio broadcast the then president of the farmers union was asked a question, and his answer was taken from the tape recording. I quote:
The script from a tape recording showed Mr. Schulz' answer.
The question was as to whether or not he thought the farm union movement would become a political movement, and he said:
I don't think that it will ever become a political movement, because that would be rather a narrow field, in my opinion. We have no intention to become a political party nor in the political movement. Our objective is to control all political parties.
I impress that on all hon. members as being a point of view that should be recognized when we are considering a policy of whether or not we shall, by legislation, make it possible for an organization of that kind to collect its dues en masse from the moneys belonging to the farmers in the hands of the Canadian wheat board.
In so far as my own province of Manitoba is concerned, and believing in the principle, as I do, of people doing things for themselves that they can do for themselves, and having regard to the controversy that is going on in that province between the two farm organizations in that province, I must say that at this stage I do not propose to become a party to that controversy.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, since I come from Manitoba, I wish to take the opposite view from that of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. I do so on the basis of the resolution itself. I have no doubt that if we were to take too seriously some of the side issues that have been brought up in the last two speeches, some doubts might be cast upon the possibility of controversy over this resolution; but if we deal with the resolution and what it calls for I see no reason for dragging in irrelevant side issues and confusing what is requested. The request is very simple and clear. For 50433-86
Canadian Wheat Board the purpose of keeping it that way I think I should put it on the record again. The resolution reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of empowering the Canadian wheat board to conduct a ballot, by mail, of the grain producers holding permit books to ascertain the wishes of such producers as to the wheat board complying with orders signed by such producers directing the wheat board to pay membership dues to farm organizations from money due such producers from the sale of their grain by the wheat board.
The first thing that comes to our notice on reading the resolution is that it is perfectly voluntary in its result.
As a matter of fact there are two distinct steps that have to be taken. In the first place, a plebiscite is to be carried out to ascertain the wishes of the permit book holders. If a majority of such permit book holders express the opinion that they do not wish such machinery to be set up, then of course no further steps would be taken.
The second and perhaps more important step is that the farmer concerned-I believe this is specified by the resolution-must request that his farm organization dues be deducted and handed over to the organization of his choice.
On this basis I can see no reason for the fears expressed by the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir) and certainly there are no difficulties in which the wheat board could get involved. The wheat board is not being asked to take sides in favour of one organization or another, or to advise the farmers whether they should ask that their dues be deducted or not. They are asked to do just one simple thing, to ascertain the wishes of the producers themselves. I see no reason why we should deny that simple request at this time.
I was not quite sure whether the hon. member who has just taken his seat was reluctant to support this resolution or whether he was opposed to it. In any event he did not express his support. His reason was that there was what he termed a controversy existing between the two farm organizations in Manitoba. I have no doubt that the hon. member has been in fairly close touch with the farm movement in Manitoba in the past and perhaps he still is, but to say that a controversy exists at this time between the two farm organizations in Manitoba is I think to exaggerate the picture quite substantially.
It is quite true that there are some differences of opinion in connection with the amalgamation of the two organizations, but I think we should be careful not to exaggerate the picture because the members of the one

Canadian Wheat Board organization, that is the Manitoba federation of agriculture and co-operation, are to a great extent also members of the Manitoba farmers union. That may sound strange as against what the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa has said, but it is a matter of fact.
The Manitoba federation of agriculture and co-operation includes all co-operatives. It so happens that I am a member of a consumer co-operative in my home town. I am not a farmer but by virtue of being a member of that consumer co-operative I am automatically a member of the Manitoba federation of agriculture. One can readily see how they would include the vast majority of farmers in Manitoba.
Then there are those farmers who have taken out membership in the Manitoba farmers union. By virtue of that they are already dual members, being also members of the federation of agriculture through their memberships in co-operatives. To say that these farmers are engaged in controversy would be to say that they are arguing with themselves because they are members of both organizations.
If there is a difference of opinion among some of the leaders of those two organizations, certainly this is the last place where it should be a surprise to anyone. We have differences of opinion here, not only as between one party and another but as between members of the same party. We have had an example of this in the last five minutes, but that is not something to be exaggerated into a controversy.
I have already pointed out that this is a perfectly good proposition. As a matter of fact the Manitoba farmers union and the interprovincial farm union council have already put themselves on record to make it clear that they are not asking the Canadian wheat board to do anything for them and that in fact they are willing to pay the expenses involved in having these deductions made and turned over to their organizations. Surely that is a fair proposition. I think they have gone a long way in making that voluntary offer to relieve the wheat board of the expense involved, which would not be great but which they feel the wheat board might object to paying.
What would be the effect if this resolution became legislation or if the wheat board were permitted to carry out the suggested plan? It would merely provide an orderly method of sustaining farm organizations. While mention has been made in several speeches of the farm unions, I think it should be made clear that the resolution is not restricted nor does it even specify farm union dues. It speaks of dues to farm organizations. In

other words, it is not designed to assist just the one farm organization. Its effect would be to help all farm organizations to which farmers wish to belong to carry out their activities in an organized and orderly manner.
Perhaps it would be useful at this time to mention some of the reasons why farm organizations exist and some of the values that they bring about. There are many, but I have picked out four which I think will commend themselves to all hon. members of this house. All farm organizations with which I have come in contact carry out educational work, and I mean educational in its broadest sense. They bring the farmers together into what we call locals or branches of the organization in various districts and by meeting regularly they carry out programs of an educational nature. Speakers are invited to come to give their views on various matters, not all of them dealing with agriculture.
They encourage the younger people who belong to take an active interest in what goes on around them, and again this is not restricted to agriculture. They want to help young farmers and farm wives to become good citizens. In that I believe they are doing an excellent job. For example, the 4-H clubs in Manitoba and the various locals of the farm union have in recent years carried out excellent educational projects which have helped to bring about a general level of understanding and participation, particularly among the younger people of the community. In that alone they are adding value to our society.
Then there is the question of research work. The various farm organizations have people who are asked to do certain research work for them, most of it being done on a voluntary basis. I have been often pleasantly surprised to find out how deeply informed in research matters were many men in various branches and how much excellent work had been done in that direction, in most cases without any remuneration whatsoever. These men are doing this work because they feel it is their duty to be useful to their fellow members.
Then there is the question of legislation. Time and again, either the government or members of the opposition propose certain legislation in this house or in the provincial legislature dealing with agriculture. I am quite sure that every hon. member would like to know the wishes and views of the farmers he represents on that proposed legislation. What better way to get an intelligent cross-section of opinion among farmers than by submitting the proposed legislation to these farm organizations for
[Mr. Zaplitny.l

their study, discussion and advice? That does not mean that in every case we must accept their views. We use our own good judgment about the thing. But in the meantime it is an excellent method by which the effect of that legislation on the producer can be brought out by the persons concerned who are on the ground floor.
I think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) will bear me out in this. He will recall that not so long ago he was kind enough to pay a visit to my home town in connection with an official function he had to perform there. At that time he met with the executive of the local farmers' union. Although unfortunately the time was brief, it was not the minister's fault. He had to leave at a certain time but he was extremely generous with what time he had. They discussed certain problems. At that time I am sure he was impressed by the fact that here were farmers who were actually doing farming taking an interest not only in their own individual farms or in their own communities but in the agricultural policy of Canada as a whole and who were quite capable of discussing the matter intelligently with one of the ministers of the crown.
These things are valuable. They are valuable not only to the farmers themselves but to the government, whatever the government may be. It helps the government to have a better understanding of what the man who is doing the actual producing thinks, what he wants, what he considers is possible and desirable. That is another one of the values.
Then there is the social value. I remember a period of time in the province of Manitoba -and I am sure other hon. members also remember it-in which there was what I consider a deplorable lapse of time in which farmers were poorly organized, I was going to say; but in fact they were practically not organized at all. That period would be roughly between the time when the United Farmers of Manitoba ceased to be active and the time when the other farm organizations started again. There was a lapse of time there in which little was done in the way of farm organization. It is quite noticeable in those areas where farm organizations have again become active-both the Manitoba farmers union and the Manitoba federation of agriculture-where they have increased their activities, there has been a marked effect on the social life of the farmers themselves.
Mention has been made here of the fact that farmers are sparsely settled on the prairies. While we perhaps are not as widely scattered in my part of the province as they would be farther south or in some parts of 50433-864
Canadian Wheat Board Saskatchewan, it is true that it is not easy for the farmers to meet together socially; that is, it is not as easy for them as it is for those in the towns and cities. Here is one way in which they can come together regularly and not only give their attention to matters dealing with agriculture and the serious side of life but can meet in a social way, exchange ideas and have a pleasant evening together. I can assure hon. members that if at any time they were invited to attend a local meeting of the Manitoba farmers union or any other farm organization, they would have a pleasant evening. Such a meeting is not all seriousness and economic discussion; it is a social evening in the full sense of the word. That in itself is something that has a marked value in a rural community. It brings people together. They become better friends, better neighbours and better citizens in that way by participating generally in something in which they have common desires.
Those are some of the things to be taken into consideration. I certainly hope that hon. members of this house will accede to this request which is a reasonable one and a simple one. I want to support what was said by the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castle-den) who preceded me. I hope it will not be regarded just as a matter to be taken under consideration, then shelved and forgotten. I hope the government will actively carry on with what is requested in this resolution if it carries in this house and, before too many months have gone by, will provide that machinery through which all the farm organizations may benefit by their individual members voluntarily asking the wheat board to perform this small service for them.


Mr. Rene N. Julras (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word on this resolution, but I want to be brief. First of all, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore) on the manner in which he presented his case for his resolution this afternoon. I am sorry that I have to disappoint him and say that I cannot support his resolution as it stands because I think it is too general in some respects and too specific in others.


Mr. Argue:: Then amend it and let us pass it.


René Jutras: It has been said that the resolution did not deal with the check-off as such. Of course, there are two definite aspects of this resolution. To begin with, the essence of the resolution itself is that it asks for a vote to be taken to ascertain the wish of the grain producers, to see whether they wish to have their dues to farm organizations deducted. But then, if
1344	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board the resolution is carried and if that is done, you have to face up to the check-off itself that will follow this resolution. Consequently it is rather difficult to envisage the vote without discussing the issue itself that will follow the vote should the vote be favourable.
My main objection to the resolution is that the Canadian wheat board is interjected into this vote. I should be pleased to see a vote taken to ascertain the wish of the farmers. Let me say this, however. I do not think the vote should be restricted to the grain producers. After all, we are dealing here with dues to farm organizations. What I am saying now probably applies more to Manitoba than to the other western provinces. For that matter, my constituency may be quite different from other constituences or other parts of western Canada. There is a large part of my constituency in which farm organizations are active, yet there are no grain producers in that entire area. If the vote is taken by the Canadian wheat board on that basis, it would mean that all these people would have no say in the matter. I suppose it can be said: "They do not have to have any say because even if the resolution carries, it is only the grain producers who will be able to deduct their dues. Whether the resolution is carried or not, they will not be able to have their dues deducted because they have no grain permit book and do not deal with the Canadian wheat board." That is one aspect of the resolution by which, when you ask the Canadian wheat board to hold a vote, you eliminate the non-grain producers from expressing their views and from the possibility of having their dues deducted later.
As has been mentioned by the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir), in a great many instances there is only one permit holder among four. In fact, I know of a case where there are five sons, for instance, in one family, each one having title to his own land, being the owner and operator of his own land, but on account of the fact that they use common machinery, only one permit can be issued to the whole five put together.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is a bad practice.


René Jutras: That is a general practice. As a matter of fact, everyone is fairly well aware of it, particularly since last year. We all know that last year, because the Canadian wheat board tried the unit system of delivery, the matter of who was the owner of the permit became a very live issue. There was a great deal of criticism and controversy throughout western Canada because naturally those who owned their lands


wanted their own permits. Situations such as these have come to our attention. I know that I have had many of them brought to my attention over the last year.
However, my main objection is that I hesitate very much to have the wheat board taking the vote. Frankly, the only reason the wheat board is asked to do it is that it appears to be more convenient. Over the years I have always taken the stand in the house that we should not burden the Canadian wheat board with any other responsibilities than the one of marketing grain. Because the board is doing a good job in a certain sphere, there is always a tendency to ask it to do more and more. There have been many occasions in the house since I have been a member when people have advocated that the wheat board should do this, that or something else. During the war there was a tendency to try to get the board to act as a price control agency. I remember many occasions when the view was put forward that here was a convenient organization which has a monopoly in the west and it would be very convenient to get them to do this, that and the other thing.
As we all know, the board, particularly at the present time, has more than it can handle in trying to dispose of the wheat crop, and to ask it to hold a plebiscite or vote at this stage may expose the organization to some criticism. As I have said, I have heard more criticism of the board in the last year than I have heard for a long time, and that disturbs me. To envisage placing the board in a position where it might run into even more criticism is disturbing to me. It is all very well to say that the board is not asked to take any part in the vote. All of us here have had some experience with elections and voting and, to say the least, I think it is a little naive to say that the board can hold a vote and not be involved in any way, shape or form in the vote itself.
I am not going to try to ascertain the degree of divergence of views existing between the two farm organizations in Manitoba. I think that even the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) will agree that there is some difference of opinion, and there are very great differences of opinion on the very issue that we are discussing now. I do not know what would happen, but I think it would be fair to assume that the one organization would take one stand and the other would take an opposite stand. Then you would have the Canadian wheat board in the middle. I do not think that would be to the advantage of the grain producers nor, indeed, to the advantage of the farm movement and the farm organizations themselves. We all want to see a strong farm organization.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Would the hon. member permit a question as a matter of information?


René Jutras: Yes.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Has the hon. member received representations from any farm organization in Manitoba opposing this resolution?


René Jutras: I have not received any representations from farm organizations opposing the resolution, and I have only had one representation in favour of it. However, this is not a new matter. It has been discussed for the last couple of years and I know, and I am sure the hon. member for Dauphin knows, that there are a great many who are not in favour of the proposal. Surely the hon. member will not deny that. If he does, then he does not know what is going on or the constituency of Dauphin is quite different from the rest of western Canada. Surely he will not deny that there is not complete unanimity on that score.


Hazen Robert Argue: About the same as the people of Selkirk.


René Jutras: About the same as what?


Hazen Robert Argue: The attitude of the people of Dauphin is, I am sure, about the same as the attitude of the people of Selkirk.


René Jutras: Oh well-


Mr. Garson:: You must not hold against them the election of a C.C.F. member.


Hazen Robert Argue: Are you suggesting that?


René Jutras: I do not propose to re-fight the Selkirk by-election at this stage, but I know, because I went there and took part in the by-election, that this question was not an issue, and it is not because of it that the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) was elected. If the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) was there, I am sure he will agree with that. I am not going into the other implications of the resolution. Indeed, a great deal would have to be said with respect to the actual application of the deduction of dues because that would require the amendment of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. I am sure that many people would have a great deal of compunction about any such amendment of the act, and the farmers as a whole would have to be told exactly what would be involved in the amendment of the act.
I do not think you could have a vote without considering fully what the result of the vote would be. If there were to be a vote you would have to discuss the whole question fully and put both sides of the argument before the people so that they would be in a position to decide either for or against. I do not intend to deal with this point at great
Canadian Wheat Board length, as a matter of fact not at all, except to say that if you do amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act to allow assignment then you will be opening the door. We might as well face it. It could be that the benefit to be derived from this proposal is worth the sacrifice of doing it. That is another question. However, so far all cheques going out from the wheat board have been, so to speak, sacred. No assignment whatsoever has been permitted. The board has had to deliver the money to the farmer and nobody has any prior right to it. When this provision was included in the act people were aware of what they were doing. It was done for a purpose, particularly at that time when there were so many after the farmers' money.
Times are a little better now and have been for some time, and the need is not felt now as much as it was in the past. The fact remains, however, that this provision is there, and when you say that you will make an exception for farm dues and allow nothing else you might as well face it that you are opening the door. If you amend the act to permit the wheat board to send money directly to any farm organization, then I know of another organization that will ask for the same privilege and has been asking for it for some time. I refer to the rural municipalities of western Canada.
They would very much like to have the money they advance to the farmers for seed grain deducted by the Canadian wheat board from the proceeds of the sale of the farmers'' grain. They have discussed this matter and they have asked for it. I am sure if we were to allow farm union dues to be deducted) these people would be right here to ask for the same privilege. It may be that the farmers would prefer to have it done that way, but that is another question. I say that the moment we open the door we have to face up to it that the provision preventing any assignment will disappear and we will have to take the consequences of such action.
However, that is the second stage, so to speak, and the vote has to take place first. I repeat that I would welcome a vote, but I am sure there must be other ways of ascertaining the views of the farmers on this matter. We ascertained the views of the farmers on the question of coarse grain, and I am sure other ways could be found of ascertaining their views on this matter. In the province of Manitoba I think that both farm organizations, and the Canadian wheat board particularly, would gain by waiting until the situation settles down a bit, until there is a merging of the two farm organizations and their views can be ascertained. It is true that some farm organizations have
1346	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board passed resolutions on this subject, but I do not know that the feeling of all members has been fully ascertained. I have not seen any resolution from organizations other than the farmers' union. I believe that would indicate that the farmers are not enthusiastic for this measure.
However, as I say, I am quite sure some other organization could be found to hold the vote. If it is quite evident then that the farmers would like to abandon the privilege they enjoy now under the Canadian Wheat Board Act and have their dues deducted, then we could study the possibility of doing so in the light of the circumstances at that time. I am very reluctant to draw the wheat board into this controversy. I do not believe the wheat board should be asked to conduct the vote; it should be some other organization.


Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: I thought this resolution had been so carefully worded by the hon. member for Vegreville that it had received the approval of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). So far the speeches have run something like six in favour and two opposed, but it would appear now as though there would be some opposition from across the way. I would suggest to the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir) that the resolution is so worded that he should not worry even if he does not have a permit book. The resolution reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of empowering the Canadian wheat board to conduct a ballot, by mail, of the grain producers holding permit books to ascertain the wishes of such producers as to the wheat board complying with orders signed by such producers directing the wheat board to pay membership dues to farm organizations from money due such producers from the sale of their grain by the wheat board.
This leaves the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa in the clear. If he has not a permit book he would be under no obligation if this resolution should pass. It would give those who have permit books the privilege of having some money paid to their own organizations from their accounts.
The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) suggested that others who are not wheat producers should be consulted. I gather that he has in mind poultry producers or market gardeners in various parts of Canada.
I suggest to him that they are not involved. There is no reason why a poultry producer should be consulted as to whether or not wheat producers should be permitted to assign some of their funds to their own organization. If the other farmers want to devise a scheme
[Mr. Jutras.l

at any time so their dues can be paid by an easier method, they should be given support in this house.
The hon. member for Portage-Neepawa made a great deal of the argument that in the long run this sort of device would weaken the farm organizations. This has not been the experience of the trade unions. The same argument was used throughout the years as the trade unions sought to find a device to enable them to collect dues regularly without going to their members week by week or month by month. The trade unions in this country and every country have found that as they have improved their device for getting their dues they have been able to use their time for more constructive educational work.
I am sure anyone who has lived in a farm community will have a great deal of sympathy with the point of view expressed by the hon. member for Acadia, when he described the problems which arise when you go from farm to farm and find that a farmer is away at an auction sale, or is working on another farm, or he will be away until next week. The system used in Ottawa for collecting funds for charitable organizations by designating a certain night for the canvass is relatively simple. The canvassers can drive on paved streets in an area about the size of a township or a few townships in western Canada. If a canvass were undertaken to cover my constituency, 100 miles east and west and 500 miles north and south, where we have no paved roads at all, where we have not as many miles of gravelled road as we would like to have, and where we do have a great deal of rain, I think it is rather obvious that it would not be easy. It would be difficult to fix a date a month in advance or a week in advance and decide to cover a municipality or 10 municipalities on a given day or even in a given week.
I believe it is obvious that the proposal comes before us with a view to making it possible for farm organizations to get the funds they require by some economical method. This is a device used by other organizations without any argument. No one would suggest now that the trade unions should be asked to revert to a system whereby they would have to canvass their members each week, each month or each year for their dues. I see no reason why the privileges enjoyed by other groups in our economy should not be extended to the farm organizations. As long as I can remember the farmers in Canada as a group have not received a fair share of the national income. It is unfortunate that the farmers have not been able, during my lifetime, to build up a strong organization.

I am old enough to recall when Henry Ford introduced the $5 a day program into his plant at Detroit. At that time I was living in a Conservative part of Canada, and the farmers in Bruce county could hardly believe a man working in an automobile factory would receive $5 a day. It was thought this would certainly ruin the country in a very short time. It was not very long until Ford workers were going to their work in automobiles, and Ontario farmers thought that was a great calamity. They felt Canada should not be expected to provide automobiles so those making cars should be able to drive to work. I believe everybody would now admit that has been a good thing for Canada, to have workers, not only in automobile factories but in a great many factories, with incomes that enabled them to drive to work.
While organization has made it possible for doctors, lawyers and industrial workers to get a fairer share of the national income each year, the farmers have not been able to get together to build up their own organization so they could obtain a fair share of the national income. The member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden) mentioned that in 1931 about one-third of the people in Canada were classified as farmers, and according to the last figures about 20 per cent were so classified. According to a bulletin of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture of April, 1954, the farmers' share of the national income is down to 8.7 per cent. I feel it is rather obvious that if 20 per cent of the Canadian people were organized they would not be accepting 8.7 per cent of the national income without doing something about it. I believe they could and would do something about it.
A bulletin of the federation of agriculture dated January of this year tells about the share of the Canadian dollar which is spent for various commodities. We are told that in the prairie region 23 [DOT] 3 per cent goes for food, 25 [DOT] 1 per cent is spent in the automotive world, 11-6 per cent goes for clothing and footwear, and 4-6 per cent for tobacco and liquor. I think it is obvious that when Canadians in western Canada spend only 23-3 per cent for food, there is something wrong with our economy. The farmers should have more dollars available so they could do a more effective public relations job, and take some action with respect to this 4-6 per cent for tobacco and liquor as compared with 23-3 per cent for food.
While the automobile is not a luxury for many people, the fact that 25 [DOT] 1 per cent of the dollar is spent in the automotive world while only 23-3 per cent is spent for food
Canadian Wheat Board certainly indicates that the farmers are not getting their fair share of the national income.
Looking through my files I found some figures concerning a self-propelled combine we bought to be used on our co-operative farm at Sturgis back in 1946. This was before the prices of combines went up to such fantastic levels. As the result of an error made at the factory the invoice for this combine was sent to us direct, instead of to Canadian Co-operative Implements, Limited, with their head office at Saskatoon. In other words the invoice we received showed the factory price at Brantford, Ontario. The price we paid for the combine was $3,421.35, while the factory price set out in the invoice was $2,308.25 or a difference of $1,113.10.
Some hon. members may say that the freight charges from Brantford to Sturgis would be very high. Let me reply that the freight charges were not nearly as high as we thought they would be. Two combines came down in one car for a total freight charge of $250, or $125 each. Take off the freight and there is still a spread of $988.10 between the factory price and the farm price at Sturgis.
Co-op Implements have done a pretty effective job in trying to narrow that spread, but it has not been easy for them to compete with the well-established firms such as Massey-Harris, International, John Deere, and other large corporations. I would stress the point that the $3,421.35 we paid gave the men in the farm implement factory an income so that they could support their unions; it gave the implement dealers an income to help maintain an effective organization, and gave the railway employees an income so they could support their unions. The only group that did not manage to get in on this deal were the farmers.
I think the proposal before us is very reasonable when it suggests that those who sell wheat should be given the chance to decide whether they would like to sign on the dotted line, instructing the wheat board each year to make payments to the union designated by the farmer. I cannot think of any good reason as to why the house should not support the hon. member for Vegreville in this reasonable resolution. The excuses advanced by the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa and the hon. member who has just taken his seat seem to me very lame indeed; and I am sure they would have difficulty in supporting those excuses before the people of their constituencies.
Just before the last election the interprovincial farm union council proposed an election manifesto for western agriculture in

Canadian Wheat Board
which a number of reasonable propositions were set out. One of these was the adoption of a voluntary requisition plan for the collection of farm union dues by the wheat board, through an amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. I was asked whether I was for it or against it, and said that I was for it. I am sure all members from the rural constituencies in the three prairie provinces were asked to take their stand on this question. I hope those who were questioned before the election will not forget their commitments, and that they will support the hon. member for Vegreville in the resolution he has now placed before the house.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, as a representative of an agricultural constituency I think perhaps I might be expected to say a few words at this time. In doing so, I should like first of all to congratulate the hon. member for Vegreville upon having introduced the resolution which has had the effect, until the present time- and I hope I shall not be the exception-of inspiring a debate which has been kept on a very high level indeed, and has been distinguished by an atmosphere of reasonableness in which the discussion has been carried on with a minimum of bias by members of all parties in the house. This is most desirable and in some measure almost inevitable in a subject of this nature, because I do not think there is any great amount of disagreement on most of the main points to be discussed. It is perhaps a question of emphasis rather than of outright differences of opinion that will determine our judgment.
For example I am sure no one would disagree with the hon. member for Dauphin in the stress he laid upon the vital importance of farm organizations. I remember with pleasure the incident to which he referred when I was in Dauphin, and I can only hope that the conversations we held at that time were as gratifying to the others who participated in them as they were to me.
Throughout the whole of my public life I have held the view that to the extent that farmers, and indeed all other occupational groups, combine together to take a close and intelligent interest in their own welfare, they make the work of public men easier; because it is then possible to conduct public business in an atmosphere of informed rather than uninformed public opinion.
Despite the fact that I represent an agricultural constituency, I would have hesitated to take part in the debate had it not been for the fact that up to the present time what has seemed to me to be the most important point in the discussion has been mentioned

only by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras). To identify that most important matter we should ask ourselves first of all what it is that we are dealing with in this wheat board set-up.
I do not know of any better way of answering that question than by examining the statute under which it operates. If hon. members will do that they will see that section 25 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act states, in very clear language:
(1) The board shall undertake the marketing of wheat produced in the designated area in interprovincial and export trade and for such purpose shall-
And this is the first step they take:
(a)	buy all wheat produced in the designated area, offered by a producer for sale and delivery to the board-
And I shall not go into detail on that. Then, second:
(b)	pay to producers selling and delivering wheat produced in the designated area to the board, at the time of delivery or at any time thereafter as may be agreed upon, a sum certain per bushel basis in store Fort William-Port Arthur.
That is, they shall make cash payments. Then the next thing they do is:
(c)	issue to a producer, who sells and delivers wheat produced in the designated area to the board, a certificate indicating the number of bushels purchased and delivered and the grade thereof, which certificates entitle the producer named therein to share in the equitable distribution of the surplus, if any, arising from the operations of the board with regard to the wheat produced . . .
Thus it seems to me that the basic feature of this matter we are discussing is this. Ordinarily when moneys are held for and are payable to a farmer, they can be attached by garnishment proceedings. Moreover, the farmer can give orders upon them to pay certain creditors he wishes to prefer over others, and is often pressed by creditors to give such orders.
In order to avoid having farmers pressed by creditors seeking to get orders from him; in order to avoid having him harassed by garnishee orders issued by the courts of the country, to attach the moneys due to him, and in order to save the wheat board, which has a very difficult time indeed marketing the wheat produced in western Canada under the extraordinarily difficult world conditions today; in order to save this wheat board from accounting and other complications, it was provided in section 28 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act:
(1) The governor in council may, by regulation, (a) prescribe the form of certificates to be issued to producers delivering and selling wheat to the board, pursuant to section 25;

That is the section I read a few moments ago. I continue:
(c) prescribe the conditions under which the right to payment under a certificate issued pursuant to this part may be transferred.
Subsection 2 of section 28 is the crux of the whole matter. It says:
(2) Except as provided by regulation, no certificate issued pursuant to this part or the right to payment thereunder, shall be transferred or assigned, and no person other than the person therein named is entitled to payment thereunder and a statement to that effect shall be printed on each such certificate.
Why would they print that on each such certificate? As a notice to the farmer that in this wheat board certificate he had in his possession something which no creditor could attach, and in respect to which he could not even give an order to anybody that would have any legal effect.
The wheat board has carried on under these arrangements since its inception, and I believe that even amongst my friends of the opposition there will be general agreement- because I have heard them voice it on many occasions-that the wheat board under these circumstances has done a singularly good job. Among other benefits the farmers have had under wheat board marketings is the fact that they have been singularly free from harassment by their creditors in respect of moneys payable to them under those wheat board certificates.
My hon. friend can say well, that is all right, but if we have this plebiscite and if the farmers vote in favour of being permitted to sign orders upon the wheat board certificate moneys in favour of farm organizations, then what? That is what the resolution says. Many references have been made to the revocable check-off, and so on and so forth, but that is not what the resolution says and that is not what would be done. All the resolution we are considering says is this:
. . . complying with orders signed by such producers directing the wheat board to pay membership dues to farm organizations from money due such producers from the sale of their grain by the wheat board.
In other words the proposition here is that we should attack, and I would suggest destroy, the principle of the farmers' immunity from court process and pressure from his creditors in respect of these wheat certificates ... in order to do what? In order to save the farmer the trouble of putting his hand in his pocket and paying $5, or whatever the fee may be, to the farm organization of his choice.
I do not think that is a very good exchange.
I think it is a very bad one. And in support of my submission that this is a bad exchange I am going to proceed by analogy to the
Canadian Wheat Board argument made by the hon. member for Mackenzie who preceded me and who took his seat just a few moments ago. He is arguing in the house today, and those who supported this resolution have argued, that because the trade unions have had the revocable check-off therefore the farmers have just as great a right to a check-off of their own, and it should be extended to them. I am going to suggest that the immunity from process that the farmers of western Canada have enjoyed under the section of the act which I read to the house this afternoon is rather unique, and if we destroy that immunity to the extent of accepting orders in favour of farm organizations, I do not know upon what basis of moral principle we can deny to the municipalities the right to ask a farmer to give them an order covering the seed grain loan which they have advanced, or municipal hail insurance, or even their taxes themselves.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Will the minister permit a question?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: On the question of immunity, will the minister not admit that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act has now destroyed that so-called immunity which the minister is speaking about?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, I would not admit that for a moment. In making this statement I am not in any way decrying or minimizing any of the arguments that have been made by my hon. friends who are favouring this resolution. I am, as they are, heartily in favour of farm organizations. I am in favour of finding the best and easiest way of financing these farm organizations. Indeed, if it were possible to do what they advocate without destroying the farmer's immunity under these wheat board certificates, I think I would be tempted to support their resolution. But I should like them to tell us how, if we permit the farmer to give an order in favour of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the farm union, the local seed grain society, the 4-H club, or any of the farm organizations that are covered by this resolution, in point of principle we can withhold orders from other creditors whose claims would be at least as strong. If we had an interprovincial conference, for example, considering the question of financing the municipalities and there was a general desire that the farmer should have the privilege of giving an order in favour of the municipalities, could we say that we would reject that although we had granted orders in favour of the farm organization? Then, what about the position of the man who in some cases is
1350	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board advancing in western Canada, as we know, to the tune of thousands of dollars a year, credit for gasoline with which the crop is put in and taken off? If other people are going to have the privilege of getting an order upon the wheat board certificate funds and he is not, is he not going to take some cognizance of that fact and say, "Under these circumstances, since I am making a contribution to create and take off the crop, I do not think I should make that advance unless I am considered somewhere in the picture"?
Thus, when we come to analyse this matter what we are considering here in reality is whether we are going to attack and destroy the farmer's immunity for the sake of saving the farm organizations the trouble of asking the farmer to put his hand in his own pocket and pay $5 or $6 of his own money to each such organization. For my part-


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask a question?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. I would like to finish the sentence. For my part, being a man of ordinary common sense, I cannot see anything but disadvantage to the farmer in this; therefore I am going to oppose the motion.


Hazen Robert Argue: When the minister suggested that this would destroy the immunity of the funds in the wheat board, does it follow that he thinks that if the farmers voted on the resolution it would be carried?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. I would be very much surprised indeed if the farmers of western Canada ever voted in favour of this plebiscite and I think my hon. friend would be, too. But let us take up my hon. friend's argument. Let us assume that they will vote it down.
In that case what are we members of parliament sent down here for? Are we sent down here to assume some responsibility as public men or are we sent down here so that every time an important issue comes up we are going to pass it back to the farmers at a cost of $20,000 or $50,000 or $100,000 to hold a plebiscite so that we can hide behind that plebiscite? For my part, I am prepared to assume my responsibility as a member of parliament.


Mr. Irvin Sluder (Swift Curreni-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, as a farmer who has been active in farm organizations since I have been in Canada I should like to say a few words in regard to this particular problem. In my experience I have found that the greatest difficulty faced by farm organizations, as perhaps by other organizations, has been the matter of financing. This resolution has as its legitimate objective perpetuating
[Mr. Garson.1

their existence by finding a method of financing these organizations. We are living in an organized world. As everyone knows, organization is necessary to existence in that world. If it were not so there would be many fewer organizations than are now in existence.
Our lawyers have their bar association. I do not believe you can practise without being a member thereof. Often when I hear legal debates in this house I wish we could participate without being a member of the bar association. We also have medical associations and labour associations. Our bankers, our implement dealers, our butchers, our bakers, our candlestick makers are all organized. Everyone but the farmers in Canada are organized. This resolution is moved to help our farm organizations continue to exist. Their situation is entirely different from other organizations and, as I mentioned before, that is why this particular resolution is before this House of Commons.
Others have referred to the difficulty experienced by farm organizations in collecting dues as compared with other organizations. Just to illustrate, if a farm organization set out to interview the approximately 10,000 farmers in my constituency in order to collect dues they would have to travel a distance equal to one and a half times around the world. The money collected would never begin to pay the travelling expenses alone.
I appreciate that there will have to be some organizational work done in connection with the requisitions. It does not mean that the money is going to fall automatically into the hands of the farm organizations. They will have to go out among the farmers and organize for these requisitions which it will be necessary for the farmers to sign before their dues can be deducted. If we had the same control as is exercised by labour and professional organizations, if we could not farm unless we belonged to an organization, things would be different. But we as free people, as far as farmers are concerned at least, have to devise a different method of collecting our farm dues in order to remain in existence.
It is needless to refer to the benefits of farm unions. They are a necessity; they are absolutely essential in the scheme of things today. Not only have they brought about what we might call a new method of approaching farm problems within Canada, they have done much to bring about international unity. I think one of the greatest parts played by our farm organizations to the benefit of the economy of Canada was that part taken during the negotiations for the international wheat agreement. The vice-

president of our leading farm organization was there to advocate that the importing countries buying our wheat agree to pay on a cost of production basis so the farmers of western Canada could continue to produce that which is essential not only to our country but to all the world. Just in that sphere alone I submit that our farm organizations should be permitted to continue to exist.
There seems to be considerable feeling that the farm organizations are going to harm the economy of Canada. Nothing could be more untrue, because the objective of our farm organizations is to safeguard Canada. When the farming industry is safeguarded, then all Canada is safeguarded. The objective of our farm organizations is to make Canada prosperous and to keep it so. Mention has been made of possible political implications of farm unions. I think we can eliminate all fear as to our farm organizations operating politically.
We had some experience along these lines in western Canada for a number of years with the United Farmers. I can remember my wife and I driving 15 miles with a team of horses to attend meetings in the middle of winter because we felt this organization was trying to make our country more prosperous and a better place in which to live. But we all know the history of the United Farmers. They entered politics and they disappeared.
Our farm unions and farm organizations must be non-political. We need non-political organizations in Canada. There is not too much political unity west of the great lakes. Perhaps we cannot speak of unity west of the great lakes because of the various political theories and systems or whatever we may call them that we have in western Canada. So we need strong non-political farm unions. At times the people in the eastern part of Canada seem to indicate that they can get along without the people in western Canada. I want to see farm organizations which will spread the doctrine of unity in a non-political way so it will be acceptable to all the people of Canada, so we can be brought to that pinnacle where it will be possible to build a great united country. This is just not in existence in the west today in a political way.
We have been told that certain things will happen if a certain course is followed, but I do not think that is the point at all. The farmer who produces the grain markets that grain through his own organization. I contend that the wheat board is a co-operative, because it distributes at cost what the farmer produces and turns back to him what is available in value for his production and
Canadian Wheat Board work. The farmer as a member of that cooperative has certain rights. Mistakes may be made; but even if there are unfavourable, reactionary developments within the wheat board organization I submit it is still the farmer's right to vote as he wishes. It is a fundamental right and a human freedom that he should decide whether he wishes to have these deductions made. I think that is the only point we have to consider. Then if the farmer decides in favour of this we can take the next step.
I am not fearful, as some hon. members in this house appear to be, that this will destroy our wheat board, or bring about participation by others in the payments due to the farmer. I am not too greatly worried about that. I think the farmers will safeguard themselves. I believe all these things will be taken into consideration before the farmer casts his vote. I think he has sufficient perspective and wisdom to safeguard himself. All I wish to ask of the members of this house is that they grant the farmer that fundamental freedom we are all in favour of, the right to cast his vote. I believe everyone who thinks likewise will support this resolution.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, as the minister responsible for the Canadian wheat board perhaps I should express an opinion on this bill. The bill asks that a plebiscite be taken-


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is only a resolution.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I should have said a resolution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It makes quite a difference.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The resolution asks that the government arrange that the Canadian wheat board-


Mr. Winch:: No; "consider the advisability of".


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have had that point interpreted before, as my colleague reminds me. It is a resolution really directing the government to arrange that the wheat board take a plebiscite.
I am opposed to the principle of the resolution for several reasons, of which I should like to mention two or three. I am not going to weary the house by repeating the arguments that have been well stated by other hon. members who have spoken in similar vein. I will say at once that I have as high a regard for the co-operatives and the farm organizations of western Canada as any man in this house. There is every reason why I should have a high opinion of them, because I have worked with them now for the best

Canadian Wheat Board part of 35 or 40 years. When I was in private practice a good part of my income came from organizations of that type. I have a high regard for them, and I believe they have some regard for my opinions in matters relating to their activities.
If we arranged for the check-off I feel that it would not really be a favour to the farm organizations. I think the strength of every organization lies in that form of contact with the membership of the organization which comes through collecting their quarterly or annual dues. I have known other organizations which took that view. I know the railway organizations have only recently and in part come to the conclusion that they should have a check-off, either voluntary or otherwise. I have heard railroad men say they thought it would weaken their organization if there were not the kind of direct contact between the railway organizations and their members which comes from collecting dues whenever those dues are payable.
If this government undertook to arrange a plebiscite I think the implication would be that this government would look for a favourable outcome of that plebiscite. It has been pointed out by my*colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) that the granting of a lien on the wheat cheque for the purpose indicated would break down all the immunities that are enjoyed by the producer in being free of deductions from his grain cheque. To me that is a tremendously important matter. If the principle of deduction, voluntary or otherwise, from the grain cheque were accepted, surely the collection of dues to farm organizations would not have the highest priority. There are many other priorities that would have to be considered. For instance, consider the seed grain which the farmer must have as a matter of necessity to put in his crop. Surely that payment would have a high rating for deduction from the grain cheque. Surely supplies the farmer needs to carry on his farming operations would have a place. If you were going to start making deductions from the grain cheque it would be only fair that the farmer should have the right of voluntarily electing that his payments for supplies be made deductible. Then there is the matter of municipal taxes. There is no reason why the farmer, if he can elect to have his dues deducted, should not arrange to have voluntary deduction of his taxes. A very wide door is being opened, and I think there is a great deal of danger entailed in the process.
Then there is the matter of loading this responsibility on the wheat board. If there is any board in this country today that has about all the obligations it is capable of carrying

out, I think it is the wheat board. They have had a difficult time. They have various problems apart from the selling of wheat. I see no reason why they should be elected first as the organization to test out the opinions of the farmers and then to collect dues for the farm organizations.
I have had it said to me many times, "We do not think it will carry, but why not have a plebiscite?" I am opposed to the idea that any difficult problem faced by the government should be settled by a plebiscite. After all, the electors of this country send us to their parliament to exercise our best judgment on their behalf and to make decisions in the light of the information we can obtain regarding their problems. I have heard candidates in election campaigns speak about plebiscites, particularly members of the Social Credit party. In their election literature that party suggested that they would hold plebiscites on various problems that were difficult to decide. I have never known of that party holding a plebiscite on any particular problem. In my nearly 20 years in this house I know of only one occasion upon which this government conducted a plebiscite as a guide to action to be taken. I am therefore opposed to the principle of the government sponsoring a plebiscite on this particular issue.
For the reasons I have stated, and for the reasons that have been advanced by my colleagues who have taken a similar view of this resolution, I shall vote against it.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.



RESEARCH


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambton West):: In view of the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on February 3, page 795 of Hansard, in reply to a question by an hon. member as follows:
Yes, it is the intention of the government to propose a committee to study atomic energy as well as research generally-
-I wonder if I may have permission to withdraw my motion.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


Mr. A. M. Campbell (The Baillefords) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to double the payments to farmers under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
He said:	When it became apparent last
fall that there was to be a crop failure in practically all western Canada, I made a trip through my constituency and attended four farm conferences at which we tried to assess the damage and ascertain the position of our farmers. We tried to find out what help they required, if any.
In the first place I found, to my surprise, that there was little 1953 grain stored on the farms. Throughout last session I had been under the impression that there was a large amount of 1953 wheat stored on the farm. I found this was not a fact in my constituency, partly because there was a crop failure over a large part of my constituency in 1953, and therefore there was not surplus grain from the 1953 crop upon which our farmers could fall back. In one fairly large district in particular the 1953 grain had been shipped out. The reason was that the milling companies found this particular wheat had a high protein content, and they sent orders into this district which resulted in pretty well emptying the elevators.
One of the problems facing the farmers in that district was where they would obtain seed. This was overcome when they received a letter from the Minister of Trade and Corn-
Notice of motion: Mr. Murphy (Lambton West) - The following proposed resolution:-That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of setting up a special committee representative of all parties, with the power to call witnesses and send for documents and papers for the purpose of examining and reporting upon the advisability of providing inducements to promote and accelerate activities in the field of research.
merce (Mr. Howe) to the effect that the wheat board would make sure there was sufficient seed grain left in the district.
The big problem raised by farmer after farmer at these conferences was how they were going to get funds with which to put in a crop and carry on until the next harvest.
1354	HOUSE OF
Prairie Farm Assistance Act Of course this brought up the question of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Many farmers stressed the fact that the assistance that could be given under this act was not going to be sufficient to meet the needs.
Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, is the most important industry in Canada. It is subject not only to market conditions but to the many hazards of nature, such as drought, frost, wind, hail, floods, weeds, disease, insect pests, blights and so on. While other industries are able to a very large extent to buy insurance against hazards they may encounter, in most cases the farmer has to meet these hazards of nature without the protection of insurance. True, the grain grower can buy insurance against wind and hail, and since 1939 has had some relief under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
While I believe the benefits of that act should be extended to other parts of Canada,
I do not want to discuss that angle here this afternoon. What I want to do is point out the inadequacy of payments made today to farmers under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. This act was put on the statute books in 1939, after eight crop failures. The purpose of the act was to provide farmers who had experienced crop failures with funds with which to carry on, and with those funds a farmer had to provide for his family and sow another crop.
1 Those who are responsible-that is, the government of that day-were not overly generous when they set the amount of the payments on which they thought the farmer could get along. At that time farm costs were comparatively low. Horses were the main motive power and were usually raised on the farm. Many farmers were able to grow enough feed for their horses, even though they had dry periods. Mechanization of the farms was only in its infancy, and farmers were able to use some of these P.F.A.A. payments to provide food and clothing for their families. Many of them could also secure wood for fuel, and it was a common sight to see strings of wagons going many miles to get their supplies of wood.
These conditions have radically changed. The horse has gone. Most farms are completely mechanized. Taxes have increased to two or three times what they were. Costs of production have skyrocketed while payments to farmers under P.F.A.A. have remained as they were in 1939.
The bureau of statistics gives a clear picture of this changed position. In 1939 the index number for the commodities and services required by farmers stood at 99-4, taking the period 1935 to 1939 as 100. The index num-

Prairie Farm Assistance Act municipality of Manitou Lake, Mr. M. A. Swenarchuk, secretary-treasurer. The resolution reads as follows:
Dear Sir:
At a recent meeting of the council, the following resolution was passed which I was instructed to submit for the consideration of the minister, the Hon. James G. Gardiner:
"Whereas the value of the award under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is not now comparable to that in the year 1939 when the act was first enacted; and
Whereas the amount of the contribution by the farmers has almost tripled as a result of the increase in the price of grain;
Be it resolved that the federal government be asked to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act immediately to provide for the doubling of the award in the case of crop failure and that same be made retroactive to the current crop year."
The. resolution speaks for itself and no doubt the preamble thereto indicates what is believed to be true. We urge you to give this matter your most favourable consideration.
I have another one from the municipality of Great Bend, which is in pretty much the same language and reads as follows:
"Whereas the Prairie Farm Assistance Act 1939 was originally purposed to alleviate the burden which the western farmer suffered due to crop failure; and
Whereas during the same period the farmer's 1 per cent contribution has almost tripled due to the increased price of wheat; and
Whereas as there are now fewer farmsteads than there were at the time of passing of the act, a lesser amount is paid out;
Therefore be it resolved that the federal government be asked to immediately amend the act so that the amounts payable under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act be doubled and to make the same retroactive for the 1954-55 crop year."
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned for dinner I had just placed on record a number of resolutions passed by different municipalities urging the government to double the payments to farmers under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. I have more resolutions, but I do not intend to put them on record tonight. Later this month the rural municipalities association will be having their annual meeting, and I understand this matter is high on their agenda.
I said earlier in my remarks that when I made a survey of my constituency last fall I found quite a large number of farmers who had suffered crop failure in 1953. I have found since that this was the case not only in my constituency but throughout

the western provinces. In 1953 payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act were as follows:
Manitoba	 5,025	farmers
Saskatchewan	 5,733
Alberta	 5,547
16,305
That was the number of farmers who suffered a crop loss two years in a row. Those are the people who are badly in need of some cash assistance at the present time.
It is just as essential now as it was in 1939 that farmers who have had a crop loss or failure should receive sufficient assistance to carry them along. We all know that the wheat and grain grower, especially during the last ten or twelve years, has done more to put our economy in its present position than any other class. I should like to read a short editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Journal last week pointing out this fact. They say:
Last year was not a particularly good or happy one for prairie farmers. Largely by adverse weather and rust, grain crops were cut sharply, a lot of 1953 wheat still remained on farms or in storage, and the net result was that cash was none too plentiful in the three provinces. There was a substantial decline in farm buying.
This is bad for the prairies, but also for all of us. A survey just completed shows that in Canada last year 33 per cent fewer tractors, 64 per cent fewer combines and 44 per cent fewer threshers were sold than in 1953. In many cases farm machinery sales were lowest since 1944.
While a large part of our farm machinery sales are to prairie farmers the machines are almost all manufactured in Ontario. Ontario workmen were out of jobs because prairie farmers did not buy machinery in 1954, and they may still be out of jobs in 1955 unless things pick up on the prairies.
It's the old story of distant causes having their effect near home, something too often forgotten when the related questions of employment and agriculture are debated.
My whole argument is this. If $2.50 per acre assistance was needed in 1939, double that amount is needed today to provide the same assistance to the farmer.


Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to follow the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Campbell), and I think he is to be congratulated upon bringing this matter to the attention of the house at this time. There is a certainty that this year the farmers of the prairie provinces have suffered an unprecedented crop failure due mainly to rust and the severe wet conditions which have prevailed in those provinces. The resolution moved by the hon. member reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to double the payments to farmers under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.

This act was set up 16 years ago when the farmer's cost of production was much lower than it is today. Since that date the act has never been changed to increase the payments; consequently when payments are made in all fairness they cannot be said to meet the needs of the farmers. The farmer's cost of production has risen greatly in the years since 1946. The house will recall that controls were taken off by this government shortly after the war, and it was not very long before the farmer's cost of production began to rise, especially the cost of farm machinery. In some cases farm machinery prices have increased 150 to 200 per cent over what they were prior to 1945.
Today the farmer finds himself in a cost-price squeeze, a position about which he can do very little as far as reducing his cost of production is concerned. In the three western wheat-producing provinces crop failures have made it very difficult for the farmers to carry on. Looking at the consolidation of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act I find that section 3 is entitled "Crop Failure Assistance".
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has indicated to the house that the act was set up primarily to meet drought conditions. It may be quite true that that is what they had in mind at the time, but I see nothing in the act which would prevent it being used to cover other types of crop failure. I plead with the minister and the government to do everything possible to make this problem easier for western farmers who have suffered such severe losses from crop failures due mainly to rust and wet conditions.
Many sections of the west were flooded. In some sections farmers were not able to put in crops and in other sections where they were able to put them in the continuous rains were so heavy that they had absolutely no crops. Then we suffered from stem rust, called 15-B, which took a great deal of our western crop.
I am sure all hon. members of the house want this act to be as comprehensive as possible so it will carry out its objectives. I was able to spend a few days up in the interlake country of Manitoba helping my good friend the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce), and they told me there was a large section of country which was not covered by the act. Having regard to the position and the plight of the farmers up there, I want to appeal to the minister to do something about that condition so these people will have coverage under this act. They have been paying their share, by the deduction provided for in the act, of 1 per cent levied on the return from their grain. I think it only fair that they should also have the payments, but according
Prairie Farm Assistance Act to the act they are not eligible. I do not think that under the act as presently constituted they are getting a fair deal.
I should like to draw the attention of the house to chapter 213, section 3, subsection 2, paragraphs (ii) and (vi). There we find that in special areas where the settlement has been made under the Veterans Land Act they are now eligible for payment, but I understand there are still sections which, by agreement between the federal government and the provinces, are not covered under the act. Then too we have large blocks of land which again were formerly provincial lands, which were classified as marginal or submarginal but later were found to be productive when brought under production. Today grain is being produced on many sections of land of that nature. I would plead with the minister to change the act so these sections will be brought under its terms.
I have stated something of the plight of western farmers, and I think it is unnecessary for me to repeat the arguments or the statistics which were given previously by the hon. member for The Battlefords. I believe it is sufficient for me to say that the net Saskatchewan farm income dropped from $473 million in 1953 to $111 million in 1954. Those figures are for the calendar years. Furthermore, since 1951 the prices of farm products have dropped 22 per cent while production costs have gone up 16 per cent.
One can readily see the plight of the farmers, even those who were fortunate enough to have good crops again this year. But I happen to come from the constituency of Moose Mountain, which is situated in the southeastern portion of the province. It is perhaps one of the hardest hit areas in Saskatchewan this year owing to flooding conditions and the 15-B rust. I would therefore plead with the minister to do something about the situation existing in those areas where the act does not now cover the farmers.
On February 17 I asked the minister the following question, as recorded at page 1237 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, has the minister's attention been drawn to the situation where small acreages of Selkirk wheat have disqualified farmers from payment under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act? Can the minister state whether in all cases Selkirk wheat will not be a determining factor in deciding eligibility under that act?
The minister's reply was as follows:
On two or three occasions at this session I have announced to the house that, prior to the seeding period of 1954, the government had distributed Selkirk wheat to quite a number of farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. They distributed six bushels to farmers who seeded it on

Prairie Farm Assistance Act from two to three acres, and have grown crops from it. None of the crops grown as a result of that distribution has been allowed to influence in any way the decisions with regard to payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act in those areas. In other words they are not allowed to prevent payment in the area because of that particular production.
I have tried to make a survey in my constituency, and I have found to date there has been a great deal of indecision with respect to whether or not payments are going to be made. I want to read to the house a portion of a letter forwarded to me by a constituent who had received it from the department of agriculture at Regina, the P.F.A.A. branch. It reads in part as follows:
In view of the small acreage of wheat with a high yield we had already determined to take this block back to the board of review to be reconsidered. We cannot prophesy just what their decision will be and, therefore, hesitate to make any hopeful prediction.
The letter goes on to say that they are going to have the matter under review. My appeal to the minister is that in all cases in determining eligibility under this act Selkirk wheat should be taken out of consideration and that, regardless of what acreage a farmer may have, it should not in any way disqualify the remainder of his farm should he have other acreage under production, nor should it disqualify any block of sections which otherwise would be eligible under the act.
I think this can be done without any contravention of the act and without any changes in the act. In the regulations, chapter 213, section 5, we find paragraph (e) which reads as follows:
(e) providing that in special circumstances another kind of grain may be taken in lieu of wheat as the basis of awards under this act, and in that event what number of bushels of such other kind of grain shall be deemed to be equivalent to a certain number of bushels of wheat for the purposes of such substitution;
If the minister is willing to do so, I think he can rule out, under the regulations, wheat in certain areas as the qualifying grain for eligibility, and can accept the farmer's production of coarse grains. Then again in the same section, in paragraph (g) we find this provision:
(g) excluding from the operation of any section of this act any lands in the spring wheat area and any grain grown thereon;
I think that paragraph makes it quite clear that this year, without waiting for any amendment to the act, these people can be covered so they will not suffer through having no payment under this act.
I might point out to the minister that many of the farmers in my constituency last year- that is in the crop year 1953-suffered conditions of rain and flooding as a result of which
fMr. McCullough (Moose Mountain).]

they had little crop. This year the situation is just doubly hard because it is the second year in a row during which many farmers in my constituency have lost their crops. Consequently merchants are in need of money. In many cases the municipalities are not able to collect taxes. The problem is urgent.
Of course I think the government has been remiss in the past in allowing the decontrol of prices to put the farmer into the present position. While it is true that we had for three years-namely 1951, 1952 and 1953- abnormally large crops, the fact remains that the indebtedness of western farmers has increased both under the Canadian Farm Loan Act and under loans from the chartered banks. Therefore I appeal to the minister to take what I have said into serious consideration and make these payments.
There is one other thing I wish to say in closing. I think the government has been remiss in not doing something about this matter earlier. The crop was taken off some three months ago. The act stipulates that the first of these payments should be made about December, the second 40 per cent being in the month of March following. I think the government should speed up these payments so the farmer will have at least this payment in order to meet some of his current expenses.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us has caused me considerable concern, because I have been interested in the Prairie Farm Assistance Act for a good many years. I have been convinced that the act has provided a good many farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta with considerable benefit over the last 15 years, helping them in their farming operations. But the act is now 15 years old, and since it was made law in 1939 a good many changes have taken place. Conditions today are much different from those of 1939 which the act was supposed to be designed to meet. The act has not been amended to keep pace with the changes or the needs of these times. We think it is time for a thorough overhaul of the legislation to bring it into line with the realities of the present situation.
The hon. member for The Battlefords made what I thought was a good case for increased payments to the farmers under the act. His main argument, as I heard it, centred around the increase in costs to the farmers since 1939 or, if we want to put it another way, the serious decline in the purchasing value of the Canadian dollar since 1939. I think that argument is valid; but at the same time I suppose we would have to admit that the government's argument will also be valid,

namely that the dollars contributed by the farmers to the fund are also short in purchasing value.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is all the more reason why the payments should be increased.


Solon Earl Low: But at the same time I think the government might argue that if the benefits under the act are to be doubled, then the farmers will also have to consider doubling their contribution because there is no fund that has accumulated over the years. We have to admit the validity of that argument. But does that mean to say for one moment that increased payments should not be made to farmers under the act.
There is a good deal of dissatisfaction expressed with this act and its administration. As I go about my constituency and other parts of the country I have discovered that the farmers generally are just not pleased with it, and there are several reasons they cite. One has to do with the way the government interprets the definition of the word "farmer" as it is set out in section 2, subsection 1 (e). In so many cases we find that the word "farmer" is interpreted in such a way as to do a valid farmer out of his benefits under the act even if he should qualify in the township.
For instance, take the case of a man who has been forced by the circumstances of the times, that is a minor recession or something of the kind, to find a job to supplement his meagre farm income. Nevertheless he does go ahead, farms his land and tries to be a good farmer as defined in subsection 1 (e) of section 2 of the act. But when at the end of the year he finds that his whole township or area qualifies for payment under the act and he makes an application, he is denied the benefit because it is said that investigation shows that he has received a little more than 50 per cent of his income for the year from a pursuit other than farming.
That interpretation has been used in many cases to deny bona fide farmers the benefits of the act, and the people generally are not satisfied with that situation. They feel tnat because over a good many years they have contributed to the fund out of which the benefits are paid they should be entitled to the benefits if in their farming operations the crop yield falls below the 8 or 4 bushels per acre prescribed in the act.
That is only one of many complaints. I find that there are ,a good many farmers in different parts of the country who are unhappy over the operations of section 6, particularly subsections (a) and (b). Many injustices have been caused, and the application of these clauses has been very unfair. I think section
Prairie Farm Assistance Act 6 (c) was very good initially, but sections 6 (a) and 6 (b) certainly can be and are used by the administration to bring unfairness and injustice to many farmers.
In Alberta particularly crop loss very often results from hail. The administrators of the act do not like to admit that hail loss is a cause for benefits to be paid under the act, but it is admitted that where hail loss causes a drop in yield to below 8 bushels or 4 bushels to the acre, if the whole area in which their farms are situated qualifies the farmers are to be paid the benefit. Amongst the farmers in hail districts much dissatisfaction arises because of the fact that the hailstorm may sweep over a particular area totally destroying the crop, but the area will not be large enough to qualify for benefits. It may also be that the small area totally destroyed is in an area of otherwise very high yield, and so the operation of section 6 (c) is denied.
Because of the fact that this does happen so often in high production areas, and injustice occurs, we feel that it is not merely a question of increasing the payments to farmers. That would of course meet the needs of a good many farmers who feel that this year they are in need of emergency assistance, as has been suggested by the mover and seconder of the resolution. But that is only part of what we think should be done with the act. We believe it is time for a complete overhaul of the legislation. We are not against what the mover of the resolution is seeking to achieve. We support the need for higher payments, and we do not want what we are about to propose to be interpreted to mean that we are opposed to the resolution itself. We shall support it, but first we would like to test something else by way of an amendment to the resolution. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch):
That the resolution be amended by deleting all of the words in the third and fourth lines thereof and substituting the following therefor: "(1) referring the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization for a thorough study of the administration of the act and (2) amending the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to establish the basis of qualification for payments of benefits on an individual farm basis".


Mr. Speaker:: May I intervene immediately to inform the hon. member that it does not constitute an amendment to move that a motion should go to a committee. However, the hon. member may continue his speech and I will have a further look at the authorities on the point.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, actually I was not moving that it be sent to a committee. The net result of the amendment would be that

Prairie Farm Assistance Act the motion would be that the government take under consideration referring the whole act to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization with a view to having a thorough study of the act and its regulations and the effects of the administration thereof on farmers generally.


Mr. Speaker:: In that case, I may inform the hon. member, it widens the scope of the motion; and if it does that, in accordance with our rules, it is not in order. It is wider than the scope of the motion and such an amendment cannot be moved unless there has been previous notice. However, the hon. member may continue his remarks.


Solon Earl Low: Whatever may be the position of the amendment itself, Mr. Speaker, perhaps just proposing it suggests the sort of thing that is in our minds. We do feel it is not enough merely to ask for an increase in the payments. I suppose such an increase would materially help those farmers who this year find themselves in a bad position as a consequence of the widespread crop failure last year, and who could qualify under the act. But it would not help those people who have been on the borderline, or who cannot now qualify as a consequence of the interpretations that are placed on some of the definitions as well as through the operations of section 6, subsections (a) and (b).
It seems to me that the only way we can get down to something like a complete overhaul of the act to bring it into line with today's needs is to have it brought before a committee for study. I would suggest that the government do that of its own motion, without having it called for from the other side. No one can argue that after 15 years of operation, with only minor amendments here and there, the act does not need to be brought up to date and does not need a thorough overhaul. We suggest that instead of amending it piecemeal, we bring in amendments that will be really worth while. I suggest, too, that we should bring this Prairie Farm Assistance Act more into the category of an insurance program. I feel that is what we thought it was going to develop into. I suggest the farmers themselves had every reason to believe that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, as passed in 1939, would gradually develop into a worth-while crop insurance program.
I suggest that the government give very careful consideration to subjecting the act to a thorough study and overhaul. In our judgment it is the only way a satisfactory result could be obtained. We shall support the request of the hon. member, because we do feel that increased payments should be


made; but at the same time we would not feel that that is as far as we should go.


Walter Adam Tucker: I have already indicated my thoughts as to the consideration that should be given to increasing these prairie farm assistance payments, in my speech on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I do not intend, therefore, to take up too much time tonight, other than to mention again some of the points to which I feel the government might give consideration.
As has been pointed out, when the act was first passed in 1939 the average price the farmer received for wheat was about 57 cents per bushel. With the 1 per cent deduction he was paying to the government a little over half a cent or -57 cents per bushel. The average price the farmer has received for No. 1 northern wheat during the last eight years has been about $1.63 per bushel. In other words, for eight years the average amount collected by the government under this 1 per cent deduction has been 1 [DOT] 6 cents per bushel, or roughly three times the amount per bushel that was collected when the act was first passed. By virtue of the increase in the price of wheat, due to some extent I suggest to a drop in the value of money, the amount collected by the government has been increased but the amount a farmer can collect has not been increased.
The figure to which most reference has been made is the maximum amount a farmer can receive, namely $500. Some hon. members might be under the impression that in a year of crop failure the farmer will get $500. In order to get $500 there has to be 400 acres under crop, which would mean that the farmer would have to have at least three-quarters of a section. So there are literally thousands of farmers who have no hope of qualifying for the $500 maximum payment. This year, when a great many farmers have had almost complete crop failure, the average payment under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, which was designed to help tide the farmer over to the next harvest and help him seed his crop, will be somewhere between $200 and $250.
On the basis of the cost of living back in 1939, $200 is worth less than $100 was then. As has been pointed out, the farmer's cost of production and cost of living, on the basis of 1935-1939 equalling 100, have now risen to 225. In other words it takes $225 to do the same work in helping tide the farmer over the year and put in another crop that he could do with $100 in the days when the act was first passed.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, we have recognized that money does not go as far as it did some years ago in regard to other occupations. We have recognized it by raising our own salaries; we have recognized it by raising the salaries of civil servants. We have recognized it all along the line by doubling pension payments and increasing unemployment insurance payments. It has been recognized that a dollar does not go as far as it would 15 years ago. Since for the past eight years the farmer has been paying into this fund about three times as much per bushel as he was when the act was passed, since the money he is getting back is worth less than half in so far as purchasing power is concerned and doing what the act was designed to do, then it seems to me a case has been made out for considering increasing these payments.
It has been pointed out that the government has paid out to our western farmers about $146 million under this act, and under the 1 per cent deduction provision they have collected slightly less than $80 million. The government has, therefore, paid out of the consolidated revenue fund about $66 million.
It has been recognized that the only reason we can grow hard wheat in our prairie provinces is because it is a more or less semi-arid region. It was recognized also that the government had a choice of either paying out agricultural assistance during the future years of crop failure or setting up a scheme to which the farmer would contribute but which would not be self-supporting. Repeated studies of the situation in western Canada and in similar parts of the United States have shown that the areas that need this protection most cannot afford to pay a sufficiently high premium to provide crop insurance. It was realized from the outset that the government would have to contribute to any scheme that would substantially alleviate these conditions.
In 1939 it was considered better for the government to set up a scheme to which farmers would contribute, facing the fact that from time to time the government would probably have to contribute to the fund to make up any deficiency. That fact was faced by the government of the day; and at this point I wish to pay tribute to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) for introducing the measure and having it accepted by the House of Commons. I was present when he did this, and I would say to him that this legislation has been greatly appreciated. I am sure it will be appreciated in future, and I hope the Minister of Agriculture will be with us for many years to witness its application.
This act has been of such great assistance to the farmers of western Canada that I am
Prairie Farm Assistance Act sure the work of the Minister of Agriculture in this connection will be appreciated for a long time to come. Those of us who are taking the position that the payments should be increased are simply saying that the act should be placed in a position where it would give assistance to farmers to get them over a difficult period, until the following year, so they may look after their families and sow their crops. For this purpose we feel that the payments should be as effective today as when the act was passed.
When we ask for this I submit we are not asking for anything that is really out of place. At the time the act was passed the millions of dollars it was contemplated would have to be put into the scheme bulked much larger, when compared with expenditures by the federal government at that time, than would a similar amount today. Hon. members will recall that at the time the act was passed total expenditures by the federal government were in the neighbourhood of $400 or $500 million, and of course they are much greater today. If at that time we were ready to face an expenditure considered so worth while, then I submit we should bring the act up to date, when the amount involved represents a much smaller proportion of total national expenditures.
It has also been repeatedly brought to my attention-and members from the prairies will realize that this is correct-that these payments are made to individual farmers. The maximum amount payable is $500. In other words the act was designed to help the small farmer. No matter how big a farmer's operations may be, he cannot get more than $500 under the act.
The trend in western Canada has been such as to reduce the possible obligation of the federal government under the act. In 1941 there were 298,131 or almost 300,000 eligible farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Peace river area. In 1951 the total number of farmers who might conceivably qualify for help under P.F.A.A. had decreased to 250,302. In other words the number of farmers who might hope to get benefits under the act had decreased by 47,829 in the ten-year period between 1941 and 1951. This means a reduction in the amount the national treasury would have to face in the event of total crop failure. It has been pointed out that since that reduction in liability has taken place, it would be even more in order to bring up the purchasing power of the amount paid under the act to where it was when the act was first passed.
Something has been said by some of my friends about our being too much inclined to ask for help from the national treasury. Let
1382	HOUSE OF
Prairie Farm Assistance Act me point out to members in all parts of the house that when western Canada is prosperous the whole of Canada tends to be prosperous. Depression struck first in the thirties in the agricultural areas of Canada, the prairie areas; and it would not be a good thing now for the national economy to permit the purchasing power of the western prairies to sink too low. That was one of the original ideas behind passage of the act, to tide the west over those times it had crop failures, which it was recognized were bound to occur from time to time. It was considered better to have a scheme like this to maintain purchasing power in days of crop failure, not only from the standpoint of helping out the farmers but also from that of lightening the blow to the national economy.
I submit that if payments under the act are increased, as I suggested during the debate on the speech from the throne, or if they are doubled, as is now suggested, it might cost the government about $25 million more. This amount would go into circulation, with the result that it would build up employment here in central Canada and, generally, prevent as much suffering from a crop failure. It would do just as much good in central Canada as it would in the west, because everyone knows that most of the money paid to our farmers is ultimately used to buy goods produced here in central Canada. So I suggest that if this scheme were amended so it could do what it was intended to do originally, not only would it help us in the west but it would help the economy of Canada as a whole.
One of my reasons for taking part in the debate is, as hon. members know, that last fall our party had a convention in Saskatchewan. I believe I am quite within the mark when I say it was one of the most enthusiastic and best attended political conventions ever held in the history of our province. At that convention a resolution was passed asking the government to give consideration to increasing payments under the act. This was one of the measures which made me proud of supporting the Liberal government of that day, which passed this act which has been of so much benefit to the people on the prairies. And I take equal pride in supporting the government now in office which has improved the act from time to time. I am quite satisfied consideration will be given to the representations for further improvement made from time to time. It seems to me a good case has been made out for increasing these payments this time.
I went over these points in my speech in the debate on the address in reply. Since


that time I have received more mail concerning that speech than I ever received with respect to anything I have said in the House of Commons. In that mail were resolutions from eight municipalities in and around my constituency. I have received representations from wheat pool committees, from farmers' union lodges, and from individuals. I have received letters and petitions, and there is no doubt that the farmers of western Canada, knowing that this government passed the act in 1939 and knowing also that it does not go as far as it did when it was first passed, have great confidence that favourable consideration will be given to the request for increased payments.
I commend the government most highly upon having passed the act originally, and in particular I commend the Minister of Agriculture upon his leadership in that direction. I look forward with confidence to this matter being given the consideration I feel it deserves.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I should dispose of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low). It is not without hesitation that I do so, because the hon. member and I seem to be always at variance recently. Latitude on private members' day is quite wide. Although in the discussion of the subject matter of the resolution moved by the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Campbell) great latitude is allowed, when it comes to amendments one must be very careful because otherwise they may be used as precedents, and if we should let one go we do not know where it might take us.
Probably the hon. member has read citation 344 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, and has construed the citation and the resolution to mean that provided he was dealing with the Prairie Farm Assistance Act he was on the subject matter of the motion and therefore his amendment would be relevant.
What is the subject matter of the resolution moved by the hon. member for The Battle-fords? It is not the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. He wants an amending bill to double the payments to farmers under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Therefore the subject matter is the doubling of the payments, and any amendment moved would have to be relevant to that particular subject matter, the doubling of the payments.
What the hon. member proposes in his amendment is a totally different subject matter which could be the substance of a motion moved after notice and debated in this house under the heading: "Notices of Motions".

He proposes to refer the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, the entire act, to a standing committee and amend it in a particular different from that which is being asked for by the hon. member for The Battlefords. It has no reference to the doubling of the payments. He wants to amend it in order to establish the basis for payment of benefits on an individual farm basis.
If he reads citation 344 he will see:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed. Every amendment proposed to be made either to a question or to a proposed amendment should be so framed that if agreed to by the house the question or amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself.
The law on the relevancy of amendments is that if they are on the same subject matter with the original motion, they are admissible but not when foreign thereto.
The amendment of the hon. member relates to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act but not to the doubling of the payments under the act, and that is the distinction. Therefore, with much regret, I must rule the amendment out of order on the ground that it is not relevant to the subject matter of the main motion.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for The Battlefords on the very important motion he presented this afternoon for the consideration of the house. The Prairie Farm Assistance Act is of very great importance to western Canada. It is an act, as hon. members have said, that has been on the statute books since 1939. It was placed on the statute books by a Liberal administration. No one in this group is attempting to withdraw from the Liberal administration any credit that is theirs because in 1939, after they had been in office for four years, at long last they did something that would provide an alternative to the relief that was being distributed in those days.
Do not let anyone in this house go away with the impression that in this act we have something peculiar to western Canada; that it is one of those things, as so many hon. members like to believe, that is intended to benefit western Canada only; because if hon. members will study other acts of this government they will find that from 1948 to 1953 the government provided the gold mines of this country with a subsidy of $65 million. This amount is almost as great as the subsidy of $66,400,000 paid over a period of 16 years under this act, for the benefit of over 200,000 farm families on the prairies. Therefore I say in relation to the treatment given the gold-mining companies, the treatment given
Prairie Farm Assistance Act western wheat producers has not been any great credit to the government.
The Prairie Farm Assistance Act came about, as I have said, because of the huge relief bills paid in the 1930's, owing to low farm prices. That is the main reason, but there was also the fact that there were many years of lower than average crops. According to the book entitled "The Wheat Economy" by Professor Britnell of the University of Saskatchewan, between 1929 and 1938 the dominion government paid out in relief, or had guaranteed provincial payments, a total of over $131 million in the province of Saskatchewan alone. It was in the light of the calamity that results from widespread crop failures that this act was placed on the statute books. It was put on to make sure that such relief payments would not have to be made again.
Along the same lines and for the same reason the government placed on the statute books the Unemployment Insurance Act. I as a member of the C.C.F. party am very happy indeed that we have the Unemployment Insurance Act. We would like to see its benefits extended and the act improved. It should be pointed out that under that act the government has already contributed, in a shorter period than the Prairie Farm Assistance Act has been in existence, the large sum of $248 million. I repeat, the moneys paid out of the federal treasury toward prairie farm assistance are not payments made peculiarly to western Canada, because other acts have provided for payments to other sections of the economy.
If any hon. member in this house from Ontario, the maritimes, Quebec, British Columbia or any other place wishes to say something about this act I suggest that instead of making any criticism of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and the moneys the government has paid out under it, he should be standing in his place fighting on behalf of the producers in those provinces for the same kind of protection, in the event of a crop failure, that the prairie farmers have under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. If the members who have tobacco growing areas, potato growing areas or fruit growing areas or other such areas in their constituencies would rise in their places in this house and support improvements in this particular measure, and join with us in asking that the provisions of such an act be applied to all parts of the agriculture industry, they would be doing a whole lot more for their own provinces and for agriculture than they would by criticizing the benefits that have been paid under this act.
1364	HOUSE OF
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
I listened very carefully to the speech delivered by the leader of the Social Credit party and I failed to see why he should in any way criticize or wish to amend, even by way of suggestion, the motion moved by the hon. member for The Battlefords asking that the payments be doubled. Instead of supporting such a motion he wants to amend it by deleting the most important part of it. He does not want to improve the act by making additional payments; he wants the whole question of the administration of the act referred to the committee on agriculture for study. Prairie producers are 100 per cent in favour of the resolution to double payments moved by the hon. member for The Battle-fords. They are not asking that this motion be studied; they are asking that the government take action along the lines suggested in this resolution.
Since I have been in this house, from 1945,
I have seen the government adopt suggestions made from this side of the house which brought about improvements in the administration of the act. I have seen the act amended time after time so that payments were made on a somewhat smaller area. As far as I am concerned, while I am criticizing the act itself I have little or no criticism to offer of the detailed administration of the act. In any cases I have brought to the attention of the officials of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, while I may not always have obtained the answer I would have liked to obtain, I almost invariably received a fair decision related to the provisions of the act. Therefore I cannot join with those who have complained about the detailed administration of the act.
However, I support the request that the area on which a payment is made should be reduced. Over the years the trend has been in that direction, and it should be continued. At the present time payment may be made on a half township. After a half township has been established, payment may be made on a one-sixth township if it is a rectangular area with one side lying alongside an eligible township. I should like to see the six-section block reduced to four sections, to two sections-yes, right down to at least one section of land, if not to an individual farm basis. As I have said, the trend is in that direction.
I am pleased to note that trend and I hope the government will bring in amendments to the act to put it on an individual basis.
When the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is talked about in this house one hears a lot about crop insurance. I have read in the press from time to time where people say that we now have a crop insurance scheme.


I agree with the statement made by the hon. member for Rosthern that as far as the wheat economy on the prairies is concerned, anyone who has made a serious study of a crop insurance scheme on an actuarial basis applied to such an area has recommended against it.


An hon. Member:: What about tobacco?


Hazen Robert Argue: My hon. friend should be an authority on tobacco, and I would be very glad to hear him speak on that subject. It is probably quite true that a crop insurance scheme, as crop insurance is known to everyone, would not be applicable to a tobacco area, but that is not what I was advocating. I was advocating that the same principle of a government scheme to protect the tobacco growers and make payments to them in years of crop failure be instituted by the government for the very reason that crop insurance is probably impractical in a tobacco area as I know it to be in a wheat growing area.
As my authority, and as one authority that probably the hon. member for Rosthern would accept, I quote from "A Study of Crop Insurance" by the late R. E. Motherwell, B.S.A., printed on August 2, 1944. I want to say that over the years I considered that Dick Motherwell was an outstanding authority in the field of crop insurance. His contribution throughout his too short life to agriculture, in which he believed fundamentally, was outstanding. I am sure that had he been spared he would have made his mark in public life in Canada and would have made an outstanding contribution to the welfare of agriculture, which was his first interest. In the summary on page 66 Mr. Motherwell states:
1.	Completely self-carrying crop insurance has not been successfully achieved for small grains in any country.
2.	Of all ventures in the field of crop insurance the American experiment is the most noteworthy. This experiment showed several things.
(a) That farmers in high-risk areas were unable to pay the premiums necessary for their own protection.
Crop insurance in the strict sense of insurance, according to Mr. Motherwell, if it is to be successful must obtain from each farm unit over a long period of years sufficient premiums to make the crop insurance payments on that particular piece of land in that period of time.
However, there is definite room for improvement in the act. I believe the act should be overhauled along the lines suggested by Mr. Motherwell. One suggestion was that an area such as Manitoba, where the premiums paid in have exceeded the payments out, should receive some special consideration and a zone might be established with different premiums being paid in that area and perhaps even different payments made.

As I have said, there is room for improvement. Certainly the first improvement that must be made should be along the lines suggested by the hon. member for The Battle-fords.
The hon. member for The Battlefords is perfectly justified, in spite of anything said by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), in asking that the payment be doubled without the premium being increased. In 1939 when this act was passed the wheat board had established an initial price for wheat of 70 cents per bushel, with the initial price to the farmer of some 50 cents per bushel. Since that time the price of wheat has gone up two and a half or three times, so as a result the payments into the fund have increased more than the increase suggested by the hon. member for The Battlefords. Therefore it was not necessary for him to ask that the premiums be increased, because with the increased price of wheat the amount of money paid in per bushel has been increased.
I do not want to take any credit away from the government for having passed the act in 1939, but I am critical of the action or inaction of the government since 1939 in permitting the benefits under this act to wither away because of inflation. The benefits obtained today under this act have just a fraction of the purchasing power of the benefits back in 1939. The official 11-factor cost of production index prepared by the bureau of statistics includes the important item of farm implements, building materials, gasoline, oil, grease, feed, fertilizer, binder twine, seed, hardware, tax rates, interest rates and farm wage rates.
This production index prepared by the bureau of statistics, basis 1935-39 equals 100, was 99-3 in 1939 when the act was passed. One year later that index had risen to 106-8. That meant that from the maximum $500 benefit $35 had been taken away in purchasing power through that increase. The Liberal government that put the act on the statute books in one year had taken away $35 of the benefit.
In 1941 the index went up to 116-1 and an additional $37 was taken from the value of the maximum payment. The maximum payment in constant 1939 dollars became $428. In 1942 the index increased to 131-6 and an additional $51 was lost. The $500 payment had become $377. In 1943 the index rose to 143-4 and the value in purchasing power was reduced by $31, making the $500 payment worth $346. In 1944 there was another increase in the index, a loss of another $11 and the value of the payment was down to $335. In 1945 there was another increase in the farmer's cost of production index and an-50433-87
Prairie Farm Assistance Act other $9 was chiselled off the value of prairie farm assistance, bringing the total purchasing power of the $500 payment down to $326.
Mr. Speaker, the figures I am placing on record tonight indicate what this government has done to many measures which it has placed on the statute books and which have been to the benefit of the people to whom they apply. An act is placed on the statute books that provides certain benefits to the people. Then the government, through inflation, allows the benefit to wither away. By allowing inflation to persist year by year, the government has been robbing the western farmer of the purchasing power of prairie farm assistance.
In 1945 the $500 was down to $326; in 1946 it was down to $316; in 1947, it was down to $291; in 1948, it was down to $252; in 1949, it was down to $243; in 1950 it was down to $236; in 1951, it was down to $216 and in 1952 the value of the $500 cheque in 1939 dollars had become just $204. In 1953 the value went up $3, back to $207; and in 1954 the value had increased from $207 to $208. At the rate of increase in the value of prairie farm assistance for that one-year period, if the same rate continues I suppose the Minister of Agriculture might tell the farmers not to worry, that in 300 years the value of prairie farm assistance will be back to its 1939 position.
There is what has happened. The government placed a good act on the statute books in 1939. Since then the farmer has paid and is now paying premiums two and a half to three times as high as those he paid in 1939, and the value of the payment is down to only 42 per cent of the value in 1939. It is no wonder that one municipal council after another and farmer after farmer have been writing to the hon. member for The Battlefords and other members of this house urging them to support the doubling of prairie farm assistance payments.
I should like to see this resolution voted on and passed. I should like to see the payments doubled. I think a strong argument could be made for an even greater increase, but certainly that is the minimum that should be done. There are other improvements that should be made. As I have said, payments should be increased and should be made on a section basis. In keeping with the changing value of the dollar I think the minimum payment under the act should be increased from $200 to $400 and the maximum from $500 to $1,000.
Mr. Speaker, no one in this group wants to detract from any credit coming to the government for having passed and administered the Prairie Farm Assistance Act; but
1366	HOUSE OF
Prairie Farm Assistance Act I appeal to the Minister of Agriculture not to allow these benefits to continue to wither away until this act is unable to provide the protection that all hoped it would provide in 1939. If there is another crop failure in western Canada in 1955 prairie farmers will be back in a position not much better than they were in during the 1930's when this act was placed on the statute books. In western Canada today there are many farmers who have not sufficient money to carry on farming operations for the current year. That would not be so if the prairie farm assistance dollar had kept its 1939 purchasing power. In order to do that the payment should be at least $1,100; for that the government itself, by allowing the dollar value of prairie farm assistance to be reduced, has taken away $600 in purchasing power at today's prices from every farmer in western Canada entitled in 1955 to a full payment under this act.
For the sake of protecting agriculture and the western economy I ask that the government consider this resolution and bring in at this session of parliament an amendment to the act so that payments may be doubled.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to thank the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Argue) for the extremely kind references made to his old fellow student and my late secretary, Mr. Motherwell. He was an expert on this particular question. I also understand that the hon. member for Assini-boia, at the end of his university career, wrote his thesis on this question. He is no doubt as well informed on the question as is any member of the house.
I also want to express my own appreciation to all hon. members who have referred to this legislation in such glowing terms on this occasion. It is rather interesting to look back over 15 years and remember the reception given the legislation when it was brought into the house. There was a great deal of questioning in the minds of members who were here then as to whether or not it would ever work to the satisfaction of the farmers in western Canada and to the benefit of agriculture and the economy of this country in general throughout the years. It is therefore interesting to come back 15 years later and hear members who have made a close study of the question, together with members who have come into the house recently and have found the legislation on the statute books, refer to it as something which is very helpful. I want to say that before I go on to criticize some of the things which have been said.


The act was put on the statute books at the end of a period of about 50 years during which farm organizations all over this continent had been asking for crop insurance of some kind. It had been found almost impossible to find a form of crop insurance which would suit the different crops we have on this continent.
Eventually we worked out a plan which is not insurance. That is one of the reasons we have it. If the amendment to the resolution had not been declared out of order it would have been necessary for me to say that to put it on the basis suggested in the last part of the proposed amendment would have been to make insurance out of it. If we attempted to make insurance out of this act it would have to go to the provincial legislatures, and not be passed in this house. We cannot pass crop insurance in this house unless we amend our constitution. That was decided years ago when we attempted to pass hail insurance in this house. Each of the three prairie provinces moved to have a hail insurance bill passed in the federal house and it was declared at that time that this house did not have the right to pass it.
We therefore passed separate acts out in the three western provinces, and some of that legislation is still in effect. In the province of Saskatchewan we still have hail insurance provided for under the municipal hail insurance act. That is one of the reasons it was never considered, from the beginning, that this was an act to take care of hail insurance. Hail insurance is taken care of under provincial legislation in Saskatchewan. It was taken care of at one time in Alberta and Manitoba as well. I am not sure that those two pieces of legislation are still on the statute books, but certainly the Saskatchewan legislation is still there.


Mr. Harkness:: We have it in Alberta, too.


James Garfield Gardiner: It has been continued as well in Alberta, I am told, so that two of these pieces of legislation at least are still continued very much as they were when they were passed many years ago, I think about 1913, to be exact. It was declared then that that kind of legislation could not be passed here, that it had to be done by the provinces, and therefore I suggest that we considered the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to be the only kind that could be passed here. I would go further and say that I agree with the hon. member for Assiniboia when he states that it would be very difficult to get a form of crop insurance that you could apply to the wheat growing area in the three prairie provinces, and more particularly to that section in Alberta and Saskatchewan. It

would be possible to institute a form of insurance which would work in Manitoba, judging from the experience we have had in that province under this legislation.
In order to indicate what I mean by that I should like to refer to the statistics with regard to payments. The hon. member for Assiniboia has just attempted to demonstrate to the house that there has been a great deal of loss from time to time because of the fact that the payments were not higher, or did not go up with the changing price conditions over the years. I am not going to take every year but in 1939 the amount was $9,900,000, in 1941 it was $15,500,000, in 1945 it was $16,900,000, in 1947 it was $17 million, and in 1949 it was $22 million. Because the crops were better in the four years following the figures were $10 million, $4 million, $1 million and $2 million down to 1953. It is estimated that on the crop of 1954 we will pay in the neighbourhood of $25 million.
I merely want to point out that while one can use arguments related to inflation and that kind of thing which appear to be very strong, nevertheless the total amount of money that it is suggested we will pay out in 1954 is approximately $25 million. In repeating that I want to call attention to the fact that the resolution calls upon us to double that amount. I quite agree that the resolution of the hon. member for The Battle-fords does not call for making the payments retroactive to cover the year 1954, but he has referred to the host of resolutions that have been passed in the west.
Before dealing with these resolutions may I call attention to a fact which has already been referred to by one speaker-I think it was the member for The Battlefords-namely that when the farmers' union came here very late in the month of January to make their representations to the government with regard to the needs of the farmers, more particularly those of western Canada because the farmers' union only exists to any considerable extent in the three prairie provinces where wheat is grown, they did not say a single word about prairie farm assistance; not a word. After they had been down east here a while they apparently learned something about prairie farm assistance out west, and they went back, passed another resolution dealing with prairie farm assistance, and sent it here. In that resolution, which has been quoted on a number of occasions in this debate, they included certain information which had been gathered from somewhere.
Then I went to Edmonton two or three weeks later and listened to the representations of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. They did not have a word to say about prairie farm assistance. Apparently
50433-87i
Prairie Farm Assistance Act both organizations were in agreement with members who have said throughout the debate that prairie farm assistance is one of the best things that has ever been brought into being in this country to deal with the difficulties of farmers in the area subject to drought. Apparently they all agreed with the last speaker, who said he has no criticism to make of the administration. The detailed administration is good. The act is carried out in the manner intended to be from the beginning; and while the hon. member for Assiniboia has some criticisms to make of it he nevertheless thinks it is very good.
All I want to say about that is that I am very pleased to note that when the farmers' union came here to present their difficulties, none of them had anything to do with prairie farm assistance. I am very pleased to note, too, that when I travel all the way from here to Edmonton to listen to what the federation has to say they do not think there is anything seriously wrong with prairie farm assistance or, at least, not sufficient for them to want to say anything about it when I am there. So I come back here and listen to this debate, in which some hon. members indicate that there is something very seriously wrong.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member for
Rosthern made a very good speech.


James Garfield Gardiner: He made a very good speech, and speeches are always good when, they set out certain facts-


Hazen Robert Argue: He was right too.


James Garfield Gardiner: -but sometimes they require completion, and I am going to complete some of the speeches that have been made in this debate.


Hazen Robert Argue: Don't repunctuate them.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, they will not require any repunctuation. But a great deal has been said about the amount of money provided by this legislation when it was placed on the statute books 15 years ago and the amount required at the present time to do the same things that were done with the money provided then. Incidentally, I note that the submission of the farmers' union was drafted on January 19 while they may still have been here. In this submission they make certain statements, and these statements have been quoted over and over again in this debate. This is the first one:
We believe that the principle embodied in the Prairie Farm Assistance Act-to give western farmers some measure of government aid in the event of disaster overtaking their crops, and to require farmers to contribute one per cent of the value of their grain deliveries in years when they have crops-is sound. Over the years, P.F.A.A. has proved its value.
1368	HOUSE OF
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
That is very good, and we appreciate their having said it. Then they come down to the argument which was used a few months ago by the hon. member for Assiniboia. He referred to the 1939 index number for the commodities and services required by farmers as 99-4, and then came down to the present time and said the index number now stands at 225. A lot of arguments are based on that. Then we find that in 1939 the price of No. 1 wheat was 79-3 cents and that the price per bushel in 1952-53 was $1,814 cents.
These are figures that have been quoted over and over again in this debate. What astonishes me is that persons who have given so much thought and time to this matter could not think of any new arguments other than those which were presented in that afterthought of the delegation which was down here. But there are some other arguments. The main argument is that our friends have forgotten all about what we started out to deal with 15 years ago. We did not start out to give farmers enough to run their farms. We took for granted that over the years they were going to grow some wheat. We did not figure that the only money a farmer was going to have was the money that was paid to him under prairie farm assistance. But my friends have been arguing as though that is the only money the farmers have, and they have tried to indicate to us that the act has not taken care of the situation which has developed.
What I am going to claim, and I think I can prove it, is that we were sufficiently farsighted 15 years ago to provide for just what has happened. The only thing to which none of us ever gave thought was that for the last 10 years we would average $1.82 per bushel for wheat, basis No. 1 northern Fort William. None of us thought of that. Not having thought of that, we did not believe the farmer would have as much money as he has.
Looking at it from that point of view, when it gets down to 4 bushels we say the farmer has nothing; he has a complete crop failure. Having 4 bushels, or he may have had 3 bushels, or 2, as the hon. member for Ros-thern says wheat was worth 57 cents a bushel to the farmer in 1939, so the 4 bushels would bring him $2.28. We offered to give him another $2.50, making the total amount for the wheat plus the payment under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act $4.78 per acre.


An hon. Member:: Throw in a steer, too.


James Garfield Gardiner: We will throw in a few bulls; that will suit you better. We were considering the 4 bushels; now how much does that bring at present? Four times $1.63, which is the price at the farm, makes $6.52.


An hon. Member:: No. 6 feed?
fMr. Gardiner.]


James Garfield Gardiner: We will come around to No.
6 feed. Many farmers have other wheat. We never thought about No. 6 feed because it had to rain too much to get No. 6 feed on account of rust. Then we add the $2.50 to the $6.52 and that gives us $9.02. In other words, 15 years ago the 4 bushels brought $4.78 and now 4 bushels bring $9.02.


Hazen Robert Argue: Going down all the time.


James Garfield Gardiner: We are not nearly as far away from the index figure my hon. friend was quoting a few minutes ago as one would think. Instead of the prices going down and down over the years, they have been going up and up over the years.


Hazen Robert Argue: What about prairie farm assistance?


James Garfield Gardiner: Prairie farm assistance helped all the time, because the $2.50 is added to the increases on account of wheat sold. Coming now to the fellow who gets 8 bushels-


An hon. Member:: What about the man who gets none?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are not many of those people this year. The 8 bushels per acre 15 years ago at 57 cents brought $4.56, in addition to which he got $1.50, making $6.06. Now, our figuring was not so bad, you know, as is seen by what we put in the act. The fellow who had 4 bushels or below got $4.78, and when he got up to 8 bushels, with assistance, he got $6.06; not very much difference. Today the 8 bushels would bring $13.04 an acre and adding the $1.50 would make $14.54. Fifteen years ago such a farmer would have received $6.06, whereas today he would receive $14.54, which more than takes care of the differences in the index the hon. member for Assiniboia was talking about a few minutes ago.


Hazen Robert Argue: Not at all.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, it is far more than double. The present index is only 225 as against 99-4 in 1939.


Hazen Robert Argue: It was 238.


James Garfield Gardiner: This is more than the increase which took place. The index is now 225 or two and a quarter times which is $13.45.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You should give lessons to Einstein.


James Garfield Gardiner: You feed pigs; you don't know much about this particular question.
Let us take 6 bushels, which is about an average between 4 and 8. Six bushels at 57 cents would bring $3.42, plus $1.50, which would make it $4.92 back 15 years ago. Six

bushels at $1.63 would be $9.78 and $1.50 would make it $11.28. As one goes over these prices one will see that the act itself as it was drafted 15 years ago brings about the exact result that the hon. member for Assini-boia says it should bring about.


Hazen Robert Argue: No, no; we want the payments doubled.


James Garfield Gardiner: In other words, some years ago when he was coming out of university we must have read his essay and written it into the act. So much for that part of it.
Our friends say, what about the crop this year? If I may be permitted to say so, at the time we were drafting this act no one ever expected we would likely be called upon to deal with a crop such as the one we had in 1954. As a matter of fact this act was put on the statute books to deal with drought, and the calamity of 1954 was not drought.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are all wet.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, it was rain; everybody was wet and because everybody was wet the crop rusted. There is a very great difference between a rusted crop and a crop failure as the result of drought. Back in 1931 when we had no crop we had to bring our livestock in off the pastures and sell it on the market at about $20 a head. I know, because I brought mine in and sold them. Then we got along with half crops or fairly poor crops until 1937. Then we had another complete crop failure. We had to bring in our livestock and sell them again. We set up pastures all over western Canada and sent out crews who went through the different towns and villages buying up the cattle. The farmers could not get more than a cent and a quarter for this thin stock they were taking from the pastures, but we paid them double that. It was not enough to permit them any earnings whatever.
You cannot compare a condition like that with the condition of 1954. This act was drafted for the purpose of taking care of such conditions. I am one of those who believe that these conditions will return periodically to western Canada. I am not one of those who believe we should take a chance by trying to do anything with this act that would spoil it for the purpose of taking care of drought. It was drafted to take care of drought, and we hope it will be on the statute books in its present form when drought comes back again, as it will.
Within the last few years we had years when the crop was almost as poor as it was back in the thirties. The reason we did not notice it was twofold. In the first place wheat was very high in price and 4, 8 or 10 bushels
Prairie Farm Assistance Act to the acre meant so much more than it did at the time this act was drafted. We went through those conditions, therefore, without very much discussion of the problems that were confronting farmers at that time. As I indicated a few moments ago, we paid out as much as $22 million in one of those years to farmers in areas where there was little or no crop but feed was available within reasonable distance.
What is the condition in the west this year? I know what the condition is on my farm, and we are in the middle of the rust area. Our area was probably not as badly rusted as the area in the constituency of Moose Mountain and particularly in the area between Moose Mountain and the main line of railway. Nevertheless we are in the centre of a strip of country extending from down in Minnesota right up to Lloydminster, which is from 150 to 200 miles wide, that was so badly rusted this year that every rust expert says it was the worst rust epidemic we have ever had in the central part of this continent. Well, I have more feed in my barn this year than I ever had before, and so have a lot of other farmers. We had no feed in our barns back in the years I have been speaking about, because there was none to put in.
This year the rough feed is not so good as it has been in some years. The cattle do not like it as well as they did at other times, because it is rusted. It is not clean straw. Nevertheless we have the feed, and our cattle are not thin. They are not losing weight at all. I had cattle on the Toronto market last week and they brought the top price on that mai'ket. They were fed out in that country. But if I had tried to send them down to Toronto back in 1931, or again in 1937, they never would have reached there. They just could not have stood the trip. But they can go down this year and top the market.
Every farmer out there knows the condition -that is, every farmer who has lived there during times of drought-at the present time is not comparable with that condition at all. And he knows that this act was not brought into being for the particular purpose of dealing with a situation like we have this year at all; but it helps, and they are not grasping at shadows.
That is why they did not pass resolutions about it. They know that to have a resolution passed, of the kind that has been discussed here tonight, to double the rate, would do this legislation more harm than good. Therefore they have hesitated to make any suggestions. I suppose there is a good reason why I should get as many resolutions and letters as anybody else about this thing.
1370	HOUSE OF
Prairie Farm Assistance Act


Hazen Robert Argue: They have given up, so far as you are concerned.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, no, they still write. I imagine I have had resolutions from the areas and municipalities from which my hon. friends opposite have had resolutions, and they have indicated to me as a rule to whom they have sent them. There are a few of them, yes, but very few as compared with the days back in the thirties.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What do you tell them?


James Garfield Gardiner: The correspondence which comes in now is trivial compared with what it was then. The only resolutions that I have had have come from people who have said, "So and so has called my attention to the fact." Well, now, 1 did not require anybody to call my attention to the facts that existed back in the thirties, when this act was put on the statute books. Everybody had their attention drawn to the facts every time they went out to look at their cattle. They had their attention drawn to the facts every time they looked toward the station to see if the hay being shipped in from Quebec had arrived yet, carrying freight at $18 a ton, and so on.
This is not a condition comparable with that at all. This is a condition under which we had more rain last summer than we knew what to do with. So while up to August our crops looked the best of any we ever saw standing, when the August rust came that grain on the top of the stocks began to disappear or shrivel up, with the result that we have not so much grain. But there is no one in this house who will say we do not have feed, and that we have to go somewhere else for it. The complaint is that we have too much feed grain, and not enough of Nos. 1,
2 and 3 wheat.
Somebody said something about No. 6. Well, one of the characteristics of No. 6 is that you cannot make much flour out of it. But you can feed pigs with it, and you can feed cattle with it. There is nobody complaining about lack of feed. We do not have to ship hay in from away up at Le Pas or Quebec or Minnesota, and certainly in the years immediately before 1939 we were shipping feed in from all those places, giving relief to the farmers everywhere.
This act was put on the statute books because of that experience; but to take it back into the committee on agriculture at present and bring it back into this house in order to amend it would bring up a discussion of conditions so different from those which existed at the time the act was placed on the statute books that most people would begin to wonder why this happened at all.


The farmers know why. The farmers knew that when they did not pass these resolutions which were spoken about, and they still understand it. It is all very well for my hon. friends to laugh, but they do not go to Liberal meetings, you know. When we have Liberal meetings out in Saskatchewan we explain these things. Some of our friends may peek around the corners and look in the doors from outside, but they do not get the full argument. So they come down here to Ottawa and talk as though they are speaking for the farmers when, in fact, the farmers out west know exactly what the situation is. They understand it very well.
Perhaps I should say something about the act itself. The hon. member for Moose Mountain was going to ask me a question this morning. I phoned to tell him I did not have the full information, but that I would get it. He has brought the question up tonight. I have the information before me now.
The question he asked me the other day was whether or not Selkirk wheat was being figured in the computation as to whether certain townships would be paid or would not be paid; that is, whether their crop was less than 8 bushels to the acre or whether it was more than that.
I told him a few days ago when he asked me the question in the house that it was my understanding that the 6 bushel lots which had been turned over by the government to a good many farmers in western Canada to be sown in order to have their Selkirk seed for next year-which is resistant to 15-B rust-did not come into the computation at all. I must say that I have phoned Regina since, and that I did not have exactly the right idea in my own mind at the time. But the facts are true, nevertheless. I thought we had found it necessary in the beginning to say that particular wheat was not taken into the computation. Now I am told that what actually did happen was this: that they checked the municipalities and the Selkirk wheat grown from these 6 bushel lots did not make any difference in any of the municipalities that were checked. Those that were under 8 were sufficiently under that the bringing in of the rule would not have made any difference; and those that were under 4 were sufficiently under that bringing them in did not put them into a higher bracket.
There was only one case left, and presumably it was the one brought up by the hon. member for Moose Mountain tonight. There was one case of one area of which they were not certain until yesterday, and the recheck of that municipality has now been passed, so payments will be made there. So there are no municipalities anywhere in the

three provinces where the 6 bushel amount, or the Selkirk grown on plots seeded by 6 bushel amounts, would make any difference.


Edward George McCullough: My
question was in respect to those contiguous sections which were taken out. I am concerned about individual farmers being taken out under that clause.


James Garfield Gardiner: They tell me today it will not make any difference to any sized section of country that is under the act. They have gone into that very carefully. If it were going to make any difference we would make a regulation about it, but they say there is no necessity for doing that because it does not affect any of the districts at all.
Well then, we did find it necessary to deal with one feature of it, and we dealt with it some weeks ago by passing an amendment to the regulations. Under the section to which my hon. friend referred-that is, section 5 (g), where we have authority to take out any section of land anywhere in the whole area-the amendment reads like this:
Those portions of land cultivated by any one fanner which were sown to rust-resistant wheat in the year 1954 if the total area so sown comprised 10 or more acres and the average yield thereon was more than 10 bushels per acre.
That comes out, and it neither figures in the computation as to whether the district comes in nor does the individual get any pay as a result of the passing of that regulation if the area remains in. I think that meets with the approval of those who have been bringing the question up. I think it meets with the approval of the hon. member for Moose Mountain who has brought it up more often than anyone else.


Edward George McCullough: I
should like to say to the minister that a farmer could well have 10 acres of Selkirk wheat and have only a part of his farm operation in Selkirk wheat. In other words, he may have 300 additional acres, and surely the minister would not say that should disqualify him because those 300 additional acres may produce a complete crop failure.


James Garfield Gardiner: Ten acres of Selkirk wheat in Saskatchewan this year means 400 bushels. I have not heard of a crop that was less than 40 bushels to the acre, and that wheat has been selling at as high as $10 a bushel. I am told that in some instances they have been offered $50 for it. The price that has been set by the department is from $5 to $7 a bushel. If they can get $7 a bushel for 400 bushels of wheat it means $2,800 and there is no necessity for any payment under this particular legislation in instances of
Prairie Farm Assistance Act that kind. Therefore we think that the matter is dealt with. The only reason we have set 10 bushels instead of 8 bushels to the acre is that it would be a little difficult to distinguish as between 10 bushels and 8 bushels. In any case there are very few instances of that kind-I do not know of any-where Selkirk wheat got down to 10 bushels to the acre. I do not think anybody is shut out who is being hurt by this method of dealing with it.
I say these things in order to repeat this. We have not forgotten about the changes in conditions. We did not forget about them at the time this act was put through. I have said before, and I am going to repeat now, it took me three months to get this bill through council 15 years ago. Do not run away with the idea that they did not think of pretty nearly everything in bringing up difficulties and suggesting them, and we had to find a way around them. Finally we found it. Then I brought it to this house, and I must say that by the time it got here most hon. members seemed to be in the condition of mind or spirit where they were quite prepared to put it through in a short time, so we got it through in a fairly short time.
It has run along up to now, and I am very pleased that hon. members have found it acceptable, though they think that there might be some little changes made in it. But let me call your attention to this. Bring that act into this house at the present time under the conditions I have described in western Canada and ask this house to double the payments, to pay $50 million instead of paying $25 million-


Hazen Robert Argue: And it would go through
unanimously.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, yes; I have seen-


Hazen Robert Argue: Hon. members would recommend it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have seen things go through before, and not many of them go through unanimously. I am quite sure this one would not. I have never brought anything to this house yet in the 20 years I have been here that I could not stand up and defend from A to Z. I certainly could not defend that proposal. If my hon. friends had been a little more considerate of what might be the proper thing to do and just said to increase the payments, there might have been some argument for increasing them a little, though not nearly so much as hon. members have indicated, if you base those increases on the figures I have given.

Prairie Farm Assistance Act
The farmer realizes that he has had better treatment than would be indicated by the figures which were given by hon. members criticizing the act. I am quite sure if this legislation is looked at again, if hon. members will consider it from every point of view, it will go a long way toward settling the troubles that are looked upon as possibilities in the future. I do not think they will be there.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell us about the dam.


James Garfield Gardiner: Another hon. member back here wants to speak, anyway. If I sit down, he will just have to start. If you will call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I shall move the adjournment of the debate.


Solon Earl Low: Before the minister sits down, will he put on record a statement of the collections from the 1 per cent payment over the areas for which he quoted payments?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I will give the totals all together. I will not try to go through them all. From 1939-40 to 1953-54 the collections in Manitoba amounted to $12,465,000. I will just give round figures. In Saskatchewan the collections amounted to $44,343,000; in Alberta, $22,885,000; and unallocated, $14,744. Some of those I presume would be from the area in British Columbia. The total is $79,708,145. In Manitoba, the expenditures amounted to $3,924,000; in Saskatchewan, $104,969,000; in Alberta, $36,921,000; other payments, British Columbia largely, $290,526. The total is $146,105,000. If you want to get the total down to the end of March this year you will have to add approximately $25 million.


Solon Earl Low: That is the payments.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, the receipts will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $4 million.


Mr. Bryce:: When the minister is putting these tables on record will he also give us the districts that are paying into this fund and getting nothing out of it?


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member for Selkirk has been coming back to that. I am sorry he was not here during the last two or three years when we dealt with some of these things. But he is back again, and I have no hesitation in explaining the matter to him.
When this legislation was put on the statute books it was to cover the wheat growing areas, and when we put it on we explained that one of the reasons it was necessary to have it was that the administration of the natural resources, including the lands of the prairies, was carried on from Ottawa for a considerable time. They put

people in areas where it was too dry to farm, and some of them had to be moved off.
When the hon. member for Assiniboia gave the figures a few moments ago of the number of farmers we had in that area some years ago and the number we have now, he forgot to state that we moved a lot of people off those lands. We moved them off because the land was too dry for them to farm. We put the lands into pastures to help the farmers who were living around about the pastures. Some were moved over into the neighbourhood of the rolling hills at Brooks. Some of them we are moving now into the area around Vauxhall in Alberta. Many of them were moved to other sections of the province of Saskatchewan, but still outside that area.
We moved those people; but the question my hon. friend asks me is, what about the area up between the lakes? They are not able to benefit under this act. We amended the act, I think in 1947 or somewhere around there, because we found that some people were being put back on those lands in certain areas by the provincial authorities. Some people were being put back on the lands that we had taken them off, and so we brought in legislation providing that if the provincial government put anyone on those lands, or on any other lands, from 1940 down to a certain date, it was presumed that they had put them in under conditions where they could make a living without having the benefits of this act. We said that if the act was to be made to apply to everybody, if anyone bought that land afterward then this government would be asked to pay something we do not think we should pay. Therefore we took the matter to the agriculture committee and thrashed it out there. Then we decided where the line should be run in Alberta. We were not able to decide where it should run in Saskatchewan and Manitoba until a year later. A year later we decided the lines there, saying that this particular amendment would not apply to anyone who came in north of those lines.
That is the reason some of those people over in that area are not able to draw benefits. But I call the attention of my hon. friend to the fact that everybody in Montreal who is a taxpayer pays into this; everybody in Toronto who is a taxpayer pays; everybody in Vancouver who is a taxpayer pays, and so with Regina, Saskatoon and everywhere else.


An hon. Member:: We pay for gold.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend reminds me of something I had forgotten.


William Scottie Bryce: I know what the minister is telling me. He is telling me what I want to

know, that we are paying 1 per cent and getting no benefit from it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was coming around to telling you; I expected my hon. friend would say something like that. My hon. friend says they are paying in the 1 per cent in these areas and they are not being paid. But the 1 per cent which is paid does not equal the amount being paid out of revenues. My hon. friend spoke about his area. What about Gladstone right across the lake? There is not a chance of the people in Gladstone municipality drawing under this act as a rule, as they have not had a crop failure, unless it is this year because of rust. Take the municipality in which I live. We have not come under this act at any time, yet we pay in our 1 per cent. That is the principle underlying any co-operative effort; it goes right back to biblical days. We bear one another's burdens. We are told that people who want to help out should give of their substance, and so we are saying that everybody should help. My hon. friend called something to my attention a moment ago.


An hon. Member:: Gold.


James Garfield Gardiner: As' for paying for gold, I do want to call attention to the fact-


Mr. Speaker:: It being five minutes past ten o'clock perhaps we can call it ten o'clock.


James Garfield Gardiner: I just wanted to add that the hon. member for Assiniboia has proved that we take care of everybody else, therefore we ought to take care of the grain grower in western Canada. He says that everybody has been taken care of, why not take care of wheat growers. I agree this government has been good for all Canada.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harris:: Tomorrow we shall consider the motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of supply. When that is completed we shall take up the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) with respect to the War Veterans Allowance Act. We shall then take up Bill No. 3.
I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that there are six or seven comparatively innocuous resolutions on the order paper that I think we should dispose of fairly soon in order to get some work done and ready for the other place. I would ask hon. members to take a look at them to see if we could not arrange to dispose of them in short order some day that can be agreed on. These are items Nos. 13, 14, 21, 24, 27, 31 and 32.
Business of the House


Mr. Green:: I suppose that once we get into supply the estimates of three departments will be referred to the estimates committee. Can the minister tell us this evening which estimates will be considered first in the committee? It is essential to have that information because it may be necessary to make certain changes in the personnel of the estimates committee.


Walter Edward Harris: I am not a member of the committee, so I would not want to say what they would decide to do. But if the committee chose to consider the estimates of citizenship and immigration first that would be agreeable to us.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister tell us how many departments will be called if we do get into supply some time tomorrow?


Walter Edward Harris: We would like to call six in order to provide as follows: three to go to the committee on estimates; one, external affairs, to be made available for further discussion if it is found desirable to do that and two to be made available to the committee of supply itself for consideration. It may be that hon. members will feel that there ought to be only one for that purpose, but I think they will agree that with supply on Thursdays and Fridays it would be convenient to have two departments for the government to call, depending on what minister may be available.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has a very kindly way of making these suggestions. However, we do feel that putting in six departments at once is asking for one too many. We suggest that five be set by the government on this occasion. Is that satisfactory?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us settle for four.


Walter Edward Harris: I have no objection to limiting the number to five. I do point out, however, that we have agreed to send four or five to the estimates committee, and we are being asked to keep that down to three. I had hoped that the estimates committee would have some estimates to deal with at the earliest possible moment so they will not be considering estimates in May or June, when we ought to be dealing with them in the house.


Howard Charles Green: They are going to deal with the estimates of just one department at a time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Citizenship will be there for some time.


[Stage Direction]
It being ten minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

		* r ~ 'V	.. ' V '
			i[DOT]'[DOT]
			
			
			r -	
			~ r 'i
			* . * >
Tuesday, February 22, 1955