1956-02-16

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that the Clerk has laid on the table the tenth report of the clerk of petitions. In connection with the petition referred to in this report, however, I received a memorandum from the Clerk which is to the following effect:
It is my duty to inform you that, although the petition presented by Mr. Goode on Wednesday last meets the requirements of Standing Order 70 as to form, it is irregular, in my opinion, on the grounds that it does not set forth a case in which the house has jurisdiction to interfere. See page 814 of May's Parliamentary Practice, 15th Edition.
This petition prays that this House may be pleased to take such measures as may be deemed expedient for the purpose of having the government of Canada and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation consider the advisability of permitting the establishment of a private television station in Burnaby, B.C.
By virtue of the Canadian Broadcasting Act, chapter 32. R.S.C., 1952 and of the Radio Act, chapter 233, R.S.C., 1952, Parliament has decided that licences to operate private television stations shall be issued by the Minister of Transport, with the approval of the Governor in Council. The relevant sections of the respective acts read as follows:
Section 22(1) of the Canadian Broadcasting Act: "The Minister of Transport shall before dealing with any application for licence to establish a new private station or for increase in power, change of channel, or change of location of any existing private station, or making any regulations or changes in regulations governing the activities of private stations, refer such application or regulation to the Corporation and the Corporation shall give public notice thereof in the Canada Gazette and shall make such recommendation to the Minister of Transport as it may deem fit; the approval of the Governor in Council shall be obtained before any licence for a new private station is issued."
Section 5(1) of the Radio Act:
"No person shall establish a radio station or private receiving station, or install, operate or have in his possession a radio apparatus at any place in Canada or on any aircraft registered in Canada, except under and in accordance with a licence granted by the Minister in that behalf."
It is my opinion that since Parliament has vested in the Governor in Council and in the Minister of Transport the exclusive authority to approve and issue licences for the operation of television stations, the House has no jurisdiction in such matters. See Citation 600 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 3rd Edition.
Therefore, I maintain that according to the practice of this House, the petition should not be received.
I concur in the opinion given to me by the Clerk and therefore beg to inform the hon. member and the house that this petition cannot be received.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the house may be interested to know that a further reduction in the commonwealth forces serving under the United Nations command in Korea has been decided upon.
In so far as this country is concerned the present Canadian component of some 300 officers and men will be reduced to a small detachment of about 40 personnel of the Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps and the Royal Canadian Dental Corps. They will continue to provide medical and dental facilities to all commonwealth troops in Korea.
Our reduction will be phased in with that of other commonwealth countries concerned. These withdrawals are to begin next month and are to be completed as soon as practicable thereafter.
The commonwealth force then remaining in Korea will include a British infantry battalion and supporting detachments from Canada, Australia and New Zealand. This force will be known as the commonwealth contingent, Korea, and will retain its identity under the United Nations command.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: May
I ask the minister if there are any Canadian casualties in Korea at the present time?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think not but I shall inquire.



INQUIRY AS TO INSTALLATION OF JET ENGINE IN FIGHTER AIRCRAFT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I directed a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence which he took as notice. I wonder when I might expect an answer.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. P. T. Hellyer (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: On
Friday last the hon. member asked the following question:
Is the Pratt and Whitney turbo jet engine a more advanced design than the K-57 to be installed in Canada's first supersonic fighter aircraft?
For obvious reasons I cannot go into details but the short answer to the hon. member's question is that the engine which is being considered for the first test CF-105 aircraft is of a more advanced design than the J-57, presumably the engine to which he referred.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Can the minister or his parliamentary assistant state whether it is intended that this particular engine should be standard equipment in the CF-105?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, I think if the hon. member had followed the answer just given he would have his answer. The parliamentary assistant said that the engine to which he was referring was to be used in the first of the new planes when they have been developed to that point. They are not the engines intended to be used when these planes are actually in production.


John Angus MacLean: I wonder if the minister is aware-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Angus MacLean: -that advertisements are appearing in the press to the effect that this will be done. It leaves the implication that this is standard equipment.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am not aware of advertisements having been placed in the press to that effect and I do not think that the question is relevant. I have had nothing to do with putting advertisements in newspapers in this connection.



PIPE LINES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he will arrange to table a copy of the undertaking given by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited in regard to its method of public financing.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall such a document but I shall be glad to look into the matter. I think probably we have the information and, if so, I will table it.



SUGGESTED ASSISTANCE TO BE GIVEN EUROPEAN NATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the government giving any thought to the possibility of Canada sending supplies or trying in some way to render help to the people of Europe in view of the suffering and loss of life being caused by the unprecedented weather in that part of the world?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): I received notice of this question from the hon. member just before I came into the chamber. Of course everyone sympathizes with those who have suffered from the unprecedented weather conditions in Europe, but the information we have is very slight, scanty and insufficient at this time and it would be premature to try to come to any conclusion as to whether the situation does or does not require assistance from outside Europe.



PRICES PAID TO PRODUCERS IN RELATION TO FLOOR PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister received any complaints that poul-trymen are receiving below the floor price for eggs in Saskatchewan?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: I have not.


Edward George McCullough: I
should like to ask a supplementary question. I do not like to egg the minister into giving an answer, but I should like to ask him if he has received a copy of the article which appeared in the Star-Phoenix of February 9?
[Later: ]
On the orders of the day:


Edward George McCullough: Now
that the Minister of Agriculture has read the article I referred to, I wonder whether he would answer my supplementary question.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no answer I can give other than the answer I have given the hon. member on two or three occasions. The answer is that we offer 38 cents a dozen for grade A large eggs in storage at cold storage plants. If eggs are delivered there the prices board will of course make provision for storing the eggs subject to the fact that they

will take them over at 38 cents a dozen, if necessary, on December 1 next. But if the eggs are not delivered to a storage plant where they can be taken care of, of course the plan does not come into operation.
Again, in the province of Saskatchewan there has not been sufficient storage at times to store eggs, and I presume that with the high production at present that may be the condition. If there is no storage space in which they can be stored they must be shipped to Winnipeg or Calgary, and in either case it will of course cost something to get them there.
The last time that situation existed eggs were worth 27 cents a dozen at points out from Swift Current when they were being stored in Winnipeg at 38 cents. I am not at all certain whether or not the prices in the Star-Phoenix constitute breaking the floor, but there is a very simple way in which the floor price can be enforced. This government has no right to set the price for eggs in any province but we have the right to say that we will buy eggs at a particular price. We have said we will buy them at 38 cents in storage as of the 1st of December, and any provincial government can pass a law compelling the delivery of eggs on this basis without taking any chance of losing anything. The government of Saskatchewan can do that at any time.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to state whether or not he was correctly quoted in the Calgary Herald of February 10 to the following effect:
There will be "absolutely no interference" between doctor and patient under the national health insurance plan, health and welfare minister Paul Martin told this writer today.
"This is one provision upon which I will absolutely insist," declared the minister.


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, perhaps better than anyone else in this house because of discussions he and I have had, my own personal view, and I think the view of most people in this country, is that that should be the eventuating situation. Of course that matter is something that could not in any way be decided by the federal government as it would be up to each province to decide.


Owen C. Trainor: May I ask a supplementary question. Would not strict adherence to such
Inquiries of the Ministry a principle completely disrupt medical education as it is carried on in this country?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend is now quoting what two of his colleagues in Winnipeg said the other day. I can only say to him that he, and the two doctors in question, should address themselves to the proper jurisdiction, the provincial government.
lLater:i


Owen C. Trainor: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, supplementary to my previous question. In the light of his assertion of provincial jurisdiction in this matter, may I ask what particular provincial government he was representing in his press release?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not believe there was any press release in question. I assume the question my hon. friend is putting now is intended to be serious. On that assumption, he knows as well as I do that the provincial government in question in his case would be the government of Manitoba. Having said that, the hon. gentleman will have to determine whether or not the same principle applies to the two doctors he has in mind.



INQUIRY AS TO INCLUSION OF T.B. AND MENTAL CASES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: I
should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In the submission of the health plan to the various provinces, were tuberculosis and mental cases included? If not, why were they not included, and is consideration being given thereto?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: They were not included. For many years they have been recognized as a provincial responsibility and the submission that was being made was for the provision of additional services to those already in existence.


Mr. Fleming:: May I ask a supplementary question? Does that exclusion apply to mental health patients in general hospitals or only to patients in mental hospitals?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: This is still a matter that has not been finally determined, but the intention was to exclude the mental hospitals that have been in existence for all time as provincial institutions.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But not necessarily the mental health patients who are in general hospitals?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, I am not a physician and I am not in a position to draw precise distinctions. It was intended

Inquiries of the Ministry to make no change with respect to the provincial responsibility in regard to the unfortunate people who suffer from mental troubles nor with regard to the tuberculosis sanatoria.



THE VICTORIA CROSS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on January 31 the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hosking) inquired from me whether the government was considering sending Canadian war heroes who had been awarded the Victoria Cross to attend the ceremonies that will mark the creation of that military award next June. At that time I stated that an interdepartmental committee had been set up to get the necessary information and that I would be in a position to make a further announcement later.
I wish now to say that the United Kingdom government has advised the government of Canada of the celebrations planned in June of this year to mark the centenary of the Victoria Cross decoration and has expressed the hope that Canadian holders of the Victoria Cross will be able to attend.
The ceremonies include a service in Westminster Abbey on the afternoon of June 25, a review by Her Majesty the Queen of all V.C. holders in Hyde Park on the morning of the 26th, and a garden party in the grounds of Marlborough House that afternoon which will be attended by Her Majesty the Queen Mother.
Invitations to these functions will be sent upon request to three groups: (a) to each surviving holder of the Victoria Cross and one near relative; (b) to two near relatives of each posthumous recipient, one of whom must be the person to whom the medal was actually presented; and (c) to one near relative-parent, brother, sister, widow or child -of each deceased holder of the Victoria Cross.
The government of the United Kingdom has asked us to undertake the task of ascertaining the names and addresses of those eligible persons who would like to receive invitations. The interdepartmental committee to which I referred earlier has been charged with the responsibility of looking after this and other matters connected with the trip. This committee is endeavouring to contact by letter those eligible persons for whom we have addresses, to advise them of the celebrations and to ascertain if they plan to attend.
I would point out, however, that we do not have the addresses of all those who may be


eligible to receive invitations and that some of the addresses we have may not be up to date. To ensure that no one is unaware of this centenary and the invitations which are available, the committee suggests that those who consider themselves eligible write as soon as possible to the deputy minister of the Department of Veterans Affairs. We hope, too, that the veterans organizations in Canada will help us to find those who are eligible and who, otherwise, might be missed.
Finally, in order to assist those who receive Her Majesty's invitations to attend the ceremonies, the government is making arrangements to provide free return transportation from their homes to London. It is expected that they will have approximately one week in England before commencing the return trip.



CANADIAN REPRESENTATIVES AT INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the international wheat agreement conference is to take place in Geneva on the 20th of this month, would the minister say who the representatives from Canada will be; are they being given specific instructions as to the limitations within which the prices shall be supported by them; and, finally, what are the prospects of Britain rejoining the international wheat agreement?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the meeting at Geneva begins in the course of a day or two. Our delegation is headed by the associate deputy minister of the department, Mr. Sharp. However, Mr. Sharp cannot leave for there immediately and will join the delegation later. At the moment it is headed by Mr. McNamara, one of the members of the wheat board. Associated with him is Mr. Charles Wilson, who is one of the officers of the department responsible for wheat matters in Europe. There are also six farm advisers attending, including the heads of the three wheat pools, the head of the United Grain Growers, the head of the Canadian council of agriculture and the head of the Saskatchewan farmers' union. These six delegates are there now.
The instructions are generally that we would like to see the wheat agreement be continued much in the form that it is in today. We are not prepared to take any material reduction in the floor price. There is some flexibility in our views about the maximum

price. We will only be interested if a substantial quantity of wheat is included in the agreement. We think that about two-thirds of the wheat entering into the channels of commerce is the minimum that could be considered. Aside from that, the instructions of the delegation are to negotiate in the hope that a satisfactory agreement can be arranged.



INQUIRY AS TO PROGRESS OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH RUSSIAN DELEGATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
["Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am in a position to answer the hon. member's question which dealt with complaints made by representatives of the united fishermen and allied workers' union against the United States immigration authorities. These complaints alleged, as my hon. friend has stated, that union delegates to meetings in Seattle had been unnecessarily delayed and questioned by United States authorities at the border.\nI may say, Mr. Speaker, that the secretary of the union earlier had forwarded a similar complaint to me. In my reply to him I pointed out that the immigration authorities of any country have a right to question persons who are seeking entry to that country, but I asked 67509-79J\nInquiries of the Ministry the secretary of the union for more specific information on the particular incident of which he had complained without giving details, in order that we could decide whether the incident in question warranted a protest or intervention in Washington. Thus far, Mr. Speaker, I have had no reply to that communication.\nI might also say, Mr. Speaker, that the agreements between Canada and the United States which established the international halibut commission and the international Pacific fisheries commission do not obligate either member country to grant special entry privileges for persons, such as members of fishermen's unions, who are eligible to be present at meetings of these commissions but who are not, of course, members of the commissions."]
Donald Methuen Fleming: May
I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he will acquaint the house with the progress being made in the trade negotiations with the Russian delegation? Second, will he tell us whether any question of strategic materials is involved in these negotiations?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I am quite unable to report on the progress being made except to say that the negotiations are continuing in a spirit of harmony. Materials of strategic importance are eliminated from coverage by the treaty. In other words, the security provisions of the treaty are adequate to deal with strategic materials.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is he in a position now to answer my question of February 10 when I referred to certain charges having been made that Canadian citizens were subjected to unnecessary questioning by United States immigration authorities while on the way to a conference in Seattle?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am in a position to answer the hon. member's question which dealt with complaints made by representatives of the united fishermen and allied workers' union against the United States immigration authorities. These complaints alleged, as my hon. friend has stated, that union delegates to meetings in Seattle had been unnecessarily delayed and questioned by United States authorities at the border.
I may say, Mr. Speaker, that the secretary of the union earlier had forwarded a similar complaint to me. In my reply to him I pointed out that the immigration authorities of any country have a right to question persons who are seeking entry to that country, but I asked 67509-79J
Inquiries of the Ministry the secretary of the union for more specific information on the particular incident of which he had complained without giving details, in order that we could decide whether the incident in question warranted a protest or intervention in Washington. Thus far, Mr. Speaker, I have had no reply to that communication.
I might also say, Mr. Speaker, that the agreements between Canada and the United States which established the international halibut commission and the international Pacific fisheries commission do not obligate either member country to grant special entry privileges for persons, such as members of fishermen's unions, who are eligible to be present at meetings of these commissions but who are not, of course, members of the commissions.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. Langlois (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I undertook to answer a question asked by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) as reported at page 1201 of Hansard, and having to do with a request for the installation of a fog alarm at Horse Islands, Newfoundland.
I wish to point out to the hon. member that, according to my information, there is more than one island known under that name in Newfoundland. However, a search of our files would indicate that no such request for any of these islands has as yet reached the department.
REPORTED SINKING OF DEPARTMENTAL VESSEL "hilunga"
On the orders of the day:


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Public Works. Will he give to the house details of the reported sinking this morning of the Department of Public Works vessel Hilunga off the Queen Charlotte islands?


Hon. Roch Pinard (Acting Minister of Public Works):: The hon. gentleman informed me before I came into the house he intended to ask this question, but I have not yet received a final report. The preliminary report would indicate that it is correct that an inspection boat was lost off the coast of British Columbia. Fortunately, the report would indicate also that it would be fair to assume

Inquiries of the Ministry there was no loss of life. Officials of the department expect to receive a final report tomorrow and it will then be made available to the hon. gentleman and the house.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence in connection with the same mishap referred to by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. Can the minister tell us if any R.C.A.F. planes were available for rescue service in this instance, and if any of them proceeded to the scene of the wreck?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I will take the question as notice.



DISABLED PERSONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is the minister in a position to make any revision in the reply he made to my question of February 8 with reference to the report of the national advisory committee on the rehabilitation of disabled persons?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker. However, I should like to take advantage of the occasion to enlarge on the answer that I gave at that time and to say this. The day before my hon. friend asked her question, a delegation from the national advisory committee on the rehabilitation of disabled persons met with my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) and myself and presented a report which had been prepared by the national committee. After they had presented that report to us and asked us to take it under consideration, it was suggested that when we had a chance to make a comment on it, that comment might be referred to the main committee; then a decision could be reached as to whether or not the whole report should be made public generally.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: May I direct a supplementary question to the minister? From the minister's remarks do I understand that it is not the intention of the government to make this report in its present form available to members of this house?


Milton Fowler Gregg: If Dr. McNally's committee- and Dr. McNally is the chairman of the national advisory committee-desire to do so, there will be no objection whatsoever. However, I do not think that those reports that come from advisory committees-and there are many of them-should each necessarily be made the subject of tabling in this house.
[Mr. Pinard.l
I should be glad to consult with my colleagues and, at whatever time appears to the committee to be appropriate, to make it available to those who wish to study it.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare? Will the minister take note of the malnutrition and starving taking place in Montreal, particularly amongst old age pensioners, as reported in this morning's-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -Montreal Gazette on page
10.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman knows quite well I am always ahead of him on these things.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct a supplementary question to the minister? If he says he is always a step ahead, will he tell the house what he has done about this tragic situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have not heard the question but I rose merely to tell the hon. member that his first question should not have been asked.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. C. Van Horne (Resligouche-Mada-waska):: I regret that I was unable to give the Minister of Labour notice of this question because I just received a telegram concerning the matter. What action, if any, is being taken to overcome the terrific tie-up and delays in the unemployment insurance offices in Campbellton and Edmundston?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I shall be glad to take notice of my hon. friend's question and look into the matter.



PROVISION FOR GUARANTEE OF BANK LOANS TO PRODUCERS IN PRAIRIE PROVINCES, ETC.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, February 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe (Port * Arthur) for the second reading of Bill No. 82, to provide for shortterm credit to grain producers in the prairie

Grain
provinces to meet temporary financial difficulties arising from inability to deliver all their grain, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Johnson (Kindersley).
Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, when the house closed at six o'clock yesterday I was at the point of drawing attention to the fact that the policy, or lack of policy as the case may be, followed by the present government with respect to the grain delivery crisis was in fact undermining the whole system of orderly marketing of grain in Canada.
I had drawn attention to the fact that in 1946 and subsequent years the government of Canada sold the idea to the grain producers of a stabilized system of marketing and that on the basis of their undertaking to market the grain through the Canadian wheat board and under the terms of the British wheat agreement and later through the international wheat agreement the grain producers of Canada were prepared to accept a ceiling price on their grain and in fact did accept a lower price than was offered on the open market at that time on the understanding that this was being done in the interests of stabilized marketing both from the point of view of price and from the point of view of supply.
What has transpired since then has indicated that the government has failed to carry out its share of the bargain, and the present grain delivery crisis with which this house is concerned and which is the reason for this bill which is now before us is only an indication that at the present time the government is attempting to get rid of the responsibility which it had taken on in good faith and which the farmer had accepted in good faith back in 1946.
I believe that this is one of the most important issues in relation to the legislation we are now discussing; that is, unless effective steps are taken by this parliament to assure to the grain producer that he shall receive cash for his grain and that he shall have an opportunity to deliver that grain within a reasonable length of time to the wheat board, then the whole principle underlying the question of orderly marketing will be seriously undermined.
That is one of the reasons why members of the C.C.F. group who have always stood foursquare for the principle of orderly marketing and the principle of the Canadian wheat board have so anxiously been following up this question to place squarely before this house and the country the dangers which may arise out of the lack of action on the part of the government to meet the responsibilities which are inherent in this whole question.
I think that if the government were prepared to give three assurances to the grain producers of Canada it would go a long way towards allaying the fears and anxiety which are very real and which I must assure the government are more real than is sometimes evident from the remarks made in this house across the floor from here. A genuine anxiety exists as to what the future holds for the Canadian grain producers.
If the government could give an assurance to Canadian agriculture that it is willing to accept the principle of parity prices, that in itself would go a long way towards allaying the anxiety under which grain producers of the west and farmers in general are now suffering.
If the government could assure the grain producer at this time that it is prepared to set a floor for export wheat of $1.55 a bushel and that it is willing to provide a floor price for domestic consumption which would be as close to parity as possible-at the present time it is calculated that it would be about $2.20 per bushel-that second assurance would go a long way towards allaying the fears which the grain producers have.
And, as a third assurance, if the government could assure the farmers that it is taking concrete and effective steps to assure that the grain which is now on the farms will be delivered or facilities will be provided for it to be delivered within a reasonable time to the grain elevators, that again would go a long way to allay those anxieties.
But as this debate has progressed to this point none of these assurances have been forthcoming. That is one of the reasons why I believe it would be advisable to place this whole question, the subject matter of this bill which is now before us, the whole question of how to get cash into the hands of the farmers who have produced the grain and are holding it available for delivery, which means that they have fulfilled their part of the contract; what is the best way in which to convert that grain into cash now, next year, the year after and so on. This bill as it now stands does not even begin to deal with that question.
It is a very narrow bill providing for guarantees to the banks. It has many weaknesses and therefore is completely unsatisfactory. I am sure that if this whole question were referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization, as is called for by the amendment now before the house, we would have an opportunity to call in representatives of the various farm organizations in Canada, of the three prairie wheat pools and of any other interested organizations, as well as other persons who had

Grain
some advice to offer and who, together with hon. members who are members of that committee, could hammer out an agricultural policy that would mean something, that would have some stability and some future, and not something made up of bits and pieces, of expediency. It would be something based on sound economic principles and sound agricultural principles. It is something which is overdue, it is something which is needed.
I find it most difficult to understand why hon. members who support the government, or members of the government, should take a stand against the acceptance of this amendment. All that the amendment asks for is that the whole question be referred to the standing committee which is constituted for that very purpose. Why do we have a standing committee on agriculture and colonization if it is not to deal with this kind of problem? Why should the government or the members supporting the government take the stand that that committee, which after all has a majority representation from the supporters of the government, which is made up of members from all sides of the house-why should that committee not be trusted to carry out the functions which it was intended to carry out?
I want to make a particular appeal to my colleagues from the province of Manitoba. We have not heard very much in this debate so far from members supporting the government from the province of Manitoba. Apart from the hon. member from Provencher (Mr. Jutras), we have not heard from any other hon. member. Most significant of all, we have not heard from the only minister in the cabinet from the province of Manitoba, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). I would hope that before this debate is over he would take advantage of this opportunity to tell the house what in his opinion are the wishes and desires of the farmers of the province of Manitoba.
I want to make this appeal to them on this occasion. Let them vote for this amendment on its merits. It has been amply pointed out that there is no need whatever for the government or any supporter of the government to regard this amendment as a motion of want of confidence. The amendment calls for what I would consider to be an efficient and effective method of dealing with a problem which has many implications. We are asking that it be submitted to the proper committee of this house, a committee which incidentally has a member from Manitoba as chairman. Certainly he should be the last one to object to having this question placed before the committee where it belongs.

I appeal to them to approach the members of the government. I do not think it is too late to ask the government to change its mind on this question. It has changed its mind before. I remember not so many months ago when the government said, "Never, never, never" and then at the end said, "Well, hardly ever". The members of the government did change their minds and I think they should change their minds again.
I appeal to my colleagues from Manitoba. For example, does the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Weaver) think that the farmers in the Swan river valley are in agreement with the subject matter of this bill as it now stands, or does he think that perhaps they have something better to offer? I would ask the Minister of Justice if he thinks that the farmers in the area of Minnedosa, for example, are in favour of this bill. If he is in any doubt at all, all he has to do is to refer to the press clippings to refresh his memory.
I would ask the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir) if he thinks the farmers of the Portage plain are content with the legislation the government is now proposing and if they have not already expressed themselves rather strongly in favour of a different method, namely the method of cash advances suggested by the C.C.F. I would ask the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Pommer) whether the farmers in his constituency are satisfied with this bill.
I need hardly ask the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Weselak) what the farmers in his constituency think, because along with the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) I had the privilege of attending a meeting at which the hon. member for Springfield was also present which was held in the town of Beausejour in that constituency. It was a most interesting and I think most effective meeting. The farmers who gathered there left no doubt in anyone's mind, including the mind of the hon. member for Springfield, as to where they stood on this question of cash advances as opposed to this bank loan bill.
I ask those hon. members who represent the farmers of Manitoba along with the rest of us whether they feel deep down in their hearts that they are doing the right thing by the people whom they represent, either by keeping silent or by acquiescing or giving approval to this bill, which is simply a cheap substitute for what the farmers are really asking for. If they are not satisfied, and I am sure they are not and they know the people whom they represent are not, then I think it is their duty as members of this

Grain
house, as representatives of western agriculture, not only to say so on the floor of this house but to say so in caucus and directly to the ministers who lead this government.
They should tell them that on this occasion it is the desire of this house, the desire of the membership of this house, that we have a free vote. I ask the government to call off the whips, to remove the shackles of unquestioning approval which they always seek from their supporters, or acquiescence, and on this occasion allow them to express themselves on this amendment both verbally and by their votes, on the basis of what they actually feel is the opinion and desire of the people whom they represent. Let this parliament carry out its function as a democratic parliament, let it not be regarded merely as the tool of a tyrannical ministry.
I think one of the measures of the greatness of any statesman in any government is the ability to change his mind when he feels he has made a mistake. We often hear eulogies of praise for Sir Winston Churchill, one of the outstanding statesmen of the day. Those who have read even his own words about his own life have been struck by the number of times he changed his mind about most serious matters in his own country and in the international sphere. It is perhaps a measure of the greatness of a man who is big enough to admit that under changing circumstances and conditions he is willing to revise his opinion.
I think that that would be a wise move on the part of the government today. Certainly this debate, if it has indicated anything, has indicated that the government has made a comedy of errors right down the line. They started out wrong to begin with. Last fall when this issue became a live one on the prairies-it did not come up overnight- as soon as the new crop year began on August 1, 1955, the farm organizations and members of parliament from the west were already warning the government that there was going to be a serious grain delivery crisis affecting the prairie farmers. The government knew, certainly as early as mid-September, that something would have to be done by this parliament to provide some system under which the farmers could obtain cash in order to convert their surplus grain or grain in storage into cash in order to carry on with their farm operations.
The wise thing to have done, the democratic thing to have done, was to call a special session of parliament in the middle of October or early in November. The members of this house could have devoted their time and their energies to the solution of that
problem in a democratic fashion. The committee on agriculture could have been called together immediately. Representations could have been heard from the various farm organizations across Canada, instead of having to hold a grain conference in Saskatoon. They sent a small delegation to Ottawa to interview the cabinet, and to this day nobody seems to have the full version of what transpired at that meeting. We hear claims and counter claims. We hear that a certain minister of agriculture-for example, our own minister from Manitoba, who left Winnipeg fully instructed by his caucus to ask for cash advances for grain-somehow along the way, by the time he got down to Ottawa, found he was satisfied with bank loans.
All these things have become a mass of confusion through the inactivity of the government and its failure to call a special session of parliament in order to meet the problem at the time it was developing. Now the time has passed, and we are trying to deal with something that should have been dealt with four or five months ago and which could have been much more effectively and intelligently dealt with at that time with the advice of the farm organizations and the wheat pools, which was available to us at that time.
Even now, while the members supporting the government try to convince us that this bill before us is what the farm organizations asked for, we find that the Liberal leaders of the various provincial sections seem to contradict that very statement. Some of you may have been watching television yesterday evening. There was' a program called "Press Conference" in which the leader of the Liberal party of Alberta, Mr. Prowse, appeared. Among the questions before the panel was the question of cash advances versus this present bill. Under close questioning the Liberal leader of that province stated quite categorically that he personally was in favour of cash advances and he was not satisfied with the present bill, although he did try to make a sort of lefthanded justification for it by saying that after all the only farmers who will really bother to apply at all under this legislation are the ones who desperately need it and so it would not involve many people anyway. In other words, he tried to justify it by saying it would not be used much anyway and so it did not matter, but he was careful to place himself on record as being in favour of cash advances. One can understand his caution. Considering what has happened in the past to Liberals who have appeared on television, I think he is to be commended for his caution.

Grain


Mr. Knight:: The hon. member for Rosthern says the same thing.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: The humorous incident that occurred in Manitoba some weeks ago was a shot that is still echoing from the lakehead to the foothills. It is still bringing letters and comment. The hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Bryson) has just received a letter with a good Canadian dollar bill attached, and I assure all members of the house it is an authentic bill. The letter says:
Dear Sir.
Here is one good Canadian dollar towards replacing that busted T.V. set. The laugh was worth it.
It is signed:
Yours truly,
Disgusted Liberal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The woods are full of them.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: That is an indication of what even the former adherents of the party that is in power are feeling about this question, to say nothing of those who never voted Liberal.


Mr. Mclvor:: That means he is not hard up.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I said a moment ago that there was a general feeling by all the farm organizations now, particularly in our province, with which I am more familiar, that this bill is not acceptable. I should like to give some of the opinions included in a submission to the government by the interprovincial farm unions council, which I believe was submitted to the government today-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: -in which they set out some of the reasons why they think this bill would not be acceptable.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member to remind him of a rule that I quoted yesterday in connection with reading opinions of people outside this house, contradicting what has been said in this house or reflecting on our proceedings. I refer hon. members to citation 265, which says:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.
The hon. member should express his own views and not introduce, as I said yesterday, a two hundred and sixty-sixth member into the House of Commons.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It just so happens that the views expressed by

the interprovincial farm union were so identical with the ones I hold that I merely referred to that fact. The reasons why, in my opinion, this bill does not do what is required, are several. For example take the banking facilities. It is pointed out that in the province of Saskatchewan there are 1,200 shipping points for grain but only 196 points that are served by banks. In the province of Alberta there are only 159 points with banking facilities, and in Manitoba only 91 points with banking facilities. The whole question of cash advances could have been, and may still be, handled through the wheat board and the elevator agents, which would make it possible for any farmer at any shipping point to go to his elevator agent with his permit book and get his advance. Instead of that they are being asked to seek the services of the banks where facilities are not so widespread and also where there is no guarantee or assurance that any particular farmer will obtain the loan he seeks.
One of the great disabilities is the fact that not only is there a form to be filled out in order to establish the farmer's credit but also there are deductions to be made from the grain he has already delivered. As 1 believe the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) pointed out the other day, in many cases farmers with sufficient grain on their farms to warrant a good credit standing, but who may have been fortunate enough to deliver some of their quota before this date, find they are not able under this legislation to borrow one cent because of the deductions that have to be made first from the grain they have already delivered before they can apply for a further loan.
Then there is the whole question-and perhaps it is a very important consideration- of the experiences that farmers have had with banks and with loan and mortgage companies in the past. I hope they have not all been unhappy experiences, but unfortunately we know that in the prairies many of the experiences in the past have been very unhappy. Farmers have borrowed in good faith, in times when the grain was worth something, a relatively small amount of money, $600 or $800. Then the grain prices fell seriously, and they had to pay back the dollars they had borrowed with production that had to be doubled in volume to provide for the same dollars. The farmer who borrowed at one time $800 found he had paid back $1,200 and, owing to the compound interest, arrears and so on, he still owed $800.
All these experiences have not been forgotten and the farmers are wondering why it is that the government insists that those who can obtain loans be forced to go again

Grain
to the banks and have to pay 5 per cent interest when as a matter of fact the government has a moral responsibility, if not a legal one, to accept grain deliveries, provide facilities for those grain deliveries and provide the farmers with the cash they have already earned. I therefore hope that the private members who sit opposite us and support the government will on this occasion assert their responsibility and authority in the house by speaking to the ministers of the cabinet and asking them to declare a free vote. Let us have a free expression of opinion. If that is done I think there is no doubt that hon. members will find it wise to accept the amendment referring this matter to the committee that has been established to consider such questions so that it may find a lasting solution to this important problem.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of dealing with certain questions that have arisen during the last few days, to reiterate my opposition to the bill now before the house, and to give reasons why the amendment should be supported. I go back to the legislation of 1951. I have heard about this act on many occasions. The minister has mentioned more than once in the house that the act of 1951 entitled "The Prairie Grain Producers' Interim Financing Act" was unsuccessful and achieved very little in providing credit for western farmers. One of the major reasons for that failure was the fact that it was studded with iniquitous provisions for enforcement. One of those iniquitous provisions in the act of 1951 was this:
9. (1) A person who
(a)	states in his application an estimated quantity of crops or grain or an estimated amount that he knows to be false; or
(b)	makes any other statement in his application that is false in any material respect;
is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars and not more than five hundred dollars.
In addition, under subsection 2 upon conviction he shall be ordered to pay a penalty equal to the amount of any guaranteed loan made by him in respect of which the offence was committed as has not been repaid by him, with interest thereon to the date of the conviction. That was the first occasion in my experience that imprisonment for debt was made part of the laws of this country since imprisonment for debt was abolished many, many years ago. That section in its original form is intensified in the new bill. It is unjust and unfair. Indeed, Shylock himself could learn how to extract a pound of flesh by simply reading the sections dealing with penalties in the present bill which make every farmer who makes a mistake in the forms he has to complete liable not only to
a fine and, in default, imprisonment, but in addition a penalty to the extent of the amount of his loan. Why that was continued in the present legislation is beyond me.
That is one of the reasons why the 1951 act did not operate. When this party took the stand the other day on the resolution stage that it would support the introduction of the measure with a view to ascertaining what, the bill was, nobody here or anywhere else had any belief that the government would include such provisions in the bill as have been included.
I am going back a way to deal with the circuitous course taken by the government and in particular by the minister himself in connection with the matter. First of all, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said that the farmers did not really need money, and I think the Prime Minister is still the head of the government although there are others who doubt it. According to him, no money was needed. The farmers are not asking for much. Ridicule was heaped upon those who attended meetings in western Canada. Only today a representation was made by the interprovincial farm union council of the western provinces which indicates the almost universal demand for cash advances on farm-stored wheat everywhere throughout the west. I read from that representation, for it represents the facts:
Scores of mass protest meetings, resolutions and petitions that have developed spontaneously throughout the west accurately indicate the degree of dissatisfaction felt in rural areas regarding the guaranteed bank loans on farm-stored grain. It is felt almost unanimously that farmers should not be asked to burden themselves with added debt and interest charges because wheat is not being sold at a sufficient volume to enable the farmer to maintain his cash position.
Then they go on to point out the weaknesses of this procedure. As was indicated in his concluding remarks by the hon. member who has just taken his seat, it all results from the failure to call parliament together. It is the old, old game. When in doubt pass an order in council. Sometimes do not even bother to pass an order in council, just believe you did and proceed to act accordingly. You find out afterwards that you did not even go to that trouble because, after all, if you can legislate by order in council behind closed doors it is so much easier to save the trouble of passing an order in council. I continue with the representations of the farm union council:
Banking facilities are not readily available in many parts of the prairie provinces.
I am not going to follow that any further because that point has been dealt with.
The amount of red tape involved in securing acceptance of a bank loan application is so great

Grain
as to discourage all but the most persistent, and eliminates a good percentage of those who might otherwise qualify.
It were easier, Mr. Speaker, for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for anyone to pass the catechism and examination that is required in order to secure a loan. I repeat what I said the other day. The banks are turning down applications as soon as they find out the uses that are to be made of the money in the event they decide that the use is one that does not come within the ambit of the legislation.
The first excuse given by the government was that the farmers did not need money, that all was well. When that subterfuge and distortion of the facts was unsuccessful the right hon. gentleman produced the next story. He said that what these people who support cash advances are trying to do, indirectly or possibly directly, is to destroy the wheat board. There was a bogey! They really had one there. I am going to read the minister's words as found at page 127 of Hansard of January 16. He said:
The chairman of the board has been in the service of the government for 25 years, his duties associated solely with the marketing of western grain. Associated with him are three very able men who share in the work of the board. I can tell the house that, if the government instructed the wheat board to lend money on farm-stored grain and assume the responsibility for the lending of that money and its subsequent collection, the four members of the wheat board would be out of office within a matter of days.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Did I understand that the hon. member was reading from page 127? He will realize that is a different debate of the same session.


John George Diefenbaker: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I should have summarized it. To summarize the minister's words, he said: "I can tell you that if this happened the wheat board would be out." Of all the unmitigated nonsense that the minister has brought forth, that indeed wins prize No. 1. I tried to find out what had been done in this connection and the only way I could find out was simply by asking a question to ascertain what the situation was. As appears at page 992 of Hansard I asked these questions:
1.	Did the chairman or any members of the wheat board notify the government at any time since July 1, 1955, that they would resign within a matter of days if loans on farm-stored wheat were brought into effect? If so, which of them did so?
2.	What was the date or dates of said notification and were same given verbally or in writing?
Answer by Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):
1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1 above.
I saw immediately that there was a loophole there because I referred to loans. So

I redrafted the question in order to get the truth. Then to my surprise the Department of Trade and Commerce gave the same answer as reported at page 1096 of Hansard. The question was:
1. Did the chairman or any members of the wheat board notify the government at any time since July 1, 1955, that they would resign within a matter of days if cash advances on farm-stored wheat were brought into effect?
The answer given was no.
Mr. Speaker, that was just another of those self-created subterfuges by the right hon. gentleman to evade the demands of western farmers to have action in this regard. As a matter of fact, the minister and those associated with him, including the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), have been indicating that the western farmer really does not want this assistance, that the various organizations have not asked for it, that they are willing to accept loans and that they are not in favour of cash advances. May I just say this. It is a funny thing that we cannot get answers to the questions that we ask which will establish whether or not the western farm organizations are asking for this assistance. On January 26, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) asked the following question and it was passed as an order for return:
Motion No. 4-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, letters and telegrams, from August X to December 31, 1955, exchanged between any department of the government and any person or persons with respect to advance payments on farm-stored grain.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are thousands of pieces of paper reflecting on this question. It would save a great deal of work if my hon. friend would examine them in the office, or if he would select the ones he wants tabled. I do not think he wants all of them tabled: it would be very expensive for the government.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion will stand in the meantime?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps it could be passed with that understanding.


Mr. Argue:: That is agreeable, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: 


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
That was a rather big order. So I decided it would be easier to ascertain whether the western farm organizations were asking for this assistance. I then asked:
For a copy of all resolutions supporting the demand for cash advances on farm-stored wheat which have been received from western farm organizations and other public bodies, by the prime minister and any of the ministers of the government, or officials of the government, since the 15th day of August, 1955.
It would have been so easy to answer that question. They say that there are not many organizations asking for cash advances. I say to the government: Produce that material. I challenge the government today to

table that return. It will answer the arguments that are made across the floor of this house that the western farm organizations and public bodies are not asking for it.
The other day the right hon. gentleman indicated that it was the city folk who wanted cash advances. Let us have the return.
Mr. Dickey:: Mr. Speaker, my understanding was that that return had been tabled. It is not being held up.


John George Diefenbaker: I asked about it today and my understanding was that it had not been tabled.


John Horace Dickey: If it has not been tabled, there is some error.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the hon. gentleman table it this afternoon?


John Horace Dickey: I will check on it.


John George Diefenbaker: That is fine. I shall have accomplished my purpose in having it tabled because it will show that the farm organizations in western Canada are, I was going to say, unanimously in favour of cash advances. If there are any exceptions, I do not know of them. When that return is tabled I think it will show that every responsible farm organization on the prairies is asking for this help, that various municipalities are asking for it and that the general demand comes from the people as a whole and not from these so-called disparaged city people of whom the minister spoke so condescendingly the other day. I say to the government, "Produce that return". Then when that return is produced we will know who actually represent the viewpoint of the western people. We shall know whether it is the few members of the Liberal party from the western provinces who today find themselves in a position of trying to alibi themselves out of a position imposed on them by the authority of the minister and who because of the fact that they are required to support it, are obliged to endeavour to raise arguments which they must realize are, to say the least, ineffective and, to say the worst, most specious.


Mr. Charlion:: There is not one of them in the house now.


John Horace Dickey: Many of your members are missing.


John George Diefenbaker: The next point that was raised was that it would be impossible to have the wheat board officials pay out money, that a problem was encountered there, that they could not do it. It was said that they have not the necessary facilities in the wheat
Grain
board. All one has to do is read the Canadian Wheat Board Act, section 25, subsection 2, which reads as follows:
The board shall, if directed by regulation, pay to each producer at the time of delivery of wheat to the board, in addition to any other payment authorized by this section, a sum per bushel on account of storage of the said wheat on the producer's farm, for such period of storage as the board in its sole discretion shall fix for the purposes of such storage payment, which sum, however, shall equal the amount payable for storage in a country elevator for the same period . . .
And so on. In other words, there is in the law already a provision for these men that operate the elevators to make payments. Indeed, the whole argument falls flat when it is realized that these elevator agents who, the minister states, cannot be trusted or who are unable to pay out money, are going to be required to see that the money is collected whenever deliveries are made in order to assure that the banks shall not thereby suffer as a result of non-payment of the amounts of the loans.
Having regard to the type of answer that I received in connection with the wheat board, more and more we find in this house that the answers being given by the government, if not untruthful, are too often evasive. Indeed, many of the answers give the appearance of not providing that frankness that is necessary to be preserved in a democratic assembly. Many of the answers indicate that, before they come to the House of Commons, they have passed through the filter of political expediency. That is a serious matter in a parliamentary institution. First, there were these various excuses that were made. One was that moneys were not needed. The second was that the wheat board would resign. The third was that the wheat board did not have the necessary facilities. All of these excuses having been more or less removed, the right hon. gentleman the other day followed a new course, in threatening the independence of parliament. May I say this, Mr. Speaker. This has been an unusual session.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You are back to the bill of rights, are you?


John George Diefenbaker: This has been an unusual session. We thought we fought the last battle in this regard last July. I think it was Junius who said, back in 1760, that freedom hangs by a thread. In Canada, it was a fishing line. Yes, we ultimately achieved the supremacy of parliament, but only through the abdication of the minister who left for other purposes.
Now, what does he do? Well, he threatens the independence of parliament. Have we an oligarchy here? Are the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the Minister of Agriculture

Grain
(Mr. Gardiner) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), the oligarchy who dominate? Well, I simply point out that recently they had a meeting. Whenever the right hon. gentleman retires from politics I am hoping he will write a book on parliament, as I would like to see it. At that meeting in Ottawa on January 18, he gave his instructions as to what was to be done. I am not going to repeat what has been referred to before, but this is one particular thought that indicates the degree to which, with an overwhelming majority, this House of Commons is approaching a one-party state House of Commons. Here is what he said:
When the Prime Minister "lays down the party line, that has got to be it".


Clarence Decatur Howe: He said nothing of the kind; you do not know what he said.


John George Diefenbaker: I am reading What he said.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You are reading from what?


John George Diefenbaker: I am reading from the Ottawa Journal.


Clarence Decatur Howe: A good Tory paper. That is its interpretation.


John George Diefenbaker: I am reading from the Journal:
When the Prime Minister-
And it quotes.
-"lays down the party line that has got to be it".
Then it went on to say-


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is not a correct quotation, and I think I am in a position to know. I do not think the hon. gentleman has the right to question that fact.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member who has the floor, of course, will take the minister's word for what was said on that occasion. I know he will do that. But while I am on my feet may I draw to the hon. member's attention that hon. gentlemen were saying "order" previously to my rising and I think they did so rightly because the remarks which the hon. gentleman was making were far removed from the principle of this bill. I must ask the hon. member to direct his remarks to this bill which is now before us.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if the right of parliament to speak-


Clarence Decatur Howe: To speak nonsense.


John George Diefenbaker: -is to be denied because the hon. gentleman does not want parliament to be free, we are indeed getting back to the position-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I clear up this situation immediately. There is no question here of the right to speak. The hon. member has the floor and may speak as he wishes, but he will speak in accordance with the rules of this house. The rules of this house say that his remarks must be relevant to the subject under consideration.
Now, we are considering a bill which is entitled:
An act to provide for short-term credit to grain producers in the prairie provinces to meet temporary financial difficulties arising from inability to deliver all their grain.
On second reading of this bill, the supremacy of parliament and other abstract questions which the hon. gentleman has been attempting to raise have nothing to do with the principle of the bill and I must ask him to deal with the principle in a relevant manner.


Mr. Nicholson:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think that to have the record straight you should read the amendment as well. We have an amendment before the house which should be on the record at this time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member
is quite right. The amendment has been moved by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Johnson) and seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) and is as follows:
That Bill No. 82 be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.
I am sure the hon. member has been in this house for a long period, and I am sure he will agree with me on reflection that the remarks which he was making before I rose have little, if any, relationship to the bill or to the amendment.


John George Diefenbaker: I have always tried to
follow the rules of the house, and when you speak of relevancy then I ask, sir, with the greatest deference, was it relevant the other day for the right hon. gentleman to try to browbeat parliament?


Some hon. Members:: What?


John George Diefenbaker: Was that relevant?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: I come now to answer
that irrelevancy, if you will. However, these remarks are relevant to whether or not the amendment to which my hon. friend has made reference, that this matter be submitted to the agriculture committee to the end that the house may determine in that committee after representations are heard whether or

not this legislation does meet the needs of the western farmer today. With greatest respect, sir, I bow to your ruling, but I do say this. If in the discussion of a bill a minister, in order to steamroller it through the house, threatens parliament by saying what he will do, he will not let the western farmer get any money until June or July, then I think it is time for someone to continue to speak in parliament. After all, if we are to be silenced after that threat, we will become, in effect, robots.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If the hon. member cannot make a speech without misquoting me, then it is a great pity.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister would speak about the independence of parliament. The other day he said, what is there to debate? There is nothing to debate there. I have lost my patience. There was a Louis who once said, "L'Etat c'est moi".


Clarence Decatur Howe: If the hon.
member is going to quote me let him turn up Hansard and indicate where I said all those things.


John George Diefenbaker: I was going to tell him
about Louis. He said "L'Etat c'est moi". The right hon. gentleman would amend it to read "La Chambre des communes, c'est moi". That is what I am protesting, the right hon. gentleman trying to force it down the throat of parliament. I have had my say.


John Horace Dickey: In entering
this debate immediately after the remarks of the hon. gentleman who has just sat down, Mr. Speaker, I do so for the purpose of answering an inquiry that he placed before the house. He suggested that every substantial farm organization in western Canada had clearly and unequivocally demanded the introduction of a system of cash advances on farm-stored grain. I understood from his argument that he meant these farm organizations had all asked for these advances to be administered and made by the Canadian wheat board.
Well, I do not know what the hon. member's opinion of a substantial farm organization in western Canada is, or whether the organizations to which I am going to refer in a moment come within his definition of major substantial farm organizations. In my opinion, they do. For example, the United Grain Growers, at their meeting, had a resolution placed before them which was defeated and that resolution was in the following terms:
Be it resolved that the board of directors urge the initiation of studies of possible machinery for the purpose of making advances to farmers on farm-stored grain.
Grain
The fact that that resolution was defeated and that no other resolution was adopted by that meeting of the United Grain Growers asking for any such system is, I think, a clear indication that that substantial farm organization is not clamouring for the kind of policy that the hon. member has been advocating.


An hon. Member:: One of its directors got a promotion.


John Horace Dickey: I do not know what his opinion of the Alberta wheat pool is but at the annual meeting of the Alberta wheat pool no resolution was passed concerning advances on farm-stored grain. However, in the December 16 issue of the Wheat Pool Budget which is a weekly bulletin issued by the Alberta wheat pool the following appears. It is a report of the annual meeting of the delegates of the Alberta wheat pool and it sets out 12 specific policies which the delegates advanced as the policy of the wheat pool in connection with the marketing of grain. Not one of those twelve policy statements contains any reference to the kind of system that the hon. member has been telling the house has been demanded by every major farm organization, but after listing the 12 points of policy the following appears:
Delegates felt that advances on grain, whether interest free or otherwise, were only an emergency measure and would offer no solution to marketing problems. They believe that farmers who finding it necessary to borrow should get as favourable interest rates as possible but they did not ask that the wheat board become involved in the loaning business for fear of jeopardizing its usefulness as a merchandising agency.


John George Diefenbaker: It says, "in the loaning business".


John Horace Dickey: Yes, "involved in the loaning business". That is the point of view which the hon. member was characterizing this afternoon when it had been stated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce as a suggestion that did not deserve any consideration. However, it comes from what I believe to be a very responsible and substantial organization of western farmers.
I do not know either what the hon. members' opinion is of the Canadian federation of agriculture, but I think that is not only a substantial organization of western farmers but that it represents farmers across Canada. On Tuesday, February 14, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture made its annual presentation to the Prime Minister of Canada and to the members of the cabinet.
As all hon. members know, that is the occasion on which the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has the opportunity of bringing to the attention of the Prime Minister and

Grain
of the government the policies that they believe should be adopted for the advantage of farmers and the progress of agriculture in this country. The federation dealt in a general way with the problem of grain marketing. They said, for example, and I quote from page 9 of their submission:
The difficulties and problems faced by the wheat industry in Canada today, real though they are, give us only a small inkling of the trouble we would be in in the absence of these orderly marketing policies.
In their general representations they dealt with the present heavy stocks of grain at page 3, as follows:
The heavy stocks of grain have been largely due to a favourable series of crop years, and these stocks are being handled in an orderly way in so far as conditions in the rest of the world permit.
That submission shows that the federation of agriculture is aware of the problem which exists in connection with the marketing of grain and it has a full appreciation of all the mechanisms which exist for the marketing of grain, but in their submission they did not advocate or suggest the kind of policy that the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. members of the C.C.F. group and other speakers from the opposition have been advocating, namely the intervention of the wheat board in any system of cash advances or loans.


John George Diefenbaker: Not loans.


John Horace Dickey: I submit, Mr. Speaker, this indicates that substantial organizations of farmers, organizations which have in mind the interests of the wheat growers of western Canada and the farmers of Canada generally, are not unanimous by any means, as has been suggested, and that they regard the policy as outlined by the hon. member for Prince Albert and other opposition spokesmen as anything but the ideal solution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell us what the farm unions said today.


An hon. Member:: What about the other organizations?


John Horace Dickey: I am not denying there are farm organizations which have made statements which are in accord with the arguments that have been presented. I was simply trying to indicate by quotations that the statement which has been made to the effect that the farm organizations are unanimous and are clamouring for this other policy is not in accordance with the facts.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few brief moments simply to underline and endorse the themes which my farmer colleagues have been presenting, and

when I say "farmer colleagues" I mean just that, because we are fortunate that in discussing this particular question we have in our group some young and active farmers. The house may judge for itself whether or not they have proved that activity in this particular debate.
There is one respect in which we are fortunate in this debate and in which we are not always so fortunate, and that is that we have been able to get directives from our constituents. I do not suggest that we always take directives from our constituents but we certainly consider what they have to say and this is one debate in which we have had ample opportunity to assess the opinion of various sections of the community in regard to the particular piece of legislation which has been amended by the motion that we have moved.
The things I do want to say today, and I say it with all sincerity and earnestness, is that the bill does not reflect in either its letter or spirit the decision of the Saskatoon conference, discussion of which has occupied some time in this present debate.
You know, farmers in western Canada are blamed for many things. One example of this was advanced to me in a letter from a farmer in eastern Canada. He said the farmers in the west have already received too much consideration; they talk about $65 million. Well, we dealt with that the other day. Our eastern friends are liable to forget that that $65 million was given in lieu of moneys which the farmers would have received under other circumstances during the period of the war.
Another reason I was asked to support this bill, and this is a peculiar reason, is that some eastern farmers say that the western farmers send down to them rubbish feed with which to feed their livestock. I shall take just one moment to answer that particular item because it is important to the people in the maritimes and the mid-Canada provinces.
As far as this question of feed is concerned, when the farmer delivers his wheat to the elevator the screenings pass out of his ownership into the hands of the elevator company. If my hon. friends in eastern Canada want pure feed grain, and I do not see why they should not have it, then I suggest that they buy directly from the wheat board or from the grain companies. They can buy No. 3 barley or No. 1 feed oats or whatever it is they want on the Winnipeg market, under government certificate, have it brought down to eastern Canada, build their own storage on a cooperative basis or some other method, grind the grain and distribute it among their

Grain
members. Then they would not be depending upon the grain dealers who are presently selling them a mixture of wild oats, pigweed and buckwheat, as I have seen being fed to pigs in Prince Edward Island. However, I imagine I will be out of order if I pursue that any further.
Coming back to this main question, I say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in all sincerity that I think he made a tremendous mistake when he attributed to us, and I am sure equally to other members in this house, a political motive in opposing this legislation. After all, everything we do in this house is political. I understand politics to be the science of government. If any political praise is due because of what we have done, that is fine.
I say in all sincerity that I think the minister is vastly mistaken. As I said when I opened my remarks, we have had time to make contacts in a way the minister has not. We have been able to get the real opinion of the people of the country in regard to this measure. I know I can only interpret what the minister was thinking, but my interpretation is that he felt that in our hearts we realized that this bill was better than nothing, that we were simply opposing it for political purposes and at the last moment would throw up the sponge and say, "Yes, we will vote for it because it is better than nothing."
We do not think it is better than nothing. We do not say that it is vicious legislation, but we say it is silly and useless legislation. It is taking the place of legislation which would better meet the wishes of those who are so greatly concerned. Somebody said the other day that we should not indulge in humour when dealing with a matter as serious as this, but I say in all sincerity to the minister and the government that in western Canada this legislation is considered as a joke.
There are many retired farmers in my constituency but there are also active farmers there because my constituency runs south of the city. Saskatoon is the headquarters of the Saskatchewan farmers' union and we are in contact with farming people. Our very life depends on the success of the farmers who are contiguous to the city. We are the distributing point for goods and services to meet the needs of farmers all over northern Saskatchewan. I have not met one farmer who actually said to me that he thought this legislation was good, and I have not met anyone who said that he thought this legislation was better than nothing.
We have a good deal of labour in our city and I am glad to say that the labour unions are expressing a good deal of sympathy for
their fellow men in the farm union. Several of the labour organizations got together and passed a resolution attacking this particular legislation as it was forecast on the radio and in the press before it was brought in. They realized that their prosperity depends upon the prosperity of the farmers.
What about the political parties? The Liberal party in Saskatchewan has done a pretty good job of covering up. We have had an example of that in the house here in the various speeches by the hon. member for Kosthern (Mr. Tucker) who has tried to make out that in fact this is what the farmers have asked for. But the Liberal association in Saskatoon does not think that this is what they want. I have the record in my hand but the previous Speaker said that we are not allowed to read these things and therefore I shall not attempt to do that. That Liberal association in meeting was severely critical of the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce and furthermore they said that if they were supporting a bank loan, and being a Liberal association they said they would support a bank loan, they criticized the rate of interest as being much too high.
Speaking of politics, a Liberal convention at Souris-Estevan met together to nominate a Liberal candidate. What did they do? They nominated the sitting Conservative member who said to them, and I am quoting his words, "I am a Conservative." However, they let it go at that. So much for what people think about this particular legislation.
I want to come back to this question of what really did go on at the Saskatoon conference as I think that is the crux of the argument put forward by the hon. member for Rosthern. I should like to quote what the hon. member said, as reported on page 1159 of Hansard of February 14. The hon. member was speaking in this particular debate and he said:
I told this house, and it was objected to over and over again by the C.C.F. opposite, that this marketing conference had unanimously endorsed the idea of cash advances, but it left open the whole question of the mechanics by which those advances should be made.
That was the Saskatoon conference the hon. member was talking about.
Hon. members will recall how that suggestion was jeered at by members of the C.C.F. opposition.
No wonder. I sat at that conference for three days and I know what went on. The hon. member then made this statement:
I have now brought this submission, signed on behalf of the government of Saskatchewan, endorsing every word I said.
Anyone reading that would take it as a reference to a submission by the Saskatoon

Grain
conference, but it was no such thing. That was a request submitted by a delegation from that Saskatoon conference which came down here to present their recommendations to the government. That delegation was composed of representatives of the U.G.G.-I believe the president was a member-as well as other grain companies. There were lots of people there representing people other than farmers, as well as farmers. There were people of all political opinions. When they got together they presented to the government the only thing on which they were unanimous, and that was that there should be cash advances paid on wheat stored on the farm. Now, it is very interesting. There is a difference whether you are talking about the Saskatoon conference or whether you are talking about the request made to the government by a number of delegates of various political colours and various occupations who happened-


John Horace Dickey: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Yes, of course.


John Horace Dickey: Is it not correct that that delegation was sent down here from the conference-


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Yes.


John Horace Dickey: -to represent it?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I shall answer by saying this. Never have I seen farmers so angry-and I count among those farmers Mr. Nollet, the minister of agriculture of the province of Saskatchewan, whose language in that regard [ dare not quote in this house-at their disappointment and disgust with this wishy-washy thing, as they call it, that had been presented to the Canadian government. The only reason it was wishy-washy was that it was the only thing on which they could get those people with various types of interests unanimous. As far as the farmers were concerned, they considered they had been bypassed. Most of them used the word "sabotaged".
I want to deal for one moment with the assertion of the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) that what this government is doing in this legislation is in fact what was requested by the Saskatoon conference. I am not going to read this but I am just going to say that after the reports of what happened at the Saskatoon conference this was stated in a reliable newspaper:
It was also stressed that this was an advance and not a loan.
That is from a report of the Saskatoon conference. It is rather an amazing thing that, when the hon. member for Rosthern

himself wrote a letter to the Winnipeg Free Press shortly after this incident, the hon. member said:
At the Saskatoon conference, farm union leaders and others advocated that advances should be made to farmers against wheat in store on their farms by the wheat board through the elevator agents.
Those are not my words, but the words of my hon. friend from Rosthern. Let him eat them now. I think that should settle the question of the Saskatoon conference, and of the representations that were made here. But I can assure the government and the minister that, so far as all these people are concerned -the people with whom I had daily contact for two or three weeks in my own city and outside it-whether they be professional men, labour men or farmers or whatever they may be, they consider the government legislation in this case as nothing short of a joke. That is absolutely true. I have already dealt with my hon. friend from Rosthern. If he talks, as I said the other day, till he is blue in the face -and he gets that way occasionally,-of course we have to make allowances for my hon. friend because he does not like the C.C.F. party and he has good reason for that. After all, he is smarting under the rather unfortunate and unsuccessful experiences he has had with the C.C.F. in the province of Saskatchewan over the past five or six years.
I do not think there is anything more I can say in that regard, because I believe I have made my point; but there is also one other point. That is the assertion that the Saskatchewan government somehow subscribes to this silly business of a loan because the minister of agriculture from the province of Saskatchewan signed his name to this wishy-washy document that was produced and presented to the cabinet here in Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, your predecessor has precluded our reading these documents in the house, although I notice you have been a little more lenient, and I shall not attempt to do so. But I could read here speech after speech made by the premier of the province of Saskatchewan, who, whatever he may be, to my thinking is a great man and certainly represents the C.C.F. opinion in that province of Saskatchewan. In everything he has said he has been against this principle of bank loans and has been in favour-and in fact he has laid it down on the line that this should be done-of cash advances, a payment in advance without interest on grain stored on the farm.
Needless to say, I shall support this amendment. We could have had something better, but under the circumstances I think we can support that. Early in this debate

Grain
we were challenged. We had the most amazing spectacle of the Minister of Trade and Commerce getting up one night in a fury- and that is the only way I can describe it-, looking at our friend from Regina City (Mr. Ellis) and saying, "All right, if you oppose this, we shall withdraw it." I ask, is this the way for a responsible minister of the crown to act in a democratic House of Commons? A member of a small group in this House of Commons is allowed to twist and change and pervert and cancel of his own volition legislation brought in by a government that is supposed to be acting for the good of the people concerned and for the good of the Canadian nation. Somebody has said we have witnessed a comedy of errors. I am not going into that, but one would need the fingers of both hands to count the errors the government has made in the last two weeks about this and other matters.


Hazen Robert Argue: This afternoon I listened to the parliamentary assistant endeavouring as best he could to read into certain resolutions from farm organizations the idea that farm organizations were not in favour of cash advances. He stated that, when the C.C.F. said that farm organizations and the farmers were almost unanimously in favour of cash advances and opposed to bank loans, we were not stating a fact.
I did not have the privilege of attending the Saskatoon conference, but it seems to me clear from the record that the delegates at that convention were in favour of cash advances. It seems also true that when the representatives from that conference met the cabinet they did not make precisely the same presentation to the cabinet that was agreed upon at that conference. Certainly there was a difference of opinion.
The important point is the fact that when the farm leaders, whoever they might have been, who met the cabinet and seemed to support the idea of bank loans, went back to their member bodies and faced their delegates in convention, the delegates speaking on behalf of the producers rejected any suggestion that bank loans were acceptable and those delegates came out spontaneously in favour of cash advances. Almost the same thing that happened in the prairies last fall can be seen in this debate. When the resolution preceding this bill first came before the House of Commons, the C.C.F. members said they were opposed to the resolution. We said we were going to vote against it and against the bill that would . follow the resolution. It is not too easy sometimes to stand alone. It is much easier to be
with the crowd. When you are in the opposition-and there are three opposition parties- it is much easier to go along with the majority. But we said we were against bank loans on principle. We said that, whilst they might do some negligible amount of good in a very few instances, the point was that we were discussing an important principle.
We had already made our stand clear that we were in favour of cash advances when we moved an amendment in the throne speech debate. We made it clear that we were not going to advocate cash advances one day and then be caught standing up in the house and voting for bank loans at a later date; that it was a question of principle; that we were not going to try to ride both horses; that even though we might be misquoted, even though our stand might be twisted, we were going to stand by the principle of cash advances, and the only way we could stand by that principle was to vote against the bank loan legislation all the way down the line.
I think the stand we have taken has already been justified and is now proven to be right. When we see the other opposition parties, both of them, I believe, now prepared to vote against this repugnant bill-


John George Diefenbaker: We have seen the bill
now.


Hazen Robert Argue: You have seen the bill now. The bill is precisely the same measure that the Minister of Trade and Commerce outlined to the Canadian people on his radio and television show, a $1,500 maximum, 5 per cent interest, on surrender of the wheat board permit book and after which 50 per cent of the moneys received from all deliveries will be paid to the bank. I want to congratulate the Social Credit and Conservative groups in the house for being prepared now to change their position when they see that bank loans should be opposed.
As I said, the same thing happened in the west last fall. A conference was held and there were some differences of opinion as to how cash advances might best be made. The leaders came to Ottawa, and apparently there was a greater difference of opinion when they faced the cabinet. Members of this group, other members from other parties and farm leaders went across western Canada speaking to farm organizations and meetings of farmers, and because of that campaign opinion became crystallized in favour of cash advances and opposed to bank loans. As a matter of fact almost all the organizations, as well as the majority of political parties, are now opposed to bank loans and in favour of cash advances. As the days go by, fewer and fewer people are in favour of bank loans.

Grain
The Minister of Trade and Commerce said at one time during this session that he had received about 3,000 pieces of paper with regard to the question of bank loans or cash advances, and I am positive in my own mind that 98 per cent of all the representations that have been made to the Minister of Trade and Commerce have been in favour of cash advances and opposed to bank loans. I would very much like to see that record produced immediately so we can see whether that statement is in fact correct.


John Horace Dickey: On a question of privilege, I understood the hon. member had received the return to his notice of motion for papers and that it was satisfactory. If he has any complaint about it, I wish he would speak to me.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am not objecting to what has been placed in the return but I am saying that in my opinion 98 per cent of all the pieces of paper to which the Minister of Trade and Commerce has referred are in favour of cash advances and opposed to bank loans. Nothing that the Minister of Trade and Commerce can say can change the fact that western Canada believes the legislation now before the house is repugnant and should be withdrawn because it is not in the best interests of the agricultural producers.
I do not imagine the Liberal party is unanimously in favour of this legislation. Oh, they may vote unanimously in the house. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has said: "Toe the party line; we are not going to have anyone exercising a free vote, a free opinion." He has even told the hon. gentlemen in the other place who belong to his political party that they too must toe the line.
In Saskatchewan the Minister of Agriculture has already carried out these orders from the Minister of Trade and Commerce and, while there was a lot of deviation in the party line in Saskatchewan last fall, it is now being strictly followed. Nevertheless it is still not true that the Liberal party is unanimously in favour of bank loans. I too saw Mr. Harper Prowse, the Alberta Liberal leader, on television last night in the program "Press Conference". I have never seen the gentleman in person but I want to say that I was rather impressed generally with the ability he showed. It seemed to me that whenever he was being questioned about provincial matters he was very much at home and had the answers. He sat right on top of the conference until somebody mentioned federal policy and asked him about the government's wheat policy. Then he faltered and hesitated. He looked down and picked up a little note.
I can almost see the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) doing about the same

thing on a television show. Then Mr. Prowse read the record, the old record about quantities of grain delivered and produced in the last five years. Then he was asked point blank, "Are you in favour of cash advances?" His answer was "yes"; he was in favour of cash advances.


John George Diefenbaker: He will be liquidated.


Hazen Robert Argue: I suggest that Harper Prowse represents the opinion of prairie farmers in Alberta when he says that he is in favour of cash advances far more than the Minister of Trade and Commerce represents the opinion of the farmers of Alberta and western Canada generally when he says that the farm organizations are willing to go along with this legislation.
The parliamentary assistant quoted the submission of the federation of agriculture to the cabinet. That submission did not oppose cash advances. I did not hear him read anything about cash advances. But had the parliamentary assistant wished to quote the most important farm organization as far as the production of wheat is concerned, an organization that is a member of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, he would know where the agricultural producers in fact stand on this question.
I am glad that democracy works in parliament to some extent, in spite of statements from members of the cabinet. I am glad to see democracy working in Canada and working in the farm organizations. I believe that the fundamental power must rest with the rank and file. It must be with the membership, with the ordinary citizens. It is a fact that some leaders of some farm organizations were prepared to go along with the bank loan legislation-


John Horace Dickey: They asked for it, too.


Hazen Robert Argue: -until they met in convention-


John Horace Dickey: Some of them requested it.


Hazen Robert Argue: -and the delegates said, "We are opposed to the bank loan legislation; we want cash advances." Democracy exerted itself in these farm organizations and the opinions of some leaders were reversed, but democracy apparently cannot exert itself within the Liberal party or their position would be reversed in the face of the opinion in western Canada. We have seen the Minister of Trade and Commerce in action before. He gets an idea in his head and he says, "This is it." No matter what opinion may be against it, no matter if he stands alone, he is going to see the legislation rammed through the house against all opposition and against . the country itself.

Grain
What did the three pool conventions do? I do not have their resolutions in my hand, but I do have the submission of the interprovincial farm union council presented to the government this day, and it contains a reference to the stand of the three western wheat pools. With regard to cash advances it has this to say:
Therefore the interprovincial farm union council is continuing to press for adoption of its original proposal, which has been endorsed-
I want to emphasize this.
-at the three wheat pool delegate meetings, that the government arrange for interest free cash advances by the Canadian wheat board on farm-stored grain to the value of 50 per cent of the initial payment on an estimated delivery of 8 bushels per cultivated acre.
Nothing could be clearer than the fact that the western farmers want cash advances and are opposed to the legislation that is now before the house. Some reasons have been advanced by the minister as to why cash advances could not be made. None of them have appealed to me. I think all of them are incorrect. I think all of them are unfounded. Whenever the minister stated something by way of reasons why it could not be done those statements cannot be borne out by the facts. I think the minister gave one extremely important reason why he is not prepared to provide cash advances. He had this to say as reported at page 603 of Hansard:
Finally, the government was reluctant to put elevator agents into competition in making wheat board advances.
The government was reluctant to let elevator agents compete for the business of cash advances. That statement is extremely important, because it has a great bearing on the business that would be received by each elevator company at any given marketing point. It has an important bearing on the whole question of box car distribution.
If the government had provided cash advances through the elevator system, a producer at a given marketing point would go to the elevator company where he wished to deliver his grain and obtain from that elevator company the cash advance. Then the farmer would be required to pledge his grain on delivery to that elevator company. Therefore if 50 per cent of the farmers at one marketing point had pledged their grain to a certain elevator company, that elevator company would have to be given 50 per cent of the box cars in order to move the grain so that the farmers who had accepted cash advances could repay them.
If that had been done, the farmers then would have had restored to them the right to deliver grain to the elevator of their choice. It would be the farmer who would decide,
and not the transport controller or the Minister of Trade and Commerce who is deciding to which elevator farmers must deliver the grain because of the lack of box cars and because of the bad distribution of box cars.
If you brought in a system of cash advances, you would be stepping on the toes of some of the private grain interests which we have seen the Minister of Trade and Commerce so anxious to protect over the years. We have seen many times the attitude of the Minister of Trade and Commerce toward the farm organizations. The western farm organizations have asked for a better distribution of box cars. He gave them a transport controller who is doing nothing about the matter, who is opposed to the farm organizations, and who is opposed to allowing the farmers to deliver grain to the elevator of their choice. The statement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the government was reluctant to put elevator agents into competition in making wheat board advances is, in my opinion, highly significant. I should like to see a little bit of competition in the grain business, but the minister is opposed to competition. He wants the situation to continue where farmers are forced to deliver grain to whatever elevator may happen to get the box cars.
In this debate the Minister of Trade and Commerce has made a great many statements. The vast majority of the statements and the assertions he has made, I submit, are wrong, incorrect, ill-founded and cannot in any way be supported. The C.C.F. are asking for cash advances. He said, "Oh, yes, you are asking for cash advances. Why? Because you want to embarrass the wheat board. Anybody that is for cash advances is an enemy of the wheat board." He said the farmers' union is something like the C.C.F.; that they have said they support the wheat board "but", and he says there is always an extremely important "but".
The record of the C.C.F. group in regard to the wheat board is clear. We are not obliged to protect our record. We believe in the wheat board system of marketing all grains. That record is clear. I suggest that the farmers' union record is just as clear. They are not here to defend themselves, but their record is just as clear that they are 100 per cent in support of the wheat board system of marketing grain. Therefore the minister's statement to the effect that anybody supporting cash advances is the enemy of the wheat board is in fact wrong and is, in fact, perfectly ridiculous.
The organization that has campaigned most for the Canadian wheat board and in support of orderly marketing is no doubt the Saskatchewan wheat pool. Their delegates in

Grain
convention assembled the first day passed an emergency resolution that reads as follows:
That we urge the government of Canada to make immediate provision for advances to farmers on farm-stored grain.
That advances to farmers on farm-stored grain should be up to one-half the normal delivery expected and repayable on the basis of one-half of the value of each delivery made by the farmer.
That advances on farm-stored grain should be made by way of government-guaranteed loans to the Canadian wheat board; the Canadian wheat board to arrange with elevator companies to make the advances to individual farmers, and that any interest involved in such loans should be absorbed by the federal treasury.
The policy of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, as approved by its delegates in annual meeting, is clear-cut. It does not favour the government's proposal for bank loans. It firmly believes that the conditions are such that extraordinary measures are called for, and that these should include advances against farm-stored grain, and that such advances should be made to individual farmers through elevator companies in accordance with an agreement between the companies and the wheat board.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce says about 100,000 farmer members of the Saskatchewan wheat pool are the enemies of the Canadian wheat board. That is an extremely irresponsible statement from the minister in charge of grain marketing. The minister is always willing to slam anybody. He makes wild statements. Last year when we were discussing another bill in connection with the Canada Grain Act he referred to the wheat pools as the C.C.F. pools. I suppose in the mind of the minister that was calling them just about as bad a name as he could lay his tongue to. So he brushed aside the Saskatchewan wheat pool and the other wheat pools as being C.C.F. pools.


Mr, Harris:: It probably was not a compliment.


Hazen Robert Argue: Then another statement the Minister of Trade and Commerce has made, which is just as ridiculous and cannot be substantiated, is the one to the effect that the government could not make cash advances because they could not get ample security if it were done through the wheat board, and there was nothing to stop a farmer from feeding his grain to his livestock after he had received a cash advance, or selling his grain to his neighbour.
What was the minister saying? He was saying that the small farmer he had been talking about-the farmer who is poor; the farmer who has some grain but needs some money-could not be trusted if it were done through the wheat board because he might feed the grain some dark night, or he might haul it across to his neighbour.


An hon. Member:: Big brother is watching him.


Hazen Robert Argue: There would be no danger of any farmer getting away with anything under the bank loan legislation. The only way in which he can get out of paying that, I guess, is to drop dead, because he is going to be tied very tightly. But surely the Minister of Trade and Commerce does not believe that any percentage of the farmers at all are not honest or that they would in fact feed or sell grain that was pledged to the elevator system. It is such a ridiculous statement. The farmer would be receiving only half the value of the grain. The wheat board has control of his permit book. In order to obtain the other 50 per cent of the value he must deliver the grain to an elevator. That is another statement by the minister that is completely inaccurate and cannot be substantiated in any way.
After saying that the farmers were not to be trusted, he said, after all, there was not too much need for any legislation. He said he was at a meeting of farm representatives. After the meeting was over one of the farm representatives asked him if he would like a lift in his car. He said the farmer had a new car and remarked to the minister that his land was now clear. The farmer told the minister he had one year's crop in his bins, something for which he had been hoping for many years.


Mr. Cannon:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; we were told that same story yesterday in identical words. If this is not repetition, then what is?


Hazen Robert Argue: I can understand the difficulty of the hon. member and the fact that he would like this statement forgotten.


John Horace Dickey: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is proper for an hon. member to impute motives to someone who rises with a proper question of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: did not understand the hon. member for Assiniboia to be imputing motives to anyone. I would be glad to hear his views on that.


Hazen Robert Argue: I was not imputing motives of any kind to anyone, Mr. Speaker. If my hon. friend is so sensitive to what I said and believes some of it is objectionable, I am quite willing to amend anything I said so he will not sit in his chair with anxiety.
The minister went on to say that the farmer had a new car, had his farm clear and he had one year's crop in his bins-


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Could we have a decision on the point of order, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine

is asking me to rule that the telling of the same story twice in this house is repetition to the extent that repetition is barred by the rules of this house, I am very much afraid I would have to admit that at this time it would be most unfair for me to so rule against the hon. member for Assiniboia, considering other speeches we have heard in this and other debates.
At the same time, I feel that the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine is giving voice to views which are held by a great many in this house, and with which I believe the hon. member who now has the floor will agree, that little can be added to a debate by repetition of what has been said before. When repetition reaches a certain stage it becomes an abuse of the privilege of this house. All hon. members on all sides I think will agree that that situation can arise. Perhaps I might express a personal opinion that we are close to it, but I am not going to rule at the moment that the hon. member has gone that far.


Hazen Robert Argue: In one breath, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Trade and Commerce says this legislation is necessary to help the small farmer, the farmer who is short of money. He says we cannot establish a system of cash advances because the farmers cannot be trusted. Then he changes his story and says that after all, the farmers of western Canada are still well off. They are driving new cars. They have their land clear. I think the fact is that only a tiny percentage of western farmers are driving new cars. The vast majority are driving cars that are now a few years old. They are almost all heavily in debt. They are short of money. They are honest and they want cash advances. I believe they will resent the statement of the minister that they are all well off and there is nothing for them to worry about.
The minister made another statement to which I believe reference was made this afternoon, although I was not in the chamber at the time, by the hon. member for Prince Albert. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said that if a system of cash advances were put through parliament he would be faced with the resignation of the members of the Canadian wheat board. I may tell you that jolted me. I could scarcely believe my ears. I know the members of the Canadian wheat board and I have every respect for them as individuals. Personally, I believe that if parliament asked the wheat board to provide a system of cash advances, the present members of the Canadian wheat board would be only too pleased to carry out the will of parliament.
Grain
I can recall an earlier statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, when he said we could not have a new system of box car distribution based on farmers shipping to the elevator of their choice because if we did the transport controller would resign. He would fold up. There would be no transport controller. Last year before the agriculture committee the transport controller was beginning to say very much the same thing; he could not administer it. I asked him point blank, "If parliament passed legislation directing you to control box cars in a certain way, would you implement the law as passed by parliament?" The transport controller said, yes; he would not resign but would be right on the job attempting to enforce the law of the country.
The minister said the wheat board would resign. Then the hon. member for Prince Albert asked a number of questions as to the date the minister received that information as to their impending resignation if cash advances were provided. The answer was no. Here we have more bluff, more inaccurate statements, more excuses and more threats. The minister has got himself in a jam. He is up to his ears in trouble, and it is all his own fault because he refuses to stick to the facts. He keeps on making statements that are ridiculous. He looks foolish in the house and in the country. He is not undermining the Canadian wheat board or the orderly marketing system by making these statements, but he is undermining the Liberal party in western Canada. He is undermining his own prestige in western Canada. A few years ago he had a lot of prestige. A few years ago in the books of Canadian farm organizations his name was respected, but today his name is not respected.
The Minister of Agriculture can shade meanings. He can pop down a hole any time you believe you are catching him. He will even go to Hansard and do something with the record, put something in or take something out. The Minister of Agriculture is well known in western Canada. But the Minister of Trade and Commerce does not follow the example set by the Minister of Agriculture. He makes statements right on the record that cannot be substantiated in any way and which time after time are proven inaccurate. He does not care about the record. So in western Canada, although the reputation of the Minister of Agriculture was not particularly high, now in comparison with that of the Minister of Trade and Commerce he probably stands in a higher position, even though the reputation of the Minister of Agriculture leaves a great deal to be desired.

Grain
The Minister of Trade and Commerce did not end the statements he could not substantiate with the one to which I have just referred. He keeps on making them, and is not at all discouraged if he is proven wrong every time he makes a speech. Speaking on the system in the United States for cash advances or loans, he had this to say:
It has been said frequently here that in the United States grain in the farmer's bin is paid for by the government, but that is not true.
That can be found at page 1032 of Hansard. The minister says it is not true that grain in farmers' bins in the United States can be paid for. I hold in my hand a copy of Price Programs, a publication of the United States department of agriculture and I quote from page 17:
Q. What kind of farm storage must a producer have to be eligible for CCC loans-


An hon. Member:: C.C.F.?


John Horace Dickey: Not payments, loans.


Hazen Robert Argue: -on farm-stored grain?
A. The cribs or bins used must meet the approval of the county ASC committee. In general, farm cribs or bins that provide safe storage in the locality will meet requirements.
The minister says that United States farmers cannot be paid for grain in their bins, but the United States government says that they can and I am prepared to take the word of this United States publication.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you move to the United States?


John Horace Dickey: For loans, not payments.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister then goes on to say at page 1032 of Hansard:
We, in Canada, cannot have anything to do with the grain until it is delivered into the government's licensed storage. The two are practically the same.
In answering that statement I will deal with the comments of the parliamentary assistant that the United States proposal is loans. That is what they call them; they are loans. I will tell you what kind of loan it is and if the farmers of western Canada could have this type of loan I am sure they would be 100 per cent in favour of it.
The farmer in the United States today can get from the CCC a loan of $2.08 a bushel for the wheat in his bin; that is the national farm average. What is the interest? Three and one-half per cent. When does the farmer pay the interest? He pays it only when he wishes to discharge the loan by paying it in cash. But when he delivers his grain to the CCC the interest is cancelled. The interest is cancelled when the grain is

delivered to the Commodity Credit Corporation. Therefore the United States farmer can get something worth while. The Minister of Trade and Commerce says the systems are just the same, but the Canadian farmer can get nothing except a bank loan and only then if the banker is in a good humour and likes the look of the farmer when he comes in to make his application.
The United States farmer can get $2.08 a bushel on his grain without interest immediately after it is harvested, because the interest is cancelled whenever the CCC takes the grain from the farmer the following spring.


An hon. Member:: Who pays it?


Hazen Robert Argue: And then if the United States government does not take the grain off the farm, or rather if the farmer in the United States asks that his bin be resealed, he is then paid storage-note this-for the following year, from 11 to 16 cents per bushel varying with the different kinds of grain.
I would like to see a system in Canada just half as good as the United States system, which is a form of 100 per cent cash advances, interest free. The only time interest is collected is in the event the farmer wishes to pay up the loan because the market price has gone higher or because he has decided to seed a portion of his grain or use it as feed.


An hon. Member:: Who is going to pay for it?


Hazen Robert Argue: Through the wheat board system the Canadian farmer owns most of the grain on his own farm. In the United States the American farmer has in his possession about 4 per cent of the grain and the rest of it is acquired by the United States government under their various policies. Now we have the bill before US'-


Mr. Harris:: At last.


Hazen Robert Argue: -and the great clinching argument the Minister of Trade and Commerce used over and over again as to why the wheat board could not be allowed to make cash advances is this, and I quote from page 127 of Hansard:
A government lien on grain on the farms would have to take second place to tax liens and would be on a par with liens put on by implement dealers or suppliers of any other kind.
He repeated that time and again. He said that a lien of the Canadian wheat board would be an inferior lien and there would be other liens that would supersede it. Therefore he said they had to have the strength of section 88 of the Bank Act.

Grain
We come to the bill and we notice that the strength in the Bank Act has nothing at all to do with the bill. As a matter of fact this legislation supersedes the Bank Act. This legislation gives to the banking institutions far more power and far more authority than they have under the Bank Act. It says:
Notwithstanding any other act or law-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: Notwithstanding any other act or law-
Certain things under this legislation will be laid down-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: And what will be done under this legislation? The farmer is barred from storing his grain in the country elevator and when he does bring it to the country elevator 50 per cent of the amount must be paid to the bank because the banks are entitled "in priority to all other persons."
The strength of this lien is 100 per cent, and nothing can supersede it. The strength does not flow from the Bank Act but flows from this legislation which is now before parliament. The banks are given preference to the rural municipalities, the implement dealers and the threshers. The banks are given preference to all other persons. Is there any risk? There is no risk.
Then the government guarantees the loan and says to the country elevators, "You have to collect". They do not really say that either; they hold the elevator agent personally responsible for the collection. It is no wonder that this legislation is repulsive not only to the farmers but to the elevator agents. It is small wonder indeed that this legislation is almost unanimously opposed by all people on the prairies. I am surprised that even this government would have the effrontery to present legislation to the country which in fact does nothing for the producer but which in fact will bind the producer hand and foot in an economic way when he is forced to accept a loan.


Mr. Charles Yuill (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I do so with certain qualms of conscience because it is going to be very difficult to say anything that has not already been said by someone else. However, I do think we could say a lot yet on the merits or the demerits of the bill which is before the house at the present time.
I think if we were to be a little more realistic in our thinking we should go back a little further than this and deal with the
root cause and the necessity of presenting a bill such as this. I think if we were to be realistic in our thinking we would have to agree that there is a challenge here to the people who are responsible for the fiscal policies of this government.
I think it even goes beyond that. I think it is really a condemnation of our fiscal policy. In this bill I believe we are just trying to determine whether or not it is better to give an aspirin or a dose of alka seltzer to relieve our economic headache. I do not think we are getting to the root of this problem. If mother nature is kind next year and we have another bumper crop, we will have to come back and repeat that order.
I do not think anyone should assume that he is ruling by divine right. Members of parliament are elected as individuals, they are not collectively grouped and elected as a government at all. Naturally those who are in the majority are charged with the responsibility of administering the business of this country, but that does not give them any right, in my opinion, to assume that they are there by divine right. They should not take us back to the law of the jungle and assume that might is right. They should be prepared to listen to constructive criticism by the people who are so vitally concerned with agriculture.
We have had the results of the collective thinking and good judgment of the important people in Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan; of the farm organizations which have been charged with the responsibility at the local level. They have tried to come up with the right answers and suggestions in order to help those who in the final analysis are charged with the responsibility of doing something about this problem.
This government would be well advised to listen to the suggestions that have been made, the suggestions that the best way to serve the interests of the farmer is not by allowing him to borrow another $1,500 of his own money at 5 per cent but rather to give him advances of up to 50 per cent for grain stored on the farm. If we took a more realistic attitude and concentrated upon trying to determine ways and means of selling our wheat I think we would be getting closer to our responsibility.
I do not think we grow wheat or anything else just for the sake of putting it in a granary, storing it and getting money on it, either through the medium of bank loans or advances. Until we get down to basic facts and apply to our fiscal policy some modern techniques of salesmanship we will have this to contend with year after year. You can scarcely listen to a radio program or watch

Grain
a television show without having demonstrated to you new techniques in salesmanship. That is done as a matter of necessity.
We have allowed conditions to develop whereby on the one hand the farmer has an abundance and then must go and beg for the right to sell his commodity. So far as the attitude of the government is concerned, in refusing to consider in any way, shape or form any deal which would be on a mutually advantageous level, I think that is a very nearsighted attitude. It is desirable and absolutely essential that in our modern world we think in terms of creating sales up to a sensible and reasonable amount. If it were not that we are living in a world which is definitely conscious of the credit system our economy would not have reached a level of $26,400 million. Those who manufacture television sets, refrigerators and that kind of thing do so in the expectation that people will mortgage their future incomes to buy those articles on credit. If we are going to sell our wheat or anything else we must think more or less in those terms. We must be ready to sell some of our commodities on a credit basis.
I think this is really a backwash of faulty techniques in our fiscal policy. We have allowed our fiscal policy to take on a lot of dry rot. If we are to consider this bill on its merits I think we should follow the suggestion made by my colleague and send it to the committee after second reading. We could then take advantage of the collective thinking and good judgment of the people of Canada who are so vitally interested. The government would be able to listen to those people and if this legislation is not what the people want it could be modified without the government in my opinion losing face at all. In fact I think they would become more or less heroes as a result. If a man makes a mistake and is ready to admit it and tries to remedy it, he is doing the right thing. I urge the government in its mature wisdom to allow this bill to go to a committee where it can be given the acid test. Then whatever seems to be the sensible thing to be done can be done. We would be doing what the people of Canada want. If that were done the government could take credit for having the courage to take one more look at the matter in an effort to come up with the right answer.
I think it is a pity that the government has adopted the attitude that they will not permit this bill to go before the committee. It is certainly not in the interests of the agricultural industry when they refuse to do that. I would urge that they give one more look and agree to the proposal made by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch).
[Mr. Yuill.l


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, if the eyebrows of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Dickey) rise slightly when he sees me taking part in this debate, let me assure him at once that I do not intend to go into any detailed statistical analysis of the wheat marketing problem or the detailed pros and cons of the legislation before the house. I feel that the situation as it affects the farmers has been adequately set forth by those of my colleagues who are much closer to it.
I say at once that my reason for rising to take part briefly in this debate is to say that in my opinion the subject matter of this bill is of concern to a much broader section of the people of Canada than the producers of wheat in the three prairie provinces. I think the government should realize that this particular piece of legislation and the effect it is going to have upon the welfare, not only of the farmers but of many of the rest of the people of Canada, are under much closer review than they may perhaps realize. As most hon. members know, in the constituency I represent there are a good many industrial workers. I want to suggest that among the industrial workers of this country there is a growing realization that the situation of the Canadian farmers and their own situation are much more closely parallel than they may perhaps have realized a few years ago.
Perhaps I might give one or two illustrations of that fact. Not so long ago, since the beginning of the present session of this house, as a matter of fact, I was invited to speak at a public meeting in one of the large industrial centres of Canada. The audience was composed largely of people who were industrial workers, and the topic which it had been suggested I might discuss was the new Unemployment Insurance Act. Of course, if the Minister of Labour had been there it would perhaps have been a more interesting discussion than we had. But the point I wish to make is that when we came to a question period at the end of the meeting, rather to my surprise the questions that were asked of me were not in the main directed to the Unemployment Insurance Act but to the situation in respect to the wheat surplus in Canada and the policies the government was formulating to deal with it.
I mention that because I think it serves to illustrate the point I am trying to make, that this is a measure of concern not only to my colleagues who come from agricultural constituencies in the prairie provinces but also to a great many people in a great many parts of Canada. In my district I meet from time to time quite a large number of people

who at one time or another have been prairie fanners. Where do I meet those people? Do I meet them driving around in the Cadillacs about which the Minister of Trade and Commerce was talking? Do I meet them frequenting posh resorts? No; I meet those people working in the sawmills and logging camps of Vancouver island.
That fact illustrates another point I should like to emphasize, that basically the situation of the agricultural producers of this country and that of the industrial producers of this country are the same. If the industrial workers were faced with the kind of situation which has been adequately described, where their pay cheques had been drastically reduced, and then they found at the end of the week or month they were not in a position to collect the other half of their pay cheques but were having suggested to them that they should go to the bank and get a government guaranteed loan at 5 per cent, their position would be rather similar to that in which the government is proposing to place the farmers of the western prairies by this legislation.
I felt I should like to take part briefly in this debate to emphasize the growing realization among the industrial workers of this country that legislation that is inadequate for the farmers is also going to have bad results as far as they are concerned. In considering whether or not the amendment now before the house on this legislation should be accepted, members in all parts of the house-not only those who come from agricultural constituencies in the prairie provinces but also those who may represent industrial constituencies in eastern Canada or other parts of the country-should realize that the eyes of many of the people of Canada are upon the actions of the government and the inadequacies of the measure it is now proposing to bring in.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I can imagine that some hon. members may have in their minds the question as to how many grain farms there are in Winnipeg North Centre. I think it is generally known that the answer is none. Nevertheless, I doubt that any member of this house has any greater claim to speak on this matter than has the member for Winnipeg North Centre, in view of the list of head offices that are located within the bounds of my constituency.
Within the boundaries of Winnipeg North Centre may be found the head office of the Canadian wheat board. Also in my constituency is the Winnipeg grain exchange. We also have the head office of the board of grain commissioners. There is also the 67509-80
Grain
head office of the wheat pool. The Manitoba federation of agriculture and co-operation has its head office in Winnipeg North Centre, as does the Manitoba farmers' union. I might also point out that every carload of grain that comes from anywhere west of Winnipeg headed toward the lakehead, whether on the Canadian National or the Canadian Pacific railway, comes through the constituency of Winnipeg North Centre.
So in our riding we have a real interest in agricultural matters. In addition to that, as my friend and neighbour the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) pointed out a few days ago, all of us in the west recognize the important place that agriculture holds in our economy. We recognize that what is good for the farmers of western Canada is good for western Canada as a whole, and we feel that anything that is unfair and unjust to the farmers of western Canada is an injustice to western Canada as a whole.
Therefore I rise for just a few minutes to indicate my support of the amendment moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Johnson), and my opposition to the bill, the second reading of which is now before the house.
Reference has already been made to the "Press Conference" program, which many of us saw and heard on television last evening, when the gentleman being interviewed by the press, under the chairmanship of Professor Kenneth MacNaught of Winnipeg, was Mr. Harper Prowse, the Liberal leader in Alberta. We were interested in the way in which he was questioned about this legislation. He said at first it was his personal view that cash advances would be better, but then he tried to get off into a discussion of the bank loan legislation and tried to find something good about it. We were interested in the way in which one of the newspapermen put Mr. Prowse squarely on the spot and asked him what his own personal view was. He said that in his personal view cash advances would be preferable.
However, in the attempt that he did make to justify the bank loan way of dealing with this matter I thought he made one of the most telling arguments against the legislation now before the house. He put it something like this, if my memory from seeing and hearing the program serves me well; that one of the desirable features of the bank loan way of dealing with the problem was that only those farmers who desperately needed money would go to the banks and get it. As I say, that was about the only argument he advanced for it.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that is as much as to say to a worker in an industry

Grain
that at the end of the week or two weeks, whatever his pay period is, he should not take his wages unless he really desperately needs them at that particular time. That is as much as to say to a member of parliament or a cabinet minister that at the end of the month he should not go to the pay office and collect his monthly cheque unless at that time he really needs it.
In our economy, in our society, Mr. Speaker, it is a basic principle that when people have done the work they were expected to do in connection with their job, occupation or profession they are entitled at the end of that period to their wages or pay for what they have done. It is our contention that the farmers of western Canada, having produced a bumper crop in 1955, are entitled without further delay to a return for what they have done and they are entitled to it as a matter of right, without having to go to the banks and borrow a portion of what they need at 5 per cent interest.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that last night Mr. Harper Prowse, in his feeble attempt to defend this legislation, pointed very clearly to what is wrong with it. We take the position, as I have indicated, that the farmers of western Canada, having done their year's work, should not now be told that the only way they can get any money is by going to the banks and paying interest, it being understood that they will not do so unless they desperately need it. That they need cash we know very well, but whether or not their need is desperate they are entitled to it. We feel that the only way that entitlement can be expressed under present conditions is by means of cash advances in respect of grain stored on the farms which the farmers of western Canada are prepared to deliver.
So, Mr. Speaker, we feel that this matter should not be pushed through in the form in which the bill is now before the house, but rather that the subject matter of the bill should be referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization so that interested bodies can appear before that committee and so that further consideration can be given to the matter.
The other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce objected to the amendment of my colleague, the hon. member for Kin-dersley, by saying that if this amendment were carried it would mean the defeat of the bill and would prevent a bill like this being introduced again this session. I feel that argument should be dealt with at least for a minute or two. First may I say that so far as we are concerned we are not frightened by

the charge that the carrying of this amendment would mean the defeat of the bill. After all, we are trying to defeat it and that is fine. But, Mr. Speaker, we have left the door open for even such a bill as this to be presented again to the house if, after consideration by a committee, that committee having had a chance to hear responsible organizations, a recommendation to that effect is made by the committee to the house.
We are not on a point of order so I am not going to pick up Beauchesne and read it, but I would remind the minister that citation 663 of Beauchesne, third edition, makes it clear that these motions that deny the "now" reading for the second time of a bill do not prevent a motion being made for second reading at a later time. All this amendment does is to deny the reading at this particular time. It is still possible, if the committee were so to recommend, to reintroduce legislation even along these lines at this same session.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, we feel that if the committee were given a chance to go into this matter thoroughly, if the committee were given a chance to hear the various organizations and get it straightened out for all who can hear as to what the farmers of western Canada want, that committee given a free hand would not recommend the reintroduction of a bill of this kind. We are satisfied that if the committee went into the matter thoroughly and heard representations from organizations representing the western farmers it would propose something much more akin to what we in this group have been advocating, namely cash advances to the farmers in respect of grain stored on the farm.
Naturally we have all been interested in the remarks made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce with regard to the legislation, and also with regard to the course the debate has taken. The minister does not like quotations of what he has said unless they are picked straight out of Hansard, so I will try to avoid offending him by putting words in his mouth that he did not use. However, I think it is pretty clear that he is annoyed that the debate is taking so long.
I am going to say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that I think one of the reasons he is annoyed at the length of time this debate is taking is that he has not any effective club to hold over those of us who are opposing the legislation. At times there are measures before the house which are grossly inadequate and which we on the opposition side of the house oppose in the hope they will be improved. In circumstances such as those the

Grain
government can sometimes hold over us the club that unless we let even such inadequate legislation go through its benefits will not reach those tor whom the benefits are intended.
But the Minister of Trade and Commerce knows as well as we do that any benefits that might accrue to individual farmers from this legislation have already been obtained by those farmers. If the debate goes on:r another day, another week, or is put off to the end of June it does not make a particle of difference to a single farmer in western Canada. Any farmer who would be able to borrow money from the banks, up to $1,500 at 5 per cent, after the passing of this bill can borrow that money now. In fact, the likelihood is that all who would take advantage of it have already done so. So the minister has no club over us in our opposition to this bill.
I mention that not just to remind the minister of the annoyance he is feeling, but also because the fact that it would make no difference whether or not this bill was passed emphasizes how utterly lacking in value it is. Just suppose this bill did not get passed.
the government in saying to the farmers, "This is all you get." I could recite the old saying that the good is the enemy of the best, but it would not be appropriate because there is nothing good about this legislation. The trouble with legislation of this kind being passed is that, in the government's mind at any rate, it blocks consideration of anything else. I therefore hope that, even if we have to have it by means of a government majority, there will be a strong opposition to this bill from this side of the house that will let the government know that so far as we are concerned this is not the end of dealing with the problem of achieving justice and fairness for the farmers of western Canada.
Mr. Speaker, there is before the house an' amendment moved by my colleague the hon. member for Kindersley which, as I have indicated, has our full support. As my colleague the hon. member for Dauphin suggested earlier today, we still feel that the government might do well to let a free vote be taken on this amendment and give such members on the government side as wish to do so the opportunity to support that amendment as well.
Would any farmer in western Canada suffer? Not one. Would any bank suffer? No. No bank has lent any money to any farmer on the strength of the letters from the Minister of Finance unless it was sure it was going to get its money back anyway. Hence if the bill does not pass, nobody suffers.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce said one time, "What are we debating about? There is nothing to debate about". Maybe he is right and there is nothing to debate about. There is no value to the bill at all. If it does not pass there is no change in the situation. But, Mr. Speaker, what happens if this bill passes is that the government is in a position to say to the farmers of western Canada that, between this and one other piece of legislation, "Here is the program; we are doing nothing more."
In that respect I may say this, and I say it frankly but kindly. I was disappointed in the vote at the resolution stage of our friends to the right and to the left of us, and I am highly pleased to know that on the vote that may take place shortly they are going to vote with us on our amendment and also against the second reading of the bill. I plead with them to stay with us in opposing this measure down the line.
This is one of those occasions, however, when I wish it were possible for us to move a different kind of amendment. I should like to have just a moment, Your Honour, to read a few sentences from May's thirteenth edition in order to indicate the kind of amendment that I think would have been even more appropriate than the amendment moved by my colleague the hon. member for Kindersley. I refer to page 394 of May's Parliamentary Practice, thirteenth edition, where I read:
In more ancient times bills were treated with even greater ignominy. On the 23rd January, 1562/3, a bill was rejected and ordered to be tom; so, also, on the 17th March, 1620/21, Sir Edward Coke moved "to have the bill tom in the house;" and it is entered that the bill was accordingly "rejected and tom, without one negative." Even so late as the 3rd June, 1772, the Lords having amended a money clause in the Com Bill, Governor Pownall moved that the bill be rejected, which motion being seconded, the Speaker said "that he would do his part of the business, and toss the bill over the table." The bill was rejected, and the Speaker, according to his promise, threw it over the table, "several members on both sides of the question kicking it as they went out."
Mr. Speaker, I wish it were possible to move that kind of an amendment to this bill. We would do our part in kicking it and we should be greatly pleased to see Your Honour do your part as well.
I say that for this reason. If this bill passes this house not merely with the support of the overpowering government majority but with the acquiescence of even one group on the opposition side of the house, that will support 67509-80i


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) pointed out yesterday, the revelations which were made to our group by reading the bill and by hearing the Minister

Grain
of Finance (Mr. Harris) declare on the floor of the house that the government would not refer this bill to the committee on agriculture and colonization changed our attitude. Those two revelations completely changed the attitude of the Social Credit group to this bill. Let me point out to my C.C.F. friends that it was not because of any "seeing the light" concerning the resolution. In that resolution there was no indication of either of those ^ facts. Once we had these two facts we did not need the lead of the C.C.F. or anybody else to tell us the right thing to do in respect of this bill.
There are two or three other matters on which I think it is well to comment at this stage. We find that there are a great many members from Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces and even some from British Columbia who believe that this bill ought to be rejected because it is a good thing for the western farmers, they think. In other words, their general idea is that too much has been done by the rest of Canada for those farmers in the three prairie provinces. That is a regrettable attitude but I have heard various members express it. One man from British Columbia said in my presence, "I would just do anything to vote against this measure. If I could possibly do it and still support the government, I would".


Mr. Goode:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know the hon. member is sincere but he is placing an implication on all members from British Columbia when he makes a statement like that. I hope he will assure the house that I made no such statement.


John Horne Blackmore: I am glad to assure the house that the hon. member who has just spoken did not make the statement. I used that quotation merely as an illustration.


Mr. Fairey:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I think a statement1 like that is a reflection on all members from British Columbia, as stated by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode). As the matter is now left, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond has repudiated the statement on his behalf. That narrows the field. We are now all under that implication. I do not propose to say that I did not say it- although I did not-because that would then leave it to my friend the hon. member for Vancouver South-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The hon. member for
Vancouver-Burrard said it.


Francis Thrower Fairey: I think the hon. member for Lethbridge should withdraw that statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In order to prevent hon. members from British Columbia from rising one after the other-and they are all

implicated-perhaps the hon. member for Lethbridge could help us out and relieve the situation by modifying his remarks.


John Horne Blackmore: What I said, Mr. Speaker, is the exact truth. I think if they keep on, by elimination they will finally get to the man who said it. I am sure he was quite anxious to have his statement on record. However, I think it is well to let the matter go, being satisfied that these two men have been so disgusted with the attitude expressed by one British Columbia member that they have immediately repudiated it.


Mr. Philpotl:: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker; what I said to the hon. member for Lethbridge was that I hoped he would finish his speech before six o'clock so we would have time to vote and get out of here.


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member has not said he was or was not the man.


Elmore Philpott: On a point of privilege, I can assure you that I was not the man.


Mr. Speaker:: I am at a great disadvantage in that I did not hear the original statement now being complained about. At the moment I was discussing a point of procedure with my assistant, the deputy chairman of committees, who is also from British Columbia but who I am sure has not heard the original statement. Would the hon. gentleman be kind enough to repeat the statement he made a moment ago which produced some inconvenience to certain hon. members?


John Horne Blackmore: I was merely indicating the reaction which a person like myself, who likes to move around amongst the members and keep his ears open, gets from the attitude of members who are not from the three prairie provinces in respect of a measure which is designed to help the three prairie provinces. What I said was that one British Columbia member said in my hearing-I do not think he said it to me-that he would like to vote against this measure if he could only find some way whereby he could do so without voting against the government.


Mr. Speaker:: I think in fairness to hon. members, if he is going to say that, he should name the hon. member to whom he is alluding.


John Horne Blackmore: My reaction to that, Mr. Speaker, would be very much like my reaction to a tattletale. I do not feel I should name the hon. member. Perhaps I could go on.


Francis Thrower Fairey: May I rise on a point of privilege again? That is why I asked the hon.

member to withdraw the remark so he would not name the hon. member and thereby label himself as a tattletale.


Mr. Quelch:: I understand the hon. member to whom reference is made gave a press statement to that effect. It is quite public, so I do not think there is any need not to mention his name.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What was his name?


Victor Quelch: The hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard (Mr. MacDougall).


John Horne Blackmore: I used that merely as an illustration of the idea that prevails amongst some hon. members. Yesterday I said "scandalous" when reference was made to what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said concerning those who were so well off, giving the impression that most farmers in the west were in the happy position of that particular man. I say that was pernicious because it would give so many people in the house who come from other provinces an altogether false idea concerning conditions on the prairie provinces.
I hope I have made my point. May I say to the members who come from provinces other than the three prairie provinces that if you could get together a complete account of all the grain which has been produced in those three prairie provinces since 1890 and sold for good, solid foreign exchange, you would be astounded at the service those provinces had rendered to the Dominion of Canada. They provide foreign exchange because that grain can always be sold for foreign exchange, whether or not it does the farmer who produced the wheat any good.
Now, I have not the figures compiled to indicate how great is the debt that Canada owes to her wheat growers in the three prairie provinces, merely on the matter of foreign exchange alone. I am sure everybody in this house is deeply perturbed by reason of the fact we are so dangerously indebted to the United States. We have an adverse trade balance every single year. This is simply putting our necks in a noose which will ultimately strangle us to death. This is enough to show you how serious it is to have production which results in foreign exchange for the advantage of this nation.
Well, that is just the first point. I would urge hon. members to forget entirely all this nonsense which has been given to them concerning the rank and file of farmers in those three prairie provinces living in luxury, riding off to California, Florida and that sort of thing. I have grown up and lived all my life amongst those farmers. They have
Grain
never been able to go off to California or Florida or anywhere else. They have to have their noses right to the grindstone, just as my poor father had his. He farmed all the time I knew him, and he was injured by the rise and fall of prices as a result of trading on the open market just as tens of thousands of others were. We were very glad, therefore, when the wheat board was established.
There is another matter with which I hope hon. members can impress themselves. In the year 1946-no doubt the Minister of Trade and Commerce exercised a very powerful influence-this government permitted the steel companies to advance the price of steel by $5 per ton. That act looked rather simple at the time. I do not know whether the minister foresaw what a potentially catastrophic thing that was, but he must have agreed to it. What happened? Everyone whose memory goes back to that time will recall that the steel workers of Canada in the various mills struck for their share of that $5 per ton. They continued that strike for 82 days, and the industrial relations committee of this house heard discussions on that strike for many of those days. The result of the whole thing was that by the time we were finished with that experience the prices of practically everything in the Dominion of Canada had been forced upward.
Was this inflation? No, it was not inflation. Inflation is a rise in price which results from a scarcity of goods. Anyone who thinks he can challenge that statement can get up on the floor and do it right now. Was there any shortage of steel which caused the increase in price? Not a bit of it. Was there any shortage of labour which caused the rise in the wages? Not a bit of it. The result of that increase by $5 per ton in the price of steel and the strike of the men following it was an over-all increase in prices. But it had nothing at all to do with inflation, one way or another.
It being six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to let me discontinue my remarks until after the recess.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lethbridge, having laid down the general foundation for his speech, perhaps might continue his remarks at eight o'clock on the principle of this bill. Do I understand the hon. member for Lethbridge has concluded his remarks?


John Horne Blackmore: No, not by any means, Mr. Speaker.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
Grain


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS
[Stage Direction]

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. J. L. MacDougall (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. This afternoon a verbal hassle occurred with respect to an unnamed hon. member from British Columbia who was opposed to the wheat legislation. I know that the hon. members for Lethbridge (Mr. Black-more), Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) and Acadia (Mr. Quelch) certainly wanted to be perfectly fair in connection with this matter, and I want at this time to be perfectly fair, too.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, there is no secrecy attached to this matter at all. Although some confusion exists, the whole thing is in Hansard. I made the statement referred to on the 16th day of January, at page 143. I then quoted Votes and Proceedings for January 12, as follows:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure for the payment of carrying costs of temporary wheat reserves owned by the Canadian wheat board in respect of board stocks of wheat in excess of one hundred and seventy-eight million bushels at the commencement of a crop year, such payment to be made to the board by the Minister of Finance out of the consolidated revenue fund.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, there are two bills dealing with wheat. From what I have just quoted it is most obvious that I was referring specifically to Bill No. 83 and not to Bill No. 82 which is now before the house. As far as Bill No. 82 is concerned I wish to assure you, sir, that I am 100 per cent in favour of the bill.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Apologize.



PROVISION FOR GUARANTEE OF BANK LOANS TO PRODUCERS IN PRAIRIE PROVINCES, ETC.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) for the second reading of Bill No. 82, to provide for short-term credit to grain producers in the prairie provinces to meet temporary financial difficulties arising from inability to deliver all their grain, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Johnson (Kindersley).
John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. MacDougall) was here in order to put his case before the house with adequate clarity. His case merely strengthens the position I was taking. This bill which we are

now discussing can hardly be of any value whatsoever to the farmers in western Canada as has been abundantly shown in the debate up to the present time.
The other bill which is yet coming along, which provides for the payment by the government of a certain amount of storage on grain which has accumulated in the country by reason of the fact that the government is unable to dispose of that grain abroad, will be of real value to everyone who has grain in storage. That is the bill which the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard should support, because it is one which will help the farmer, but it is the one which he opposes. The bill which will burden the farmer with a great deal of debt and which will destroy the farmer is the bill he is willing to see go through.
Before the recess I was indicating that I thought there are a great many people in the country, altogether too many in the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and the maritimes, who fail to understand the true situation in respect of the wheat growers of the three prairie provinces, and who are therefore quite wrongly led with respect to the prosperity which is supposed to exist on the prairies.
I was pointing out that the wheat growers of the three prairie provinces have done a great service to the nation through the years, from 1890 on, for example, by raising grain which has invariably been sold for exceedingly valuable foreign exchange, which has helped Canada to keep herself above water in the payment of her international commitments.
I was also, pointing out just before six o'clock that a very serious blunder was made by the government in Ottawa in granting the steel producers an increase of $5 a ton in the price of steel in April, 1946. This was done by the government including the present Minister of Trade and Commerce and the present Minister of Agriculture. They cannot possibly escape the responsibility for having done this. In doing this they were backed by their party. I heard not a member dissenting. The responsibility is shared by a large percentage of the people in the Progressive Conservative party, these people representing all the provinces of Canada. There is no way in the world whereby the provinces I referred to, Ontario, British Columbia and the maritimes, can escape the indirect responsibility for that $5 advance in the price of steel.
That advance in the price of steel has put the farmers in the three prairie provinces at a disadvantage the seriousness of which

Grain
no one in the country begins to realize. In large measure it has meant disaster to the prairie farmers. The only way they could have avoided disaster would have been to dispose of their grain at good prices, which they have not been able to do. I propose to go into that matter just a little more fully in the time that remains at my disposal.
Let us not forget, first of all, that when the advance in the price of steel of $5 a ton was made the steel workers demanded and got their share of the $5. They went on strike for 82 days. At the end of the strike they won their point, which gave them an increase in wages, and this resulted in an increase in wages for virtually every section of the labouring class in the Dominion of Canada, thereby forcing up the cost of Canada's production.
This had nothing whatsoever to do with inflation. It was a forcing up of prices, a price manipulation. At the same time the increase in the price of steel forced up the price of every commodity into the processing of which the matter of steel entered, which includes, of course, almost every industry in Canada.
If we can only get that clearly in our minds we will begin to see one of the great causes of the trouble which today exists among farmers in the three prairie provinces. So many people nowadays are saying that this rise in price which we have sustained is inflation. Every hon. member in this house should know, and if he does not know it is a reflection on him, that the rise in price had nothing to do with inflation. It had nothing to do with the amount of money in circulation, and it had nothing to do with the shortage of goods. There were plenty of goods whenever any one of the increases in price occurred, and it is impossible for anyone to show there was not. Consequently there was no justification whatsoever for the increase in price except that the increase in the cost of production had come about through manipulation and not through a shortage of goods.
As I said a moment ago, this increase in the price of steel is at the bottom of the major cause of the difficulty confronting the farmers at the present time, which is a difficulty I feel everyone in Canada would be glad to help the western farmers out of if the truth were known.
Let us see what has been the result of these increases in the price of steel. The Financial Post in a survey shows that 25 corporations which do business with farmers increased their average profit after taxes by 402 per cent between 1946 and 1954. This
means in effect that the government by permitting the $5 increase opened a back gate and turned into the Queen's garden a whole herd of hogs that had no respect at all for the welfare of the people; they just grabbed and gouged every single cent they possibly could and that herd of hogs is practically entirely made up of these 25 corporations. Those corporations were getting plenty of money with which to carry on during the war and they made good profits; but after the war, through this manipulation of the $5 a ton increase, they were simply allowed to go freely at will into the pockets of the Canadian consumers to rob them of every cent of which it was within their power to rob them.
The figures I have given indicate in some measure the result of that situation. These figures which I have given hon. members will be able to verify by consulting page 7 of the submission to the government of Canada by the interprovincial farm union council, which was presented on February 16, 1956. Remember that this document is quoting a survey conducted by the Financial Post.
Let me repeat once more that that is the cause of the difficulty which is ruining the farmers in the three prairie provinces. In the main those farmers rely upon grain, especially wheat, as the means whereby they can pay the excessive costs which have been brought about by the profits these companies have taken. Anything which affects the price or the ultimate value which the farmer derives from wheat will put him under an unbearable pressure financially.
We can consider this matter of purchasing power in another way, and I am going to cite some other figures for hon. members to contemplate to indicate the amount of money taken by these corporations from the people of Alberta.


Clarence Decatur Howe: On a point of order, we are listening to by far the most intelligent speech we have had from the opposition during this debate, but I suggest that we are wandering away from the subject matter of the amendment.


John Horne Blackmore: I was not able to hear all that the minister said, but I draw his attention to the fact that this amendment is calling for the reference of this bill to the committee on agriculture and colonization, where all sorts of abominations like those which I am revealing will be brought to the fore and the people will be educated. Apparently the minister does not want that to happen.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I like your speech.


John Horne Blackmore: It will not do the minister any good after all the facts are out, not by

Grain
any means. How could a person be following lines more relevant to the amendment before the house? This is the kind of thing which shows why the western farmers ought to have advances instead of loans, ought to be paid storage, not only for grain in the elevators but for grain on the farms. Those are the two great things the western farmers are needing and are asking for today. I think the minister is out of order on the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I know how strongly the hon. member feels as to the correctness of the points he is bringing forward. I have been following him closely ever since he commenced to speak before six o'clock and continuing from eight o'clock. As I said at six o'clock, having laid the general foundation for his speech I was hoping he would bring his remarks more closely to the principle of the bill.
It is quite true that if one wanted to be relevant to the principle of a bill regarding short-term credit to grain producers, and yet attempt to show the effect of the economic situation on farmers over a certain period of years, he could make a speech which would be far afield as far as the subject matter of this bill is concerned. Earlier I stopped hon. members on the grounds of irrelevancy who certainly had not wandered away quite as far as the hon. member has.
Cash advances to farmers were the subject of an amendment moved to the address in reply to the speech from the throne, which amendment was fully debated and voted upon by the house. It is difficult in criticizing this bill not to indicate a preference for cash advances, but if in trying to make that point the hon. member refers to the ill effects of an increase in the price of steel; if he refers to that particular factor and others in the same category during the greater part of his speech and refers only indirectly to the measure now before us, then I do not think it makes for orderly debate.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure in what position I am now standing. Do I conclude my speech or may I continue?


Mr. Speaker:: It is very simple. I am asking the hon. member to speak to the bill. I am trying to indicate to him that the way in which he has been speaking is not as relevant as I believe the rules would want him to be.


John Horne Blackmore: I bow to your ruling. Maybe I am not able to detect relevancy, but if it were proposed that advances should be given to farmers the first thing I would want to know would be how badly off are they. That is just exactly what the minister has been trying to argue all the way through.
rMr. Blackmore.]
He and the Minister of Agriculture have been arguing along those lines. It is as simple as A, B, C.
Then the next thing I would want to know would be what caused them to be that way, how it was that they were so badly off. Was it because they have not been good managers? Was it because of any fault of their own? The figures I intend to advance show that it was not any cause of their own making.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The price of steel.


John Horne Blackmore: The price of steel enters into their very existence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: This is no laughing matter. Every farmer who buys a combine or any machine whatsoever has his cost of production increased by the increase in the price of steel. Everything which causes his cost of production to rise creates an additional cost-price squeeze. There is no doubt about that. Under the circumstances I would say that it would be absolutely impossible to discuss this amendment with greater relevancy than I am doing at the present time. That is perhaps contrary to the opinion of Mr. Speaker and I bow to your ruling, but I am quite sure that is the way the majority of farmers see it.
I was going to give two sets of figures which are very brief but which are most enlightening. If after I have given these figures Mr. Speaker feels that I should discontinue this discussion, I shall gladly do so. I was going to give figures to indicate what had been taken away from the farmers and people of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba during the period 1940-45, when we were under price controls and when apparently the companies were getting along all right, in contrast to what was taken away during the period 1946-54, when the hogs were loose and the herd was running in every direction.
During the period 1940-45 those companies took out of the hands of the consumers in Alberta $320,041,005, but during the period 1946-54 they took from the pockets of the people of Alberta $2,877,463,723. If you want to find out why the farmers in Alberta, who had to absorb the greatest proportion of the impact of that situation, are in difficulty, it is so plain that even the minister should see it.
In Saskatchewan during the period 1940-45 they took away from the people $392,639,284, whereas in the period 1946-54 they took away $2,723,168,516. It is said by the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce that the farmers of Saskatchewan

are not in bad condition. One would have to be blind not to see the impact of that situation.
In Manitoba during the period 1940-45 these companies took out of the pockets of the people $293,639,220, whereas in the period 1946-54 they took out $2,220,455,357. Do you wonder that the farming people in those provinces are in difficult circumstances? What would you do about it?
Before I go any further, let me point out once again that the responsibility for the incursion of the hogs into the Queen's garden lies on the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the people with him in the cabinet who made the decision to permit that $5 advance in steel. It lies on the people who supported that motion, who came very largely from Ontario, Quebec, the maritime provinces and British Columbia. There is no way of escaping that responsibility. The responsibility for this difficulty in which we find our prairie farmers lies on the government that is now in power.
The question now is, what are we going to do about it? I am not going to prescribe now what has to be done about it but, whenever it is suggested that the western farmers need advances or that they need payment for storage on farms or in elevators, I do urge upon every hon. member of this house from every province outside the prairies to bear these facts strictly in mind.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, there are just three things I should like to say. I was interested today when the hon. member for Saskatoon spoke. He said something about this bill being a joke. Coming from the same part of the old land, I have a warm spot in my heart for one who was an old neighbour of mine. But I would say it would be no joke if any hon. member in the opposition could stand up now and say something new-


Mr. Cardiff:: I could do so but I am not
going to.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: -and, second, if he could stand up and make a speech without repeating something sensible that somebody said before. The right hon. minister said something about "blather". I looked up the dictionary to see what "blather" was. It is talking nonsense. If any hon. member can stand up in this chamber and take the time of this house and the taxpayers' money without repeating something, he is talking sense. But if he has to repeat, I say he is just plain blathering.


Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: If it had
not been my intention to say a few words at this stage, Mr. Speaker, I should have decided to do so after the last few remarks that were 67509-81
Grain
made. Some reference was made to the fact that we are here at the taxpayers' expense to conduct the affairs of parliament. I suggest that one need only look at the contributions -and I use that word quite loosely-of government supporters who have spoken on this measure. Tonight's Ottawa Journal has some reference to the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Studer) as having the last word, which outlines the only contribution he has had to make on this matter which affects so many of his constituents and which has a great effect on the economy of Canada as a whole. We expect-


Mr. Sluder:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member wishes to correct some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Regina City affecting him, he may do so if the member who now has the floor is willing to yield. Apparently he is not; therefore the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek may speak at the end of the hon. member's speech.


Irvin William Studer: Could I ask the hon. member a question?


Alfred Claude Ellis: I suggest that after I have concluded my remarks, the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek can take all the time he requires to answer what I have to say. I wish he had the courage to stand up and make a speech instead of making interjections all the time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think perhaps one should not generate more heat than one can control. When the hon. member said, referring to the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, that he wished he had the courage to stand up in this house and make a speech, I think he went beyond what he really wanted to say. I think he should have modified that remark or replaced it by another.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Speaker, I will put it this way, that I think we all enjoy interjections made during the course of a debate, but while the interjections are enjoyable at the time, there would be more point to them if the individual concerned were prepared to get up and give his views on this matter. The hon. member has been strangely silent. The amazing thing is that I found on reading the last edition of the Swift Current Sun that there is an article submitted by the hon. member-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is now explaining why he made the statement. I would ask him to withdraw the statement that the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek has not the courage to stand up and make a speech.

Grain


Alfred Claude Ellis: I will withdraw that, certainly.


An hon. Member:: Magnanimous.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The hon. member, while not having made a speech in the house on this matter, has gone into print in his own constituency, and he has referred to this bill as being unpalatable. We have heard some reference to an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press to the effect that we have a western Tucker and an eastern Tucker, a member with one voice in the west and another voice in the east. We have an indication of the same sort of thing in this instance. Here is a member who in writing a news letter to his constituents will refer to this legislation as unpalatable, yet he has not had a word to say about it in this house. All he has had to contribute to this debate is a lot of asinine interjections. It is quite apparent that if the word "socialist" were removed from his vocabulary, it would be cut in half.


Irvin William Studer: Regina windbag.


Mr. Speaker:: All these interjections are very entertaining, but the one that has just been made by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek is one that should not have been made. In referring to an hon. member, he should do so by calling him "the hon. member", and no other expression should be used. Therefore I shall ask him to withdraw the one he has just applied to the hon. member.


Irvin William Studer: I would be glad to withdraw that, and just suggest that if he were on a farm you would just call him a windmill.


Mr. Speaker:: If I may ask the hon. member to be just as serious as I am trying to be for one moment, I would ask him to withdraw the first and second expressions without any condition whatsoever.


Irvin William Studer: Could I offer a substitute again, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: No.


Irvin William Studer: I will withdraw.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I was merely suggesting that the hon. member who has been making the interjections has been the only member now who has, technically speaking, not taken part in this debate. I say "technically speaking" because there were two efforts by private members from Saskatchewan the other day, and perhaps while I am on this point I should make some reference to both of them.
The hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Harrison) rose in his seat the other day and spoke for about a minute and a half. On reading his speech in Hansard I find it very difficult to understand why he rose, except

that I recall that on the previous day there had been some reference to the fact that some of the members from the province of Saskatchewan had not spoken. I presume he thought that, having risen in his place and made a few remarks, none of which in any way had anything to do with the matter before the house, he would be absolved of any further charges that he had not participated in the debate. I presume he is hoping at the same time that the people back home will not have any knowledge of the extent of his contribution.
Then the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Mang) took part in the debate the other day, and I wish to refer briefly to what he said because apparently some of the behaviour and mannerisms of the Minister of Trade and Commerce are spilling over into some of his followers. I noted that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle had this to say, as found at page 1169 of Hansard of February 14:
I am getting just a little bit tired of all this finagling around all over the field of general farm policies when this has nothing to do with the question of a general farm policy.
Inasmuch as the hon. member represents a rural constituency, one would imagine that under these circumstances he would welcome a discussion of farm policies and would be only too eager to participate, give us the benefit of his years of experience and give some direction to the government. However, that was the extent of that contribution. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in this debate the supporters of the legislation have a duty to perform. It is their job to put forth cogent reasons why the legislation should be passed. It is the duty of those who are opposed to the legislation to give sound reasons why it should not be approved by the house.
I suggest that if you go through the records of this debate you will look in vain for any reasonable argument put forward by supporters of the bill as to why we should accept the bank loan legislation now before the house.


Mr. Mang:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question? Did you read the speech in its entirety?


Alfred Claude Ellis: I will do that. I will be glad to.


Mr. Speaker:: May I tell the hon. member for Qu'Appelle that I did not. He asked me if I had read the debate in its entirety. I did not.


Henry Philip Mang: I was asking the hon. member.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The hon. member for Qu'Appelle has asked me to read the speech in its entirety. It would not take me very long to do that. As a matter of fact this is what he had to say, and I think it is particularly

interesting in the light of an event which occurred in this house a week ago. As found at page 1168 of Hansard of February 14 he said:
I do not see how anyone could hold up the passage of this temporary measure with any justification whatsoever. Indeed, all of this discussion has merely postponed the next measure to come before us which will probably be Bill No. 83 which does attempt to and will provide a part of a long term policy.
Then he continued in that vein. On the next page he said:
All of the discussion that is going on is simply holding up our proceedings, and that in the long run will hold up the final payment which will be made subsequent to the passing of Bill No. 83. Do not let anyone say that Bill No. 82 is deliberately placed where it is before Bill No. 83 which deals with storage and interest charged. That was the businesslike way of doing it, that was the natural orci^r of precedence. Let no one be unbusinesslike enough to get up and say that that is not so.
Well, there are a good many of us over here who are quite willing to say that is not so. There was no particular reason why the government should not have placed the resolution preceding Bill No. 83 before that preceding Bill No. 82. That was a government decision. There is no reason whatsoever why the government could not have placed the one before the other. They chose to place this most controversial piece of legislation ahead of the other item on the order paper.
Apparently the hon. member was not in his seat or was not aware of what went on at the time, but I made reference on a previous occasion to the fact that in committee we witnessed a very interesting spectacle when the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) moved that we rise and report progress. One of my colleagues reminds me that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle was the only private Liberal member from Saskatchewan who was in the house at the time. Therefore he will recall the incident.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I really do not see what this has to do with the principle of the bill. The hon. member recognizes that the proceeding to which he is now referring took place several days ago. If he wishes to take stock of what that division meant, then I would point out that there have been other divisions since and we would begin to have a discussion of the situations as they arose with respect to each of these divisions. We would get away from the principle of the bill altogether.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your comments, but I was making the remarks I did in direct reply to the remarks made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. He has
67509-81i
Grain
placed statements on record purporting to indicate that we are holding up the passage of Bill No. 83.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alfred Claude Ellis: That is the statement the hon. member has made, as appears from what I have quoted.


An hon. Member:: Call it now.


Alfred Claude Ellis: In reply to that I am simply reminding the hon. member that the government had the decision as to which item would be called first.


Mr. Speaker:: As I heard the hon. member, he has already made that point. He has already said that the government chose to place Bill No. 82 before Bill No. 83, and we are now on Bill No. 82.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I think perhaps you have made my point quite clear, Mr. Speaker, in your last remarks, and I am prepared to pass on to the next matter. I suggest that in reading the speech of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle hon. members will fail to see any reason advanced why the hon. member is supporting this legislation at the present time and why he is opposing the amendment. When hon. members take part in the debate I think they have a responsibility to put forward reasons why they are taking the stand which they are taking, and I suggest that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle added nothing to the debate.
I make this statement reluctantly but in reply to certain comments made by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor), who made some derogatory remarks about members who have taken part in the debate. I think one must examine the records and determine just who have made the most constructive speeches in the debate and which side has put forward the most cogent arguments, the supporters of the legislation or the opponents of the legislation.


An hon. Member:: A temporary measure.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The matter that brought me to my feet in the first instance was the speech made the other day by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker). He addressed the house the other day and in this particular case he was the hon. member for Rosthern from the east. I checked his speech very thoroughly, and I find that the only thing which might pass as a reason why we should support the legislation is the oft repeated and oft refuted argument that the government, somehow or other, is complying with the wishes of organized agriculture in the west.
He went further than that. He went so far as to suggest that all the farm delegates

Grain
who met the government last fall were unanimous in their support for bank loans. He even went so far as to suggest that the government of Saskatchewan had approved the principle of bank loans.


Mr. Tucker:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I suppose nobody should pay any attention to the ravings of the hon. gentleman opposite, but after all, when he deliberately misrepresents what I said, I suggest that I should draw that fact to the attention of the house. I did not say that they passed the bank loans. I said what the government did was consistent with what they asked for.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: In correcting what the hon. member has said and in referring to the hon. member's speech, the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) should not indicate that the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Ellis) is deliberately misrepresenting what he said.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: The expression "deliberately" should be withdrawn.


Walter Adam Tucker: The reason I said it was that I made it so plain and repeated it so often-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Withdraw.


Walter Adam Tucker: -that I think a school teacher could not misunderstand what I said.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Even though the hon. member has suggested he made the matter plain, he has also made it plain that he used the word "deliberately" which should be removed. That word should be withdrawn. I am sure the hon. member will accede to my request.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Withdraw.


Walter Adam Tucker: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker. I would say that he blindly and stupidly said it.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Speaker, I must assure you that I am not particularly concerned about the type of remarks which we have just heard from the hon. member for Rosthern. I think of some of the comments he made during his speech the other afternoon when he complained about the heckling by the opposition. As reported at page 1159 of Hansard he said this:
I ask you to bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, when I was attempting to put this to the house the sort of opposition I got from the C.C.F. opposite. They interrupted deliberately and tried to prevent me from putting it before the house.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker that every hon. member has every opportunity for putting his case before this house. I think it ill becomes a member to complain because certain hon. members opposite are putting him right, keeping his train of thought on the right track and perhaps assisting him to stick to the pertinent points. As reported at page 1159 of Hansard he said this:
I have now brought this submission, signed on behalf of the government of Saskatchewan, endorsing every word I said.
Those are the exact words of the hon. member for Rosthern. He came into this house and said, "What I have said has been endorsed by the government of Saskatchewan". That is the statement he made. I am quoting his own words.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That will be the day.


Alfred Claude Ellis: In the light of all that, I think we ought to set the record straight. The other day the hon. member was quite concerned about setting the record straight. In fairness I suggest that we ought to make it quite clear where the government of Saskatchewan stands on this question of bank loans. Hon. I. C. Nollet, minister of agriculture in the province of Saskatchewan, made this statement:
I supported the wheat board payment proposal on behalf of the government of Saskatchewan as the fairest and most practical way to deal with the situation.
Since the farmer has so far carried the entire load of storage and marketing costs and is now faced with lower prices, he should not be compelled to borrow money from a bank on grain in the bin which through no fault of his own he is unable to market. We feel that advance cash payments on farm-stored grain must become an established part of wheat board marketing, . . .
This view has been endorsed by the Saskatchewan legislature and has been brought to the attention of the Right Hon. C. D. Howe on several occasions ... I again brought this matter to the attention of the federal government at the conference.
It was disappointing to find the federal government had already decided that regular lending institutions would be called upon to meet the immediate situation, rather than employing an advance payment plan.
Those are the exact words of the minister of agriculture in the province of Saskatchewan. Yet the other day the hon. member for Rosthern made a direct statement to the effect that the interpretation which he placed on the Saskatoon conference had been endorsed by the Saskatchewan government.
While we are on this point, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. I just wonder what organizations at the Saskatoon conference had wanted to take bank loans. I wonder whether the hon. member for Rosthern could inform hon. members of the house what organizations at that conference asked for bank loans. Was it the wheat pool? Was it the Saskatchewan

farmers' union? The hon. member for Ros-thern is not able to name one Saskatchewan farm organization which at that conference came out for bank loans.
What happened was this. When the delegation came to Ottawa, in an effort to present a unanimous report they were a little bit vague as to the manner in which this policy was to be put into effect. But here is the interesting point. The other day the hon. member for Rosthern was reading into Hansard the resolution passed at the Saskatoon conference and, as appears at page 1158 of Hansard, he read into the record the following:
While the principle of cash advances on farm-stored grain was unanimously endorsed by the organizations present at the conference various proposals were offered on the mechanics of making these advances.
Then the hon. member went on to quote four alternative methods of putting the scheme into effect, one of which was that of bank loans. The hon. member selected the proposal which suited his convenience, the one of which he approves and of which the government approves, namely that of bank loans; and he says because the conference were not specific they obviously meant bank loans. But bank loans were only one of four proposals put forward. Then by the same token he argues that because they did not say cash advances on farm-stored grain paid by the wheat board, they are therefore opposed to cash advances paid by the wheat board.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that that is entirely a matter of the interpretation of each individual person who reads these resolutions. However, I draw to the attention of the house the fact that the hon. member chose the one alternative which suited his purpose, the one alternative on which this government had decided. Because the delegation made a mistake, in an effort to present a unanimous front-because they made the mistake of not being too specific-they fell into the error of having a wrong interpretation placed on their recommendations by the government and by the hon. member for Rosthern.
If it is logical to say that the delegation asked for bank loans, I suggest that it is just as logical to say that they asked for cash advances paid by the wheat board. The very fact that they were not too specific can in no way be_ used as an argument in favour of the legislation now before this house. I think that is a matter that is quite serious. The other day the hon. member for Rosthern, several times-and I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)
Grain
got to his feet on the occasion on a point of order-as reported at page 1160 of Hansard said:
.	.	. they are deliberately misrepresenting the
record.
At that time, Mr. Speaker, I was not too greatly worried because I think the people back home will be able to judge the hon. member and his interpretation of this particular matter. However, I want to suggest this. The other day the hon. member was complaining because of a little bit of heckling from this side of the house. I suggest to him that the heckling he got in this house was not nearly as severe as that which he will get back home if he goes out and tries to sell the same sort of line to the people there.
When the hon. member first brought this excuse before this house for supporting this bank loan provision, I interjected a remark to the effect that "You will not sell that back home". I stand by that remark. I am quite satisfied that the hon. member for Rosthern is not going to be able to go back to a public meeting in the prairie provinces and try to read into the record the interpretation which he placed on those resolutions in this house.


Hazen Robert Argue: He cannot even do that on television.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Some reference has been made to television, and I suggest that the hon. member take exceptional care, because in making statements from the public platform one is not accorded the protection of a soundproof broadcasting booth in a television studio.
I have referred to the speeches made in this house by Liberal members from my own province. I have gone through them very carefully in an attempt to find out what reasons they are advancing for supporting the legislation before us. I have not found a single reason put forward. I am wondering why they are supporting it if it is not because they are toeing the party line.
Some reference has been made to the leader of the Liberal party in Alberta who appeared on "Press Conference" last night. He stated in no uncertain terms that Liberal fortunes were not too good at the moment in the west in view of the agriculture policy being put forward by this government. He went on to say some glowing things about his own province, but when the reporters asked of him how he thought the Liberal party in western Canada was faring in the light of the agriculture policy being put forth by the government, he hesitated somewhat and then began to damn it with faint praise.
I referred earlier to the attitude of the leader of the Liberal party in Saskatchewan.

Grain
Initially he had the same reaction as hon. members of the C.C.F. group, that the legislation was completely inadequate and was not going to do the job which we felt had to be done.
We have an amendment before the house which, if it passes, will send this bill to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization. I am at a loss to understand why the government will not accept this amendment. We recall that the other night the Minister of Trade and Commerce issued a threat -perhaps on reconsideration I could properly describe it as a bluff-that if we were not good boys he was going to put off this legislation until June. If that is his attitude, I am curious as to why the Liberals do not vote for this amendment and send it to the committee. Then this bill would not come before the house for some time. If the minister is interested in putting off this matter we have opened the door for him. All he and his Liberal followers have to do is vote for the C.C.F. amendment to refer this matter to the committee. After the committee has discussed it and after the various farm organizations have had an opportunity to make their representations, the matter can be brought back before the house.
I do not believe anyone need feel too much concern over the fact that this matter is being discussed. It is being discussed thoroughly because the government has not accepted this amendment. When we find hon. members reading resolutions which are quite clear to all who wish to read them properly, and interpreting them in such a fashion as to completely defeat not only the intent but the spirit of those resolutions, then I think those people have a right to clarify their position. Some other members have mentioned that if we were to refer this bill to a committee it would enable the farmers in western Canada to make their representations. They would then be in a position to let the government supporters know how they feel on these matters.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, I hope that perhaps the Liberal members from Saskatchewan have a little clearer understanding of the problems out west since their meeting with the farm union delegation. I trust that they paid strict attention to the representations made, and I hope they will have had some effect on the way those members are going to vote on this particular measure.
We have had arguments advanced as to why we should support the legislation. We have had arguments against the legislation. But I suggest, looking at it from an objective point of view, that if hon. members

were to go back to the record of this debate and draw up a balance sheet of the arguments in favour of and against this legislation there would be no question as to where the bulk of the evidence would lie.
We have had speeches by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Agriculture and private members supporting the government, but we have not had any discussion about the impact this legislation will have on the prairies. The hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Bryson) yesterday put before this house certain figures to indicate the effect this legislation would have on the small farmers on the prairies. He referred specifically to farmers with a quarter section, a half section and three quarters of a section, and indicated the extent to which those people could obtain loans.
We have had no discussion from government supporters. They have not considered the implication of the legislation. They have made up their minds it is good for the people out west and they are going to force it on us whether or not we like it. In my judgment that is the best reason why this house should vote for the amendment to refer this bill to the committee on agriculture and colonization, where it belongs.


Mr. B. H. Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, a long silence in connection with this measure does not indicate by any means that I am not interested in what is before the house. I think it would be fair to say that this condition we are trying to remedy did not come upon us in the last few months. It has been with us now for three or four years. Farm income has been steadily dropping. We are now asked to put the rubber stamp of approval on a hurry-up measure that is already in operation. As I recall it, the minister said that practically all the loans that are going to be made under this legislation have been made. Since we have had this decline in farm income for some time, surely we should not have had to rush in with something in the middle of November and now come here as a group to put on the rubber stamp of approval.
I had one other thing in mind when I rose. Since there is a group of people from the farm union here, I should like to see someone on the government side stand up and explain why this bill should not go to the agriculture committee. It is all right for somepne to get up in the house and flatly say, "No", but I think we should know why the government take that stand. I should like to have someone on the government side explain that to the house.

That is about all I have to say on this measure at this time. I may have something else to say when the bill goes to committee. I would urge the government to explain to us, Mr. Speaker, exactly why this bill could not go to the committee after second reading, and why they would not give an undertaking to have that done.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the
warning by the Minister of Trade and Commerce this has become a debate on second reading, which is the place where a debate should take place. The only thing that has degenerated during the course of this debate is the government side of the house, which apparently is suffering from a severe attack of silence which obviously has been imposed upon it by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


An hon. Member:: Untrue.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


An hon. Member:: Silly.


George Alexander Drew: It is at least good to know that the hon. members supporting the government have voices, because we have not heard them in the debate. It would have been extremely helpful if some of those who have been making interjections, who have been speaking

Grain
so freely from their seats, had stood up and said some of the things they are saying in these buildings but outside of this chamber in regard to this bill.


An hon. Member:: Fairy tales.


George Alexander Drew: There is not an hon. member opposite who will suggest for one moment that there are not many hon. members on the other side who have expressed their disapproval of this bill but who will not express it here.
We have indicated quite clearly that we sought to have provision made that would in fact bring relief to the farmers of western Canada at a time when they need cash and need it desperately in the midst of all this immense accumulation of grain. The explanation we have had that this is only because of a succession of good crops is simply an evasion of the reality which must be faced and which this government has not faced.
When we were at the resolution stage I indicated that we hoped the government would still bring down legislation which, if they still insisted on bringing this in, would combine with it the provision for cash payments for farm-stored grain. We did not have the legislation before us. We had been told that the government was going to introduce legislation to provide for loans by the banks.
Of course the government acted in the way it ordinarily acts in relation to parliament. We had urged that we have a special session last fall to deal with this. That would have been the proper way to deal with this subject. Before this government told the banks to go ahead and make loans, no matter what their majority is, there should at least have been a sufficient measure of apparent respect for the independence of its members not to assume in advance that they would necessarily rubber-stamp what the government did. We should have been called together here to pass upon legislation of this kind. Had we been brought together, we could then have urged from the very beginning the kind of legislation we think would deal with this situation.
It will be recalled that when we indicated at the stage when the motion was before us that it was expedient to introduce legislation, we were pressing then for a broadening of the legislation, a widening of its application to embrace payments on farm-stored grain. We supported that resolution simply for the purpose of proceeding and permitting the government to consider what legislation it would bring in. It now brings in legislation that is similar in all respects to an act which over and over again they have

told us was no good. This bill before us is almost identical with the bill introduced in 1951 under the title of the Prairie Grain Producers' Interim Financing Act, 1951. Over and over again we have been told by the government that this act was ineffective.
Surely we had reason to expect that we were not simply going to have a repetition of an ineffective act. Surely we had reason to expect that, with the experience they explained had resulted from that act, whatever legislation was brought in would overcome its objectionable features and be amended to make it more effective, even within the limited field with which they were prepared to deal. They have not done that. They have re-enacted the same act. There are certain provisions that differ, but those provisions that differ are even more onerous than the provisions in the original act.
Now we have before us the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act, 1956, with all the offensive provisions of that earlier act which made it so ineffective in bringing relief to the farmers at that time, and make it even more ineffective today because of a particular provision which I shall mention.
I thought we were dealing with the problem of providing loans. To read this you would think we were dealing with potential criminals. To read this you would think it was expected that everyone we were dealing with was likely to look for some way of getting out of his obligation. There are all sorts of provisions in this act that go far beyond any ordinary loaning provisions. As has already been pointed out, this act provides for imprisonment for debt, something that we thought had been removed from our laws generations ago. It is true that a similar provision was in the 1951 act, but we thought, from the government's own statements, they had learned how unsatisfactory that act was. Then look at the provision in section 9.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I was not aware that previous speakers had referred to sections but, if they have, they were not in order, any more than the Leader of the Opposition is now. I would quote citation 656 from Beauchesne's third edition:
On the motion for the second reading, it is out of order to discuss the clauses of the bill.


George Alexander Drew: I should not have quoted the number of the section. The bill provides for penalties of an extraordinarily severe nature. In the act-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should have said that one should not discuss the sections either directly or indirectly.


George Alexander Drew: But, Mr. Speaker, I submit that it is open to an hon. member to indicate

what the bill does. Otherwise we would have achieved the result the Minister of Trade and Commerce wants, that there be no debate.


Mr. Speaker:: No; the Leader of the Opposition should not take that inference from the representations I have made to him. I do think I have made the point clear that, according to Beauchesne, citation 656:
On the motion for the second reading, it is out of order to discuss the clauses of the bill.
It does not say whether they are referred to by number or whether they are referred to in the fashion in which the Leader of the Opposition has done.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members should know- and I think they do know-that the rules I have to administer are their own rules. I did not make them. If they do not want me to administer them in the way I think they should be, they have a recourse, and that is to appeal the rulings I make. That is the only way. Now, if they want to make further representations I would be very pleased to hear them, but I think they should let me perform my duties and not indicate in the way they have that I should not have interrupted an hon. member and reminded him of the rules.


George Alexander Drew: Since there is a record made of the debate, and there seems to be some promise that the record may be more permanent-


Mr. Speaker:: This reference now is a slight on me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: It is; because I have just had the floor and made some references to the hon. member. In the hon. member's remarks he has just made, I think he is referring to an action that I took myself the other day and that was referred to in this house on Monday. I know the hon. member does not want to make any reflection on the Chair.


George Alexander Drew: There was no reflection on the Chair. The reflection was on the Minister of Agriculture, as I made perfectly clear on the occasion when I first raised this subject.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am at least able to keep within the rules of the house when I speak.


George Alexander Drew: When I was making my remarks I was speaking about the onerous provisions of this act. Do I understand there is a ruling against dealing with the onerous provisions of this act?
Grain


Mr. Speaker:: No, the Leader of the Opposition was dealing, as he said, with the provisions of this bill and he referred to the one dealing with imprisonment for debt. After having dealt with that one he proceeded to another which at that moment he identified by naming the number. He said "section 9". When I told him he was not to refer to sections he said, "I agree with the Speaker's ruling and will not do so." But he proceeded then not to refer to section 9 but to refer to what is contained in section 9. Without mentioning the number he went on to talk about the section.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the record will indicate quite clearly what was said. I had spoken about the onerous provisions contained in the bill and the difficult features that are presented to those who are called upon to make loans in this way. One of the things the bill deals with is the quota book. In relation to our proposal, which has been made over and over again, a very simple method was available, and that was simply to make an ordinary payment on the quota book in relation to farm-stored grain. We have been told about the difficulty of using the quota book, but this bill provides for the use of the quota book. The bill provides that where there is a loan made under the extremely onerous provisions contained in the legislation, there then must be an entry to that effect in the quota book.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I never heard of the quota book. What is that? What is this quota book my hon. friend speaks of?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Read the bill.


George Alexander Drew: If the Minister of Trade and Commerce has a question I will be very glad to hear it but I cannot hear him when he is mumbling.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have never
heard of a quota book. Perhaps my hon. friend will tell me what that is.


George Alexander Drew: Permit book.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I just want to be accurate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Fulton:: We are making progress.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, we have made greater progress in the last minute than at any time during this debate. Any evidence of a desire on the part of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to be accurate is in itself worth all the discussion that has taken place. The Minister of Trade and Commerce

Grain
knows perfectly well what is meant by a quota book. It is described in the bill as a permit book. It is known to the farmers as a quota book and is known to the Minister of Trade and Commerce as such.
It is typical of the way in which this debate has been conducted that an attempt should be made to create any suggestion that the minister was not fully aware of what a quota book is. A quota book is well understood by the farmers of western Canada as meaning the permit book described in the bill. One of the results of that endorsement of the loan in the permit book is that the farmer cannot then deliver his grain to the elevator and therefore he not only has the problem of not being able to deliver his grain but he has an entry on his quota book or permit book, if the minister prefers that term, which prevents him carrying out the very transaction that is going to make it easier for him to repay the loan.
It is a typical achievement of the draftsmanship of this government that they should have a provision of that kind. This legislation is a little worse than the 1951 act, but not much. That of course was the act that they thought was such an unsatisfactory act. We have urged the government to reconsider this legislation. We have urged the government to provide in any event for cash payments, and it is perfectly clear that this bill, which deals with the permit book, to use the name the minister prefers, could easily have provided also for cash payments in relation to that same permit book.
It could have been done. It has not been done. The motion that was made by way of amendment on behalf of the Progressive Conservative party was ruled out of order. An amendment was then moved by a representative of the C.C.F. party and we supported that amendment.
Now we come to the bill itself. The cash advances that we have sought certainly are in no way contemplated or provided under the legislation now before us. On top of that is the attitude of the government in dealing with this whole matter. We have had no real explanation why the government was not prepared to consider this, except some suggestions of dealing with the permit book as we have argued. There was a typical example in the debate yesterday of the way in which this matter has been dealt with. The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) was asking that the bill be referred to a committee and, as reported at page 1210 of Hansard for February 15, the hon. member for Acadia,

following an extended discussion of the amendment calling for reference to a committee, said:
I suggest that instead of having to get this secondhand, we should get it firsthand. Let us refer this bill-
He was in the middle of a sentence when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) said:
If my hon. friend would permit me to answer his question, the answer is no.
That, Mr. Speaker, is typical of the whole attitude of the government-no attempt to explain to the members of the house, no attempt to explain why our very reasonable proposals should not be carried out.
As has already been pointed out tonight, if the subject matter of the bill had been referred to a committee then the whole thing could have been examined with representatives of the various farm groups present and there would have been an opportunity to find out firsthand from the farmers themselves exactly what it was they wanted. In any event, we now find ourselves simply with the bill, a bill that the government described as unsatisfactory in its 1951 form and a bill which, now that we have it before us, is definitely more unsatisfactory today.
The arrogance of the government in relation to this has simply been a further expression of their contempt of parliament. They have been unwilling to listen to arguments. They have brought down a bill they themselves said was bad, and they have made it worse by the revisions that are in it. We shall certainly vote against the bill on second reading.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the main motion.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am on my feet. I have had some criticism, Mr. Speaker, for having folded up very quickly last week when the Minister of Trade and Commerce issued his ultimatum. The people who sent me to parliament did not expect that I would be cowardly enough to stop speaking just because the Minister of Trade and Commerce made such an irresponsible suggestion. I should like to explain, Mr. Speaker, that we had all spoken once and we were about ready to have the vote on the resolution before the minister made his suggestion, and I should like to assure the house that our decision to let the bill be brought before us was in no way determined by the threat that the Minister of Trade and Commerce made.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that private members on the government side have been placed in an unfortunate position in having had two senior members of the cabinet present this important national problem in such a light

and trivial manner. The other night the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. White) mentioned that the position of the western wheat producer has not worsened to any great extent in the past year. Unfortunately that opinion is shared by a great many on the government side of the house.
The chief offenders in creating that impression are the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is responsible for the statistical information for Canada, and the Minister of Agriculture, who also has a statistical branch or an economics branch so that he has information available. The resentment that is felt in the country as a result of the attitude of these two responsible ministers has been keener than anything I have experienced in many years.
For example, in the Western Producer, the February 2 issue, there is a heading " 'Making Monkeys out of us' Delegate criticizes Gardiner". That is strong language to appear in a paper like the Western Producer, coming from a meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture which has been extremely friendly to this government. The article begins with these words:
"How long are we going to let Jimmy Gardiner make monkeys out of us." a delegate to the meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture here shouted.
I think that is a question that should be answered.
Just before six o'clock there was some discussion with regard to what the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. MacDougall) had to say with regard to this question. In the Ottawa Citizen of January 10, before Bill 82 and Bill 83 were before the house, the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard went into print. Here is an article written by Warren Baldwin, an extremely responsible correspondent. In it we find these words:
Howe wheat plan is seen dynamite. Meanwhile the government can look forward to a lively session.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.	Perhaps the hon.
member is not aware of the fact that earlier this evening the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard made a statement in this house explaining his position on this very question.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, he did not refer to the article in the Ottawa Citizen. He referred to a speech he delivered in parliament earlier. As reported in the Citizen he said he was going to speak against subsidies and vote against them.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will recall that the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) had said that what the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) was alluding to was a public matter, that it had
Grain
appeared in the newspapers. I took it that the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard was refuting what had been said by both hon. members.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I was here and was listening. The hon. member will correct me if I am wrong, but I understood he was referring to what he put on Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: That is why I am trying to protect him. He is not here at the moment.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Very well, Mr. Speaker. I shall leave that matter.


John Lorne MacDougall: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry. I was in error. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard is present.


John Lorne MacDougall: I do not know whether the hon. member for Mackenzie was in his seat when I made my statement with respect to the matter.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I did not hear it all.


John Lorne MacDougall: I know he discussed this matter with me when the hon. member for Lethbridge was kind enough to ask me to go and read in Hansard the statement he made this afternoon. Unfortunately I cannot utilize a statement that was made by anyone because it is not official and it will not be official until tomorrow. There is no question at all about where I stood, and I explained that matter tonight. I think it is rather picayune for the hon. member for Mackenzie to go on dealing with newspaper reports when I have already made my statement to the house.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Very well. I want to emphasize the point that several private members on the government side of the house have accepted the claims made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture that the farmers in Canada are enjoying an era of prosperity such as has never been known previously. Those are not the facts, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has supplied me with the statistics on new motor vehicle sales and motor vehicle financing for December of last year. This publication gives the information-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, may I say this to the hon. member. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has supplied you with nothing. You got it from the bureau of statistics, which serves all the people of Canada.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Thank you very much. The releases are very kind in giving the Minister of Trade and Commerce credit as being the minister responsible.

Grain


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would not furnish you with a postage stamp.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I make apology and give the taxpayers of Canada the credit for supplying this information. If the minister is so sensitive, it might be a good idea to have his name removed so that his extremely efficient staff in the bureau would not be held responsible for many of the statements the minister makes.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Trade and Commerce or rather, I should say, the bureau of statistics under the authority of the Minister of Trade and Commerce informs us of the statistics with regard to new motor vehicle sales in the various provinces of Canada for 1954 and up to December 1955. It is interesting to note that in Newfoundland there has been an increase of 24 per cent, in Prince Edward Island an increase of 35 per cent and so on across the country.
But when we come to the prairie region the story is different. I am sorry to be compelled to say that in my province there has been a decrease in passenger motor vehicle sales of 3-2 per cent in the number and 6-9 per cent in the value. In commercial vehicle sales we are down 23-3 per cent in number and 21-2 per cent in value. In Alberta and Manitoba the situation is not quite so bad. However, in Alberta in commercial vehicle sales they are down 0-8 per cent in numbers but up 11-7 per cent in value. This merely points up the fact that while motor car sales have been increasing in the rest of Canada, in the area where the agricultural crisis has developed on account of the factors which are well known, the motor car sales are down. That information is available to everyone. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, through his department, will supply these statistics to everyone.
The interprovincial farm union council met with the cabinet today and presented some interesting information with regard to the over-all position of agriculture, particularly the position of agriculture in the west. They have here a table giving the purchasing power of a bushel of wheat at Fort William in the period 1891-1900, 1901-1910, and so on, for periods ever since records were kept. They have these prices given in the purchasing power of a bushel of wheat in terms of the 1935-39 dollar. It' is interesting to note that back when I was a lad a bushel of wheat would buy a pair of overalls. But in 1956 a bushel of wheat will buy the buttons and the braces, and the farmer is obliged to sell a pig or a calf or something in order to get the rest of the overalls.
In terms of 1935-39 purchasing power, a bushel of wheat was worth $1.28 back at the

beginning of the century, while last year it was worth only 61 cents. Some years ago the Minister of Agriculture said that it had been proven over and over again that wheat could be produced at 40 cents a bushel.


James Garfield Gardiner: The Minister of Agriculture did not say any such thing. That false statement has been repeated ever since about the year 1936.


Mr. Coldwell:: 1939.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am sorry I have not the reference here with me, but I am sure that the next time the matter is before us I will have it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I can give it to you correctly, if you want it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, when the matter comes up again I will have the reference in Hansard and I will be very glad to place it on the record.


Major James William Coldwell: Here you are.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. gentleman who has misrepresented it for all these years is now handing it to you.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am reading from Hansard for April, 1939, page 2623, and this is the Minister of Agriculture speaking:
It has been proven over and over again that 20 bushels to the acre of wheat-


James Garfield Gardiner: That is what you left out.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: __can be produced at a cost of from 30 to 40 cents
a bushel. We have had a great deal of discussion about the cost of producing wheat. It costs a certain amount to work an acre of land whether you get any wheat off it or not; it costs a certain amount to harvest it if you do get any wheat off it. It has been proven over and over again, I say, that twenty bushels to the acre of wheat can be produced at a cost of from 30 to 40 cents a bushel. For every bushel a man gets over twenty his costs per bushel decrease. When he has a crop of twenty bushels or more per acre, his other crops are usually good in proportion.
I note that my good friend the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) was in the house at the time and was not prepared to let that go. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) suggested that that was a very unfair picture.


James Garfield Gardiner: Now, just to get the matter straight, my hon. friend left out the 20 bushels to the acre when he made his statement here. It is incorrect for anyone to get up and say it costs 30 to 40 cents a bushel to produce wheat without giving the other explanation; that is misrepresenting the whole case.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I explained I did not have Hansard with me.


James Garfield Gardiner: You neve? do have Hansard with you when you are out in the school-houses. You just say what you said here.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Now that I have Hansard it goes one better.


James Garfield Gardiner: If you read on, you will find that Mr. Hope, who is now the statistician for the federation of agriculture, said that from $6 to $8 an acre was the cost of production, and those figures indicate a cost of 30 to 40 cents provided the crop is 20 bushels per acre.


Victor Quelch: That depended on the size of the farm, though.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I suggest that if the minister thinks the growing of wheat is such a profitable industry, and that there is nothing to it, he should take a holiday from here and demonstrate in the good farming area where he lives how he can manage to buy in such a high priced market and sell in the markets of the world when-


James Garfield Gardiner: If my hon. friend will examine the Hansard he has been reading from he will find that the argument he was putting up a few moments ago to the effect that the purchasing power of the dollar has changed since 1939 will answer some of his questions.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The minister will have a chance to carry on the next time we resume. I resent very much, Mr. Speaker, the suggestion that those of us who are participating in this debate are coming to our colleagues from other parts of Canada with a tin cup, as beggars, and asking for a handout. I suggest that the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture are doing a real disservice to Canada in encouraging members from other parts of the country to promote that idea.
When the war was on the Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Mackenzie King, recognized that the farmers of Canada had their prices frozen at uneconomic levels. In a radio broadcast on December 4, 1943, he said:
If to help win the war, the farmers are asked to accept a ceiling on prices, we believe they are entitled to a floor under prices to insure them against an agricultural depression after the war. As an essential part of its post-war policy the government intends to ask parliament at the next session to place a floor under the prices of the main farm commodities.
Grain
Then in the speech from the throne closing the session on January 31, 1945, there was this:
As a further safeguard of a basic standard of living, provision was made at the present session for floors under the prices of farm and fish products. These measures insure two great primary industries against the hazard of a collapse of markets or prices after the war.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the farmers in all parts of Canada accepted the fact that price controls were in the public interest. While the farmers had 10 years of rough going in all parts of Canada, the manufacturers had been able to convince the Minister of Trade and Commerce that they should operate on a cost plus basis. The minister yielded to pressure and removed the 5 per cent limit, so that the sky was the limit during the war for those who were taking contracts for munitions. But those who were producing food for our own nation and for our overseas customers were forced to produce on a cost minus basis. I submit that the commitment made by the Prime Minister of Canada when he went on the air on December 4, 1943, should not be forgotten.
I hoped the members from the prosperous areas of central Ontario and Montreal would have more consideration for the farmers on the back concessions of Quebec, Ontario and the maritimes, whose position is similar to the position of all other farmers. It so happens that this particular piece of legislation permits us to bring our problems to the only place where we can discuss them, to this parliament.
I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that while we are speaking about our problems we do not suggest for a moment that the potato growers in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, the fruit farmers and vegetable farmers in western Canada do not have problems which are just as real for them. But those problems are not going to be solved by the members of the cabinet who are so tired and so out of touch with the problems in the different parts of the country that they fail to consider the statistics made available by the bureau of statistics.
As it is ten o'clock, I would move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Just before I put the motion, I should like to tell the hon. member that in trying to appreciate what may be relevant in this debate, I find it very difficult to understand why one should be allowed to review the position of agriculture in the 10 provinces of Canada when we are dealing now with the grain producers. I will ask the hon. member to take into consideration the fact

Grain
that several speakers in this debate already have made several points to prove that the condition of the western farmer at the moment is not as good as it has been represented by some members of the government.
Perhaps now he should deal with the principle of this bill and not spend all his time discussing a problem which is, of course, one of great importance and interest, but which there will be other opportunities to discuss. There is the first item of the Department of Agriculture and some items in the Department of Trade and Commerce on which the whole subject of agriculture will probably be opened up for discussion. The hon. member has reviewed the position of agriculture on February 16, and he will want to review it
again on February 29, etc. I hope the hon. member appreciates what I am saying and recognizes the validity of some of the points I am stressing at the moment.
On motion of Mr. Nicholson the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: We shall continue this debate tomorrow and when it is concluded take the other wheat bill and then the motion to set up the estimates committee and the atomic energy committee. It is the intention of the government to set aside Monday and Tuesday for another supply motion.


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

Question

[Stage Direction]
The following answer, deposited1 with the Clerk of the house, is printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Lennard: 1.	What was the nature of repairs, renovations or improvements made to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police headquarters in Ottawa by H. Pion and Sons?
2.	When was this work completed?
3.	What was the amount of the contract?
Answer by: Mr. Pinard (for Mr. Winters):
1.	Ventilation of the photographic section.
2.	June 3, 1955.
3.	$14,000.

Friday, February 17, 1956