1956-02-22

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT


Mr. Raoul Poulin (Beauce) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 149, to amend the Financial Administration Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Raoul Poulin: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide that every cheque, draft, bill of exchange, postal note, money order or other negotiable instruments of any department or of any crown corporation shall be printed in both official languages, namely English and French.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS   FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS-TABLING OF LETTER AND MEMORANDUM

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I should like to lay on the table a copy of a letter that I sent to the premiers of all the provinces on February 18 relating to federal-provincial fiscal matters. Enclosed with that letter was a memorandum from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) giving answers to a number of questions that had been raised by provincial representatives. As was done in the case of previous correspondence relating to the same subject, perhaps hon. members would wish that these documents be printed as an appendix to Hansard of this day.


Mr. Drew:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that proposal agreed upon?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(For text of letter and memorandum see appendix, pages 1458-60.)



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame: de Grace):
Has the post office recently changed its policy regarding the installation of burglar alarms in its principal post offices?


Mr. Lapointe:: Following the statement made by my predecessor during last session, the whole question of security in postal establishments, including the use of burglar alarms, was reviewed by an interdepartmental committee composed of representatives from the Post Office Department, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Department of Public Works.
In co-operation with the Department of Public Works, the Post Office Department is now studying ways and means of implementing the recommendations of this committee.



FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO RECOVER


Mr. Diefenbaker: What assistance or measures to assist are furnished by the Department of Agriculture, to a farmer or other producer who, having shipped hogs to a packer, has received less than the floor price then prevailing, to recover the difference between the amount received and the existent floor price?


Mr. Gardiner:: The fact is that up to date we have had nothing to indicate that that has happened. I have before me now the answer to the statement brought in by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort which I think is the explanation of the situation as it exists and what is done with regard to it. I shall, as indicated, return that statement to him, having read this to the house.
The hogs referred to in the attached statement were apparently delivered direct to the packing plant where they were purchased for $18.75 as compared with a floor price of $19 which applies to public stockyards in Saskatoon. It will be noted that the trucker passed the stockyards on his way to the packing plant and therefore chose the market where, in his opinion, he would receive the better price. The price received, however, does not appear to be out of line with the floor price of $19 on the stockyards as he was able to unload his hogs at the plant without any expense, whereas if they had been marketed through the stockyards he would have had to pay for such services as are required in connection with the sale of hogs on public stockyards, which could easily absorb the 25-cent differential. The price at plants is quite commonly somewhat below the stockyard price.
The application of the support price is only practical at public yards where there is competitive buying and those who wish to be assured of support prices can, in cases like

Questions
this, deliver their hogs to the public stockyards. They are, however, at liberty to sell direct if they believe they will get better returns. In doing so, they assume responsibility and may, in some cases, get a better price and in some cases they may lose. There does not, however, appear to have been a deviation from the support price through this private sale.
Those are the facts in connection with this one sale and variations of those facts would be the case in connection with others. However, the fact is that this gentleman could have taken his hogs to the stockyard at Saskatoon and have received $19, but he thought he would do better and took them directly to the packing plant where he received 25 cents less, which means that he himself was satisfied he would get a better floor price there than he would if he had delivered to the yards.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: I wish the minister would now answer the question I asked as to what measures, if any, can be taken where less than the floor price is actually paid by the packer on shipments made directly to the packer. Is there any method or means whereby the producer can be protected?


James Garfield Gardiner: I will say again what I said at the beginning. There has not been any case where it has been necessary to put into effect-


John George Diefenbaker: Oh yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: There has not been.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, there has.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, there has not, and since there has not been we have not found it necessary to devise ways and means of dealing with it. Immediately a case is brought to our attention where that has been true we will devise ways and means of dealing With it.


John George Diefenbaker: So there is no means now.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are means now. The means are there. The farmer who goes to the stockyard will get the floor price.



FLUORIDE TOOTH PASTES

Mr. Goode: 1.	Has the Minister of National Health and Welfare received any communications from individuals or associations warning of danger in the promiscuous use of fluoride tooth pastes?
2.	If so, from whom?


Mr. Martin:: Mr. Speaker, I received no communications in this matter.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Dinsdale: How many military bands are there in each of the Canadian armed forces and where are these bands located?


FEDERAL PROGRAM OF REFORESTATION
Mr. Hodgson: 1.	Has the federal government any program of reforestation?
2.	If so, how many trees were planted in 1954 and 1955?
3.	What was the number of each species planted?
4.	Where were they planted?


PUBLIC WHARVES, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Purdy: 1.	At what places in the province of Nova Scotia, other than Halifax, are public wharves located?
2.	What was the expenditure on each of these wharves, including protective works and approaches for the five years ending March 31, 1955?
3.	What was the expenditure for dredging, for the same period at each of these points?
4.	What was the net return to the treasury from each of these wharves by way of harbour dues and wharfage, for the year ending March 31, 1955?


LEGAL SERVICES, EDMONTON
Mr. Holowach: 1.	What lawyers or law firms, if any, in the city of Edmonton, Alberta, were retained by the federal government or any branch thereof, during the period from January 3, 1955, to January 2, 1956?
2.	What sums were paid by the federal government and all departments thereof, to each such lawyer and law firm?
3.	What amounts, if any, are still owing, or claimed for services and to whom?



GREAT BRITAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would he tell the house what action, if any, is being taken to secure the adherence of Great Britain in the face of its desire to withdraw from the international wheat agreement? Would the minister also say whether or not the instructions to our representatives in Geneva comprehend the acceptance of an international wheat agreement without Britain? Would he also say what is the maximum price on which Canada is standing in respect of the prices to be determined under this agreement?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, representations have been made by Canada to the government of the United Kingdom. I think all the representations that can properly be made have been made. The decision, of course, is for the United Kingdom, and apparently that has been taken. Canada, as I said before, is represented at Geneva by the presidents of the six leading farm organizations in western Canada, and their instructions are sufficiently flexible to allow them to make such recommendations as they believe to be in the interests of the western producers. No recommendations have been made by them up to the present time. When they are made, consideration will be given to them.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker? Will Canada accept an international wheat agreement, or support one, in which Britain is not one of the members?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, Canada has not been asked to support anything. We would like to get advice from people on the ground before we answer any questions of that kind. We are not taking any stand whatever, either publicly or privately, that would interfere with the six farm leaders who represent us at Geneva as advisers in giving such advice as they think will be in the best interests of the producer.


Mr. Argue:: May I ask whether this means that the government's position has been modified since the minister's statement that in order for Canada to support an agreement it would have to cover about two-thirds of the wheat going into world markets?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That discussion was held in the expectation that Britain would be a member of the agreement. I do not wish to state any position. My hon. friend has been one of the first to declaim here time after time that we must listen to the advice of the farm leaders. We are going to do that in this case.


Hazen Robert Argue: Will the minister say whether he listened to the advice of the farm leaders when he made the statement in the house that Canada would support an agreement only if two-thirds of the world wheat in trade was covered, and if he has read the statement since of the vice-president of the Saskatchewan farmers' union?



INQUIRY AS TO CANADIAN DEFICIT WITH U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker? In view of the 67509-911
Inquiries of the Ministry deficit of $840 million in Canada's 1955 commodity trade with the United States, as just announced, may I ask the minister what measures, if any, the government intends to take or propose to bring about a better balance in Canada's trade with the United States?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, as far as the
Department of Trade and Commerce is concerned, we plan to take no_ steps.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has just told us that the Department of Trade and Commerce is doing nothing about the deficit in our trade with the United States, can he tell us whether any other department is doing anything?


Some hon. Members:: He did not say that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that my hon. friend ask the other departments.


Mr. Knowles:: That will take time.
ILater:1
On the orders of the day:


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Following the advice of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, may I ask the Minister of Finance if his department is doing anything about this?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. -Speaker, it is true that I accept responsibility in the house for the customs tariff and any items of that nature which affect trade, but in so far as the promotion of trade is concerned I am happy to follow the leadership of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And he says he is not doing anything.



INQUIRY AS TO CANADIAN-RUSSIAN AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that a few minutes ago it came over the radio that a Russian trade agreement had been accepted in principle, I should like to know if the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) would tell the house now what the principles of the trade agreement are.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge and belief negotiations for a Rus-sian-Canadian trade agreement are still in

Inquiries of the Ministry progress. When they are completed I shall be glad to announce the results to the house.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether arrangements have been made for a conference with provincial officials as well as with representatives of labour organizations and of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and others on the subject of immigration. If so, what is the nature and purpose of such conference and when will it be held?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Well, sir, arrangements have not actually been made for such a conference. Invitations have been issued in the last day or two. It is planned this year to have one conference instead of having more than one. In other years I think there have been two, one with representatives sent by provincial departments interested, and one with various organizations such as the chamber of commerce, the federation of agriculture, the Trades and Labour Congress, the Canadian Congress of Labour and various other organizations interested. It was thought it might be more useful to have all these people who are interested directly in immigration who are co-operating with the department come together to discuss the program for the coming season. There is nothing new about the principle of the thing; it has been done for the past four or five years but the meetings are all going to be held together.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then, are we to take it from what the minister said it is not a conference to make a more fundamental inquiry into immigration than the conferences of the past have been?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is a conference having to do with administration and related problems. It has nothing to do with any of the fundamentals of policy which I take it come before this house.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). Could the Prime Minister state when I might expect the tabling of documents concerning

the extent of flood damage in Saskatchewan, for which there is an order for return dated February 6?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I think that will be forthcoming within the next day or two. I saw the intended report this morning and I felt it was not quite complete. I therefore asked to have further inquiries made so that the report might be complete when it is tabled.



CRIMINAL LAW


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) with reference to a question I addressed to him on February 8, and which he took as notice. Is he now in a position to tell us how soon the report of the royal commission headed by the chief justice studying the problem of sex offences will be completed?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, following my hon. friend's question on February 8 my deputy had an opportunity of conferring with Chief Justice McRuer, who is the head of this commission, but as a result of their discussion I do not think I can add anything to the reply which I made to the question asked by the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White) on a previous occasion. My reply then was to the effect that it will be some months before we can expect a report from the commission. I am sure my hon. friend will realize that in an inquiry of this sort the completion of the commission's work cannot be forecast to within a few days.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is a joint military and civilian observer force to be sent to view the atomic tests this year off northern Australia?
Will the government consider sending a Canadian parliamentary delegation so that public representatives may view the destructive power of nuclear weapons?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the
first question is that the matter is under

discussion at the present time. I cannot really say more than that at the moment.
With respect to the second question I would expect that any consideration would be predicated upon receipt of an invitation. I am not aware of any invitation for hon. members to attend but I shall look and see whether I have missed something.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of a discussion last evening in regard to certain items in the estimates respecting the South Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation project. Has the government decided as yet whether or not to go on with that proposition?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, the government
has not decided whether or not to go on now with that proposal.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldt-Melforl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister suggest to packers that they fill out in the space provided on return statements to producers the extra costs connected with settlement in order to clear up any doubts in the minds of the producers as to the basis of settlement?


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not hear the question quite clearly but I shall take it as notice when I see it in Hansard.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY PROTECTION OF CANADIAN PROPERTY AGAINST CHANGE IN WATER LEVELS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on February 17 the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) asked the following questions:
Are there any negotiations under way at the present time, either with the United States government or with the provinces concerned, arising out of the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway, in which questions are being raised as to protection of property bordering on the lakes? If so. what steps are being taken on behalf of the Canadian
Inquiries of the Ministry government to see that Canadian land on the lakes is being properly protected against change of water levels?
I should point out that in the international joint commission order of approval of October 29, 1952, concerning the power developments in the St. Lawrence river, the following provision was inserted about protection to property owners who might be injured by the resultant change of levels of lake Ontario:
All interests on either side of the international boundary which are injured by reason of the construction, maintenance and operation of the works shall be given suitable and adequate protection and indemnity in accordance with the laws in Canada or the constitution and laws in the United States respectively, and in accordance with the requirements of article VIII of the treaty.
That is the boundary waters treaty.
Recently, as the house knows, the governments of Canada and the United States approved the recommendations of the international joint commission on the range of elevations of lake Ontario to be put into effect when the works in the St. Lawrence river are completed. In approving these recommendations the government was satisfied that this range of elevations, which is made possible by the St. Lawrence power project, far from being injurious to property owners on lake Ontario will in fact give them some protection against extreme high and low levels which they have not enjoyed heretofore. Nevertheless, the question of suitable legal redress for the property owners who might be injured as a result of the approval of the international joint commission recommendation has been raised by interested parties on both sides of the international boundary. Consequently both Canada and the United States are examining the adequacy of legal redress for injured interests as described in the international joint commission order and exchanges are now taking place between the two governments. In addition, since this legal redress falls partly within the jurisdiction of the provinces, consultations with provincial authorities will take place.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I
ask the minister if on the outcome of these negotiations and studies a suitable public announcement will be made so that those whose properties are affected will have ample notice of the redress which lies open to them?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I think at the appropriate time such notice should be given.


Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have another question I should like to direct to the Secretary of State for External Affairs which he can take as a notice because I am quite sure he would not

Grain
have the necessary information available. Would the minister be prepared to say what the level of lake Huron will be upon the completion of the St. Lawrence seaway, and if it will be at all possible to divert more water to the Chicago drainage system?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is my impression that the level of lake Huron will not be affected by the seaway, but as my hon. friend suggests I shall take his question as notice so that a reply can be given later.



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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, February 17, 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. Nicholson.
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned last Friday afternoon I was making the point that, in contrast to the position of the United States in relation to the critical situation in the grain trade, Canada was doing comparatively little. In support of that viewpoint, I merely have to quote the title of the bill we have been discussing for some time now, Bill 82, which suggests that the problem facing the wheat producers is only a temporary problem which requires merely temporary financial assistance as provided in the bill before us. I would like to disagree with that viewpoint as strongly as possible.
Up to the present moment, other than the bill we have before us, there has been no action on the part of the government to deal with the problem. Admittedly, we shall have Bill 83 before us within the next few days but, with reference to the position of the United States and its aggressive sales policy, we have had only mild reprimands from this government. Another possible solution has been put forward, and that is the possibility of some national disaster such as a drought that would automatically solve the surplus problem with which we are faced at the moment.
It would seem that the government has decided to adopt what might be called a status quo approach to this difficulty, and that, of course, is indicated by statistics that are available concerning Canadian participation in world wheat marketing in the past ten years. While the pattern has been changing considerably and the United States has been

moving into that area aggressively, we have continued to participate in the world wheat market only to the extent of some 30 per cent.
It must also be recalled that during the immediate post-war years we benefited considerably, by way of exports to the European market, from the extensive United States Marshall aid program that was proceeding after the end of world war II. Now that the Americans have moved toward a surplus crop disposal program of their own, that particular source of export has tended to decline.
Canada is going to be faced this year with very important decisions concerning international wheat trading, and uncertainty in this regard has already been indicated by our attitude towards the international wheat agreement. Perhaps, if we had been more flexible in our negotiations when this arrangement was last up for consideration, Canada would be in a much more favourable position in the world wheat market at the present time. During recent days the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has indicated that the export possibilities for wheat in the world market are quite hopeful, and a potential figure of some 320 million bushels has been quoted as the total export figure for Canadian grain.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I cannot allow that figure to go on the record unchallenged. That is the figure of total deliveries last year, and, if anybody has quoted it as export sales, it must have been a member of the opposition. Certainly no member of the government has quoted it as the figure for exports.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I understand that is a projected figure for the possible export of Canadian wheat by the end of the current crop year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will defy my hon. friend to find the source of that statistic. I think it is his own figure, and that he is trying to put it in my mouth. Certainly I never used that figure.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I obtained it from the Searle grain report and it is usually an accurate record of the Canadian grain situation. It is the circular for Wednesday, February 15. Under the heading "Substantial marketings anticipated" is the following:
But even more heartening, perhaps, is the minister's statement that, in his opinion, prairie producers will be able to market as much wheat as last year (320 million bushels) provided that transportation is adequate to clear sufficient space in country elevators.

Grain


Clarence Decatur Howe: That exactly proves the point. Does my hon. friend think there is no difference between producers' marketings and exports? He is giving the figure for producers' marketings and calling it exports. I know he is not a farmer and has not had much farm experience; but he has lived in the farming area and should be able to make some distinction between those two figures.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: If the minister wishes to split hairs in that way, that is fine. I was merely indicating the possible disappearance of grain from our total surplus.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why call producers' marketings exports?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Then I will change the terminology. I will admit that I am not a practical farmer at the moment, although I am descended from a long line of farmers. However, I would say that I have had as much practical farm experience as has the minister. He tends to discredit my experience in that regard but I do not think it is necessary for us to be practical participating farmers in order to make a contribution to this important discussion. The matter affects more than the farm economy directly. It affects more than the farmers directly. In fact, it involves very intimately-and I think the minister will agree with this statement- not only our western economy but our total Canadian economy and it has world-wide implications as well.
I should now like to come back to the point I was making, namely that there is a possibility that we shall market 320 million bushels of wheat by the end of the current year. That is something that is to be hoped for, of course, because it would ease to a certain extent the mounting crisis in the wheat economy. However, I think it can be demonstrated that even if we market in those optimistic amounts, we shall still have a surplus of some 600 million bushels of wheat in Canada at the beginning of the next crop year.
I had better document that statement for the sake of the record. I can do so by projecting some figures into the future. We have at the present time, or at least as of January 11 of this year, 797-5 million bushels of grain available. The estimated domestic utilization between January 12 and July 31 of this year, which will be the end of the crop year, can be projected at 30 million bushels. That is estimated on a total average domestic consumption of some 60 million bushels. Estimated exports of wheat and wheat flour from winter ports from mid-January to mid-April can be estimated at 60 million bushels and, from the opening of navigation to July
31, at some 105 million bushels. Hence the total estimated disappearance from January 11 to July 31 of this year will be something like 195 million bushels. Subtracting that figure from the total available supply at the moment of 797-5 million bushels, we find it leaves us with a surplus of 602-5 million bushels. That is a sizeable carryover in any one crop year and that statement is all on the basis of the optimistic marketing figure of 320 million bushels. This problem is therefore not temporary, Mr. Speaker; it is a continuing problem and it must be met by more substantial and vigorous policies than those which have been enunciated by the minister up to the present time.
There is another point to be considered in connection with this matter of the sale of grain. During recent months we have had an increase in the export marketings of grain. That is largely owing to the fact that we have had to drop, by substantial margins, the price of our lower qualities or lower grades of grain. If that had been done before, perhaps we would have been able to clear the low quality grain that was clogging our distribution system and thus would have been in a happier position today. But since last August, for example, No. 5 grade, which was then $1.49 per bushel, has decreased in price to $1.22 per bushel. That was at December. No. 6 grade has decreased in price from $1.47 in August to $1.18 in December and feed grain has decreased from $1.44 to $1.14. The result is that the demand for that lower grade grain has considerably increased and is largely responsible for the increased marketings during recent months, including the special arrangements with countries behind the iron curtain.
I should like to bring to the attention of the house another point which is sometimes missed. We are concerned not only with the problem of wheat. It must also be noted that other coarse grains including barley, oats and rye, exports are down for the past few months. For example, the figure for barley is 13 million bushels behind that of the previous year and for oats it is 15 million bushels behind. On top of that we have our perpetual box car situation. All of these circumstances tend to suggest that the prairie grain farmer is going to find himself in distress for some considerable time ahead. This means that the government must take much more strenuous steps than it has already indicated in any legislation we have before us.
This point was summed up by the twentieth century research fund project on the grain problem in North America, which incidentally included a Canadian, namely Dr. Andrew Stewart, president of the University of

Grain
Alberta. Dr. Stewart at the present time is serving as a member of the Gordon commission which is dealing with Canada's general economic position and its prospects for the future. In summing up this long-term problem of agriculture and in summing up the problem of the crisis with respect to grain, we must remember that it is basically a North American problem. Canada and the United States are producing tremendous surpluses which have caused the glut on the world market. Among many other conclusions, the twentieth century fund researchers came to this conclusion, which I think emphasizes the point I am trying to make at the present time:
. . . we recommend that effective aid be given to individual farmers in working out the kinds of changes in farming that will enable them, with as little hardship as possible, to make the adjustment that apparently will have to be made in the not distant future whatever kind of program is adopted. Where such adjustments put a severe strain on the resources and income of the farmers concerned, we favour liberal aid in the form of special credits and, if necessary, special payments during the transition period.
The twentieth century fund researchers, after looking exhaustively at the problem from all its aspects, came to the conclusion that there was a critical situation in our agricultural economy. They came to the conclusion that during the transition period-it is not a temporary thing-the maximum assistance would have to be given to the farmer by way of professional advice on diversifying his economy and solving his economic difficulties as well as by way of direct credit and cash extensions to him. That, of course, is contrary to a lot of the traditional economic thinking on the North American continent but in both the United States and Canada the role of government in the marketing of grain and in agricultural policy generally has become very firmly established during the past 20 years, and because of the situation as it exists at the moment the Canadian government has to take very vigorous action to deal with the difficulty.
I say that obviously we are being presented with the traditional Liberal policy that has often been referred to as hope and grope, hoping that everything will work out for the best, waiting for something to happen that will be in the best interests not of the people of Canada but of the party in power. That has been the policy followed by the present administration since the end of world war II, and long before. At the end of the war we were preparing for a depression. We were gearing ourselves for a depression. That was the advice of all economists. In our attempts to stave off the anticipated depression we ran into inflationary conditions, and I would point out that inflation is one of the

basic causes for the grain producer's difficulties at the present time. He is caught in the cost-price squeeze as a result of continuing inflationary pressures in Canada.
Notwithstanding the anticipated depression, Canada, because of her changed position in the world economy, because of the devastated European markets and because of the unanticipated demands for consumer goods and so forth, moved into an era of prosperity and the administration immediately took credit for that period of prosperity. I remember that in 1953 the slogan was, "Keep Canada Prosperous, Vote Liberal". The prairie farmer is not enjoying that prosperity for some of the reasons I have pointed out and for reasons that other speakers have mentioned in this debate. It is a difficult, complex, economic problem. It is related to the situation with which the west has been confronted under all the long years of Liberal administration, namely, an underdeveloped economy, and an attempt to play off the east against the west on the basis of bogus issues such as free trade versus protection and so on.
I was interested in a newspaper dispatch concerning the speech by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) last Saturday to the Liberal students federation in which he said that the Conservatives were responsbile for speaking with two voices in Canada. That particular point might go over on the hustings, but it certainly will not go over with a group of university students because we now have available in Canada very excellent political histories.
For one I could mention the excellent work on the life of John A. Macdonald that has recently been completed by Professor Creighton of the University of Toronto which puts a lot of the political history of Canada into its correct perspective. Our university students are reading these political histories. Fact is being sorted out from fiction, propaganda from history, and it is being discovered that more than one political party in Canada has made outstanding contributions to the national development of our country. I could mention other works such as "The Age of Mackenzie King" or even Bruce Hutchison's book, "The Incredible Canadian", which refers to a former Liberal prime minister as the Blondin of politics, indicating an ability to juggle precariously on both sides of the political tightrope.
To sum up my remarks, the point is that nothing is being done in a positive way to deal with the critical agricultural situation facing Canada and the United States. It is essentially a North American problem, and if we are going to solve it we must go much

Grain
further than the bill we have before us in order to deal with it adequately over the next decade or two. A balance must be restored between production and consumption. Healthy trading relations must also be established because wheat in North America depends upon a thriving export market for its continued prosperity.
Just a few moments ago we had an example of the hope and grope policy. The Minister of Trade and Commerce was asked if it was the intention to do anything about the unfavourable balance of trade that Canada has with the United States, and the answer was no. That, Mr. Speaker, is not good enough, and I am sure the people of Canada will readily come to that conclusion. In solving this problem changes will have to take place step by step. There are no easy overnight solutions and these changes as they come step by step will have to be made in the right direction. I submit that the measure now before us does not move in the right direction but is rather a retrograde step.


Mr. Romuald Bourque (Outremonl-St. Jean):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the house have been taunted many times about not getting up and speaking, but for the last week I have been trying to get the floor and every time I did somebody got ahead of me. Therefore, I have been left over until today. It has been said many times in the house that we in the centre of this country are not interested in the farmers' plight. I should like to say, Mr. Speaker, that we are not only interested in the farmers' plight but we are in great sympathy with the farmer. We believe it is in the interest of all Canada that the farmer be prosperous. If the farmer is not prosperous, then there is very little prosperity in the country. It is my belief that we should help him in times of depression and whenever a need arises. But, Mr. Speaker, there is a limit to the help that we should give to the farmer. Should we go beyond common sense, or should we help him whether he needs it or not?
The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) told us the other day that in his province many of the farmers own farms greater in area than the whole state of Israel. Surely, Mr. Speaker, you could not consider him a poor farmer or a farmer in need of help. If he owns that amount of land and cultivates it, he has ample opportunity in the good years to put aside something for a rainy day.
It is the duty of the government to help the farmers, as I have said, and I am sure the government is very anxious to help them and to see that they receive their fair share of the revenue of Canada. But surely the
intelligent farmer, as he is-we all recognize that the farmers on the prairies are very intelligent men because they have prospered to a great extent during the last few years- has put aside a reasonable amount of money. Not all of them need help; perhaps some do. We have been told that there are around
200.000	farmers in the west. Surely, 150,000 of those do not need help. If the government were to guarantee loans to farmers, irrespective of whether they have money or not, those 200,000 farmers would be able to obtain guaranteed government loans without any interest. What would be the result? We all know that the majority of farmers as well as the industrialists and everyone else have some collateral. They hold mortgages, bonds, stocks, that they can call on for a rainy day. If no interest was charged on those loans and 50,000 farmers needed help, and the loans were guaranteed to everyone, the 150,000 farmers who did not need help would surely be foolish if they did not take advantage of the government guaranteed loan. Those
150.000	farmers, whether they needed it or not, would go to the bank and secure a loan of $1,500 without any interest, and then they would invest that money in stocks or bonds or mortgages, and they would be drawing interest of $75 a year.


Mr. Ellis:: What a fairy story that is!


Romuald Bourque: I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether that would be a fair measure for the other people in Canada who pay income tax? Take 150,000 workers, white collared men or men in any category, who are in the income tax bracket which causes them to pay a tax of $75. They would be paying their $75 and the government would act as a collecting agency. They would take 150,000 times $75 and transfer it to the farmers who do not need loans. I think the government is very wise in adopting the attitude-


Edward George McCullough: May I
ask a question?


Romuald Bourque: I will make my speech, if you do not mind. You may speak later. You have been speaking for the last two weeks. You have been taunting us for the last two weeks to speak. Surely you can let me speak for a few minutes so that I can make my point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Make it sensible.


Romuald Bourque: You have been asking everybody to speak. Let us speak. This is a question that affects the whole country, not only the westerners.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, if this is a measure that the opposition is trying to foist on the government, the government has the right

Grain
to resist and to say to those people: You are asking us to put through a measure that is not fair and equitable to all the people of the country whom we represent in this house. This government represents the working men, the farmers, the wealthy men and everybody. It has to present a measure that is fair and honest to everybody. That is why the Liberals have always come back with a very large majority. That has always been the policy of this party, and I am sure it will remain the policy for many years to come no matter how many people rise in their places and try to change the policy of this government.
We have listened to a lot of palaver for the last week or so; we have listened to all kinds of arguments. I think I am right in saying that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) have done a wonderful job in resisting this. Surely, as they have listened to all the palaver that has been said, they have been tempted to throw up their hands and say: "Oh, why bother?" But they are cognizant of the needs of the country, and I am sure that no matter what palaver comes from the opposition they will resist any measure that is unfair to all the people of Canada.
We have listened to speeches for about two weeks, and I have listened to possibly three or four speeches from the same hon. member made in the same way and in the same light. They have now run out of ideas. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if we were to adopt the measure that the opposition wants us to adopt and give free loans to these intelligent farmers they would all take up the loans, but it would be a great disservice that we would be rendering to the farmers themselves because in time they would believe that it is easy to get money at any time that they ran up against a snag and other people would abject. To my way of thinking, the opposition is splitting the country into many camps at the present time. They are pitting the farmers against the citizens of Canada.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The Liberals are doing that.


Romuald Bourque: I am sure the Liberal government will resist and will see that all elements of the population are treated equitably and fairly, and that the taxes that are collected are distributed in as favourable a way as possible to all the citizens of Canada.


Mr. W. D. Wylie (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to speak on this bill. Perhaps I feel just a little bit like the hon. member who has just taken his seat, that everything has been said. However,

after listening to his speech, there is only one thing for one to do and that is to rise and speak.
May I tell the hon. member who has just taken his seat that we are not trying to split Canada by not supporting this bill. We believe that the farmers of western Canada are entitled to a little bit more than they have received so far. No matter what the hon. member thinks, may I say to him through you, Mr. Speaker, that if it was not for the prairies-and that includes the three provinces and perhaps one farther west-Quebec and Ontario would not be enjoying the prosperity they are enjoying today. I say that for this reason. The other day I listened to the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hosking), who suggested that Ontario was paying more income tax than any other province of Canada. May I say to the hon. member that we in the west feel much the same way, but we must not forget, Mr. Speaker, that all of the cars produced in this country are made in Ontario. All of the machinery we buy in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba is produced and manufactured in Ontario. When you consider how much it costs the people of the three prairie provinces to buy products that are manufactured in another province you can readily see that we derive no benefit except that we do get the cars, machinery and other products. I think we in the west are slipping a little bit. What we should do is put a tax, and a substantial tax, on the money that leaves the western provinces to purchase machinery and cars. If we did that perhaps the situation would look a little different.


Romuald Bourque: What about the wheat we buy?


William Duncan McKay Wylie: What wheat do you buy?


Hazen Robert Argue: Perhaps he eats toast for breakfast.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Do you eat toast for breakfast? Perhaps you do.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is usually subsidized.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: It is all subsidized. I am not suggesting that that should be done but that is one way in which we could show the eastern provinces what the west means to them.
I was very surprised at the hon. member who has just spoken because I think his brother was mayor of Ottawa at one time-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I think I am right in saying that. I was surprised at a statement like that being made.

Grain
Bill No. 82 is an act to provide short-term credit to grain producers. May I say that in my part of the country the farmers are not asking for a handout. They do not want a handout and they certainly do not like the loans that are being made through the banks. As a matter of fact, last week in Medicine Hat there was a Liberal convention and according to the press reports there were approximately 60 or 70 people in attendance. The people attending that conference received a telegram from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and this is what Mr. Howe had to say, and I hope he is listening to me.


An hon. Member:: He will be.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I am going to quote it the way it appeared in the Medicine Hat News of February 17.


An hon. Member:: It will probably be misquoted.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Mr. Howe wired that widespread endorsement has been accorded the Liberal program of assistance to farmers-


An hon. Member:: Ha, ha.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: -and that export sales of wheat are well ahead of last year. The prospects now are better than for some years.
This is one point, Mr. Speaker, I want you to pay particular attention to.
It indicates that the party's position on wheat will not be a handicap to your candidate.


Hazen Robert Argue: The most optimistic statement so far this year.


An hon. Member:: It is probably misquoted.


An hon. Member:: There is nothing wrong with it.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Perhaps it was misquoted but I do not think so. I think there is nothing wrong with it.


An hon. Member:: He is misinformed.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: When this is quoted in the Medicine Hat News it must be correct.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We want to get a good man from Medicine Hat.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister says, "We want to get a good man from Medicine Hat".


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Thank you very much, Mr. Howe. I am going to read a few more articles; you have asked for it.
At this convention or rally which the Liberals held last week in Medicine Hat, perhaps they foresaw an early election; I do not know and I am really not too much worried about it because the candidate the
Liberals will nominate is a man I have defeated twice already and I will defeat him again-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Yes, I am going to defeat him again. Let me tell you what was said by the candidate who will be running for the Liberal party in Medicine Hat.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I wonder if I was not remiss in failing to have risen even before now to draw to the attention of the hon. member that we are, after all, discussing Bill 82 which has a rather limited principle. Surely the hon. member at this late stage in the debate can adhere quite strictly to the principle of the bill itself.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Mr. Speaker, that is what I intend to do. Bill 82 was discussed at this Liberal convention and also at a U.F.A. convention in Medicine Hat.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I also indicate to the hon. member that Mr. Speaker has consistently ruled that emanations from outside the house reflecting on legislation which we are discussing within the house are not permissible. I would also draw the hon. member's attention to that principle.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: In other words, it would appear that we are not allowed to discuss what happened at any convention or any other function outside the house. I will therefore put this in my own words. The mayor of Medicine Hat, who has run against me in the last two federal elections, apparently is not to run again-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is exactly the type of discussion which I have tried to indicate to the hon. member is not relevant at this time. We have had an admittedly long debate and I think at this time hon. members should co-operate with the chair in adhering strictly to the principle of the bill itself.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very happy to do that. I shall co-operate with you in every way I can. Getting back to Bill 82, as you suggested I do, may I say that the farmers in my constituency do not like this bill in spite of what the Minister of Trade and Commerce says. The farmers of my constituency believe we should have cash advances and not loans provided by the bank. Yes, I can tell you why we do not like this bill. We in the south are in an area that perhaps suffers more poor crops than any other part of Canada. Today those farmers have their bins and granaries full but cannot dispose of their wheat.


An hon. Member:: In Medicine Hat city?

Grain


William Duncan McKay Wylie: We do not farm in Medicine Hat as it is a city. It is too bad the hon. member does not wake up. We farm out in the country, not in the city of Medicine Hat. Our farmers today have their granaries full with wheat piled out on the ground as well. Mind you, we do not mind having that because we do not know what next year will bring, but we are short of cash. In the last few years the' income of the farmer has dropped perhaps 50 per cent while everything he buys has gone up. This has created a price squeeze situation.
What the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) should do, in spite of his statement to the Liberal convention in Medicine Hat, is to withdraw this bill and bring in one under which the farmers would receive cash advances on wheat stored on the farm. I have a record here of many of the things that were said by those who attended the Liberal convention but I realize I would not be allowed to put them on the record at this time. However, may I assure you that when the first item of the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) comes up I am going to do it. I will then be able to show just what the Liberals in Medicine Hat think about Bill No. 82 and many other policies which this government is trying to carry out.
I could tell you in my own words but perhaps I would be called to order if I did, so I shall not do it at this time. But I do want to say that Bill No. 82 is not what the farmers of western Canada want. The right hon-. Minister of Trade and Commerce must have had his tongue in his cheek when he sent that telegram to the convention. I just want to say that the farmers in my area are certainly not satisfied with what this government is doing in connection with the sale of wheat. I am sure that when I am allowed to read some of the statements I have here I will be able to show that they have just cause for the way they feel.
I oppose this bill because it does not bring to the farmer what the farmer wants. Shortterm credit means that a farmer can go to the bank and borrow $1,500 provided he has not obtained any other loans, and even then he must pay 5 per cent. The farmers do not like that and I do not blame them a bit.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal briefly with the basic reason why this government finds itself in such an unholy mess today with regard to wheat sales. The simple reason is that the government's selling efforts have been inadequate and utterly pathetic. To show what this government has done in the way of

making export shipments of wheat as compared with what has been done by other countries, I intend to quote some dominion bureau of statistics figures. The following are the export shipments of wheat and wheat flour in terms of wheat expressed in millions of bushels by the five leading exporting countries during the 1953-54 crop year:
Canada	 255 1
Australia	 63-4
France	 34-0
Argentina	  110-3
United States	 211-4
The following are the export shipments in millions of bushels for the crop year immediately past:
Canada	 251-8
Australia	 94-2
France	 83-8
Argentina	 134-5
United States	 276-5
Those figures show that Canada shipped 3 [DOT] 3 million bushels less for a decrease of 1 [DOT] 3 per cent. Australia increased her shipments by 30-8 million bushels for an increase of 48 [DOT] 6 per cent. France increased her shipments by 50 million bushels for an increase of 250 per cent. Argentina increased her shipments by 24-2 million bushels for an increase of 21-9 per cent, and the United States increased its shipments by 65-1 million bushels for an increase of 30-8 per cent.
What that adds up to is that the four other major exporters of wheat shipped 170 million bushels more during the last crop year than during the crop year immediately preceding, for an increase of 40 per cent, while in the case of Canada, the shipments decreased 3 [DOT] 3 million bushels or 1 [DOT] 3 per cent. That performance has been carried into the first quarter of the present crop year when Canada shipped 14-2 million bushels less than in the same quarter of the preceding crop year, for a decrease of 19 per cent. In other words, all the other wheat exporting countries were able to ship 40 per cent more wheat than in the preceding year, while we shipped 1-3 per cent less.
I think that that is a disgraceful performance. The minister will quite likely say that the United States increased their shipments to a certain extent by adopting a giveaway program, and we will grant that. He will say that Argentina entered into barter agreements, and we will grant that. However, according to his own department, France and Australia, trading on the same basis as Canada, were able to ship 80 million bushels more during the past crop year than in the preceding crop year, while we shipped 3-3 million bushels less. In other words, France and Australia, trading on the same

Grain
basis as we do, seem to have salesmen who can go out and make sales. Canada just does not have that kind of salesmen.
What has happened is that during the war years and the later 1940's, while we were in a seller's market, this government became so used to sitting back and arrogantly expecting buyers to come to us that it has lost whatever sales technique it ever might have had. It certainly has none today, because other countries are making increased sales while we are making less sales. That is nothing less than a disgraceful performance.
What is required in any business to get additional sales, particularly when your competitors are getting additional sales, is that you first go and see your potential customers. You do not treat them with the arrogance with which this government has treated potential customers in the past. You get to know them and obtain their confidence. You sit down and talk to them. You say, "We have something to sell, and you need to buy our commodity. What kind of a deal can we engage in that will be mutually satisfactory?" By working back and forth, getting their confidence, getting to know them and being willing to sit down and work out a mutually satisfactory arrangement, finally a deal is consummated.
However, in the spring of 1953, while the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) and other hon. members urged the Minister of Trade and Commerce to go to England, when it was evident that Great Britain was not going to enter the international wheat agreement, and try to work out a mutually satisfactory arrangement with Great Britain, the minister said he was not interested in going, and he did not go. That simply exemplifies the attitude this government has taken towards the need for going out and selling a commodity which we must sell-because we have not sold it. We have tremendous stocks building up every day, and the farmers are asked to take the rap. They are asked to do what the members of the cabinet, I am sure, would refuse to do. It is the equivalent of the Minister of Finance making a muddle of his financial arrangements to such an extent that it is not possible to honour the pay cheques that members of the cabinet and members of parliament receive at the end of each month, and to their being required to go to the bank to borrow their salaries and pay five per cent on them. That is what this government is demanding that the farmers of this country do-something they know perfectly well they themselves would not be willing to do with regard to their own salaries. Payment for wheat is the salary that the wheat grower of this country receives.
The performance of this government with regard to selling wheat has resulted in a situation in which every other major competitor is showing an average increase of 40 per cent more shipments last crop year than this crop year, while we are showing less shipments. If that kind of performance were shown to any sales manager, it would result in the salesman being fired on the spot. It is about time the people of Canada, who are being so adversely affected by this mess that this government has got us into, should do the same thing and fire the salesman on whom we are relying to dispose of our wheat. I feel sure that the farmers of this country will look after that very important piece of business at the next election.


Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkton):: Mir. Speaker, it is rather fortunate that this afternoon we had a speaker on the government side of the house-the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Bourque)-giving us some figures about agricultural income. I would point out to him in all fairness that he would appreciate the position of the agricultural producers in western Canada a little better if he were to study some of the figures with regard to costs of operation and the decline in net income in his province as compared with those of the prairie producers. In his province, from 1952 to 1954, the farmers-most of them, I believe, are engaged in dairy production-had a reduction in their net income of about three per cent and they can still carry on. I can imagine what the situation would be like if the producers in his province suffered by a decline in net income of 77 per cent.
He suggested that, if these prairie producers were able to get this $1,500 in the west, most of them would be investing it in bonds and stocks and that kind of thing to take advantage of the government's offer of interest-free money, that it would be a bad thing for the rest of Canada and we could not expect them to support it. There could not be better proof of the lack of understanding of the situation or of the conditions under which those people are trying to exist and in which they have found themselves as a result of government policy.
The member who immediately preceded me, the hon. member for Broadview, made a very telling point. He showed rather conclusively that, because of the failure of this government to sell its wheat in the world's markets, other large wheat exporting countries were increasing their sales while Canada's sales were decreasing. It is the failure of the government to sell the grain that has caused the terminal elevators to be blocked up, the inland elevators to be filled,

Grain
the elevators at the delivery points to be filled and the farmers' bins now to be filled. In many cases, hundreds of thousands of bushels are lying out on the prairies without any covering at all for them. If this government accepts the principle of orderly marketing, it is up to it to purchase this grain.
I wish my hon. friend from Outremont-St. Jean and a good many other members on that side of the house would just try to appreciate that situation. Then perhaps they would not so blindly follow the government votes in this house.
This Bill 82 is supposed to provide shortterm credit for grain producers on the prairie provinces. The fact that it does not do so points up the bill-this is the best word I can use to describe it-as "phony". It does not do the job. To say the situation is a temporary financial difficulty the people are in, arising from an inability to deliver all their grain, carries with it the suggestion that most of the farmers are fairly well off and have delivered most of their grain. It is utterly impossible, I suppose, to get members here to understand the situation unless they will undertake to study it a little.
It is because this bill is wrong in principle, beause it does not do what the government has said it is going to do in the preamble or in the definition of the bill, that we are opposing it. If it provided cash to the farmer as a right, then perhaps there would be some reason for some of us to support it. The farmers' inability to deliver is directly the responsibility of this government. It is the failure of this administration to sell that grain, even to provide the box cars for the delivery of the grain at the points of delivery to fill the available space in the terminal elevators, that causes the people of the west to oppose it.
There are two great failures here, and they rest directly on the administration. If the government has failed in its responsibility and as a result has placed the producer in the position where he has not the money to pay his costs of operation for the past year and to pay his taxes and other operating expenses, then surely it is the government that should take the responsibility and should pay for that responsibility. It is misleading to say that this does take care of the situation. As a matter of fact, when the facts of the situation are known, it will be a disgrace to Canada if such a bill is placed on the statutes. I think we are doing the government a favour by suggesting to them that this is a disgraceful piece of legislation which purports to do something but which does not do it at all. Such a thing can only be described as being misleading. We have moved the six

months' hoist to this bill. We in this group are supporting that six months' hoist because behind the bill is a definite and real injustice.
Orderly marketing in principle implies responsibility on the part of those who are to purchase the grain. Under act of parliament-and rightly so-the wheat board is the sole agency for the purchase of this grain or at any rate by far the greater bulk of it. Orderly marketing also implies that it is the responsibility of the government to sell that grain. It is the responsibility of the transport controller and the boards under the government's direction to see that transportation facilities are available so that the farmer can deliver that grain to his local elevator and so that the grain can be shipped to terminals. The government has failed in those responsibilities and now, under this legislation, wishes to place a penalty on the producers, namely the penalty of extra debt and the penalty of extra interest. When the action of any one person causes harm to some other person the person who is guilty of causing the harm would, in a court of law and in the name of justice, be obliged to pay for that action. The damages of the plaintiff who complains against those who have caused him harm or loss would, in a court of justice, be assessed against the person causing that harm. In this case we have the government being responsible for the loss or harm suffered by the producer and the producer being penalized for the failure of the government to act. That is the basis upon which we refuse to accept this bill and upon which we condemn it as being unworthy of the government of Canada.
If we were to endorse this bill in any way we would be endorsing a principle which, if allowed to continue in the present maladministration, would place a continually increasing burden of debt and interest on the back of agriculture which could have only one ultimate result, namely to break it. The farmer is facing bankruptcy rapidly enough with constantly increasing costs of production and a decline in income. To put a further burden on him is further to condemn agriculture to poverty for years to come.
On numerous occasions over the past years we have suggested to this government that, with the situation developing as it was, it was their responsibility to provide storage in Canada for this grain which they must buy from the farmer. They have undertaken to buy it and they have undertaken to sell it. They must accept their responsibility to sell it. If they had built these inland elevators and provided for a food bank within Canada, it would have been for the good of all. Without that elevator space available, we are caught in the mess in which we find our producers today. If the government had carried out the

Grain
recommendations presented to them by this group on numerous occasions, they would have done a good deal to help and would have prevented the present situation entirely. They have failed to carry out those recommendations and they must accept the responsibility. If the government policy with regard to exchange, barter deals and their attitude towards other governments is responsible for the failure to sell grain, then the responsibility rests squarely on their shoulders.
Instead of tackling the problem, what do we find? They say, "Oh, if the farmer is in temporary difficulties, we will make arrangements whereby he can go to the bank and the bank will lend him money. We will guarantee that the banks do not lose anything"-at least we are guaranteeing up to 85 per cent, I believe, under the bill-"and you pay the interest on it. That is just a little extra burden." How far is this going to go? Where is the end of such a policy? Can we accept that principle? Surely we cannot do so. The bill being unjust and being without a proper basis in principle, we would be derelict in our duty, if we were to support it. We could not possibly do so.
It has been suggested that recognition of the justice of the case of the producer in the west, is limited to only a few people here and there. It is encouraging to find throughout Canada growing support for the justice of the case of the western producer in the predicament in which he finds himself today. Just a few days ago the leaders of the two great labour unions of Canada, representing organized labour in this country to the extent of almost one million people, issued a statement supporting the demands of the western farmer for cash advances on his farm-stored grain as a matter of right; and, even more significant, they are supporting the demands of organized agriculture throughout the whole of Canada for the establishment of a parity price, the only way in which the farmer can be assured of any security. With the costs of operation continuing to rise, he should be guaranteed a floor price which will bear a proper relationship to his costs of production. Without that parity price, he faces bankruptcy. Organized labour in Canada recognize that fact and have issued a statement supporting the demands of the farmer for that right.
The action of this government is completely ineffectual. This bill will not do the job; it cannot do the job. Why should it be presented to this house? Not only is it misleading and ineffectual but it is a travesty on justice. It is a burlesque imitation, of what should be done, and it is completely misleading.
Because it is useless and ineffectual, wrong in principle, dangerous to the future of agriculture and misleading, we are going to support the motion that 'the six months' hoist be given to this bill. That is our way of saying that it should not be passed by this house, that it should be thrown out and that something should be introduced which would restore the confidence of the people who are doing the job of producing the economic weapons in the struggle for men's minds today, the people who are producing and doing the job of producing the food that the world so desperately needs. The movement of people away from agriculture in this country can only mean that the army of people who provide probably the very basis upon which the good part of this country is built- the rural homes, the farm homes, the place from which our nation draws its strength- lack confidence.
One hon. member this afternoon compared what is happening in Canada to what has happened to agriculture in that great giant of a country to the south of us. Within the past few years the government of that country has supported agriculture with a parity price program. It recognizes that agriculture as of right deserves to be supported in an economy where the costs of operation, without price support, will mean the ruination of agriculture. They have spent some $799 million in support programs for agriculture. In spite of this fact, agriculture in that country still continues to decline. Here in Canada we have no such support. This government refuses to recognize the right of agriculture to any support prices when it is responsible for the increasing costs of living. With the costs of production continuing to rise, there must be some support for agriculture. The bill purports to deal with a matter of immediate importance, what amounts to a desperate situation, the shortage of cash in the prairie economy. It does not do the job and that is why we have moved an amendment to give the bill the six months' hoist. Basically it is only a part of the greater problem facing agriculture which we can discuss at another time. In refusing to recognize cash advances on grain properly stored on the farm, the government condemns the farmers of the country to a critical economic condition, but it also does more than that. Underlying the attitude of the government is a denial of the principle of orderly marketing, and only by the application of that principle is there any hope for the people of the prairie region and those of the rest of Canada engaged in the agricultural industry. I am pleased to support the amendment for the six months' hoist. I hope

Grain
that every hon. member, having studied the situation and knowing what he is voting for and what he is voting against, will do likewise.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time-


An hon. Member:: Once again.


An hon. Member:: Is this the last time?


Hazen Robert Argue: -to oppose once again the bill before the house. As the days go by, I believe it is becoming more and more clear why the members of the C.C.F. group have been right all along in deciding to oppose this measure. As the days go by support for opposition to the measure is growing. The only people who are saying anything in favour of the proposal are members on the government side of the house. In their desperation various members of the Liberal party are making statements that are bound to lead to growing disunity in the country, because that is what they are talking about.


Mr. Dickey:: You started talking about disunity.


Hazen Robert Argue: Just a few minutes ago an hon. member said that the farmers of eastern Canada were opposed to this kind of thing. I do not believe the farmers of eastern Canada are opposed to cash advances in any way. As a matter of fact, just the other day one of the organizations representing the farmers of Ontario came into this building, met the various groups and advocated the very thing that we have been advocating, namely, cash advances. The Ontario farmers' union joined hands with the farmers' unions of the three prairie provinces in supporting cash advances and opposing bank loans.
This afternoon the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Bourque) said that the opposition members were pitting the farmers against the rest of Canada. When I said that members on the government side of the house were prepared to make statements that could in no way serve the cause of national unity, that was one of the statements I had in mind. I say that the people of Canada are not supporting the government in the action it has taken at this time. We in this group are not attempting to pit the farmers against the rest of Canada because we believe the majority of Canadians are fair and believe that agriculture from one end of this nation to the other is entitled to fair economic treatment and that the farmers are in fact entitled to an economic standard of living comparable with the rest of the nation.
What has the government said when we in this group have advocated measures such as

support prices in the interests of our farmers? They have said: You might be able to do something in this case but the consumer is against it and labour is against it. In other words, they say that the country is divided and that when the farmers want a certain policy the consumers are opposed to that policy. I do not believe that for a moment. I believe I can show that the nation as a whole is quite prepared to support the farmers in their demands for equity, justice, and for prices which will give them a reasonable standard of living.
We have seen the government attempt to divide farmers and labour. Because they have been able to do that with some success in the past, perhaps it has served their own ends. The Canadian Congress of Labour had a convention last fall and they came out in favour of 75 per cent cash advances on farm-stored grain. The labour unions are certainly far ahead of the government in advocating such a policy. Just a few days ago the farm-labour economic council issued a statement which was reported by the Canadian Press and is found in the Ottawa Journal of February 20. In it they had this to say:
Prairie farm unions, driving hard for cash advances on farm-held grain, now have powerful allies-spokesmen for some one million organized workers. The heads of the two national labour bodies, the Trades and Labour Congress and the Canadian Congress of Labour, Saturday agreed with farm unions that the need of such payments should be recognized.
T.L.C. chief Claude Jodoin and C.C.L. head A. R. Mosher, whose organizations are soon to amalgamate, agreed also that farmers should get "equitable" or parity prices on all farm products.
I say that statement is the best answer that could be given to the suggestion of the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean that we are attempting to pit the farmers against the rest of Canada. As a matter of fact, more and more it is becoming clear that the government's stand is in fact against the rest of Canada and that is the only division there is in the country on this question.
I have heard it said very frequently that farmers in eastern Canada, farmers in the maritimes and farmers in British Columbia do not support the policies that are advocated from time to time by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and other organizations speaking on behalf of the prairie farmers. I do not think that is true. Not only do I think that the farmers of the east and British Columbia are prepared to support reasonable demands advanced by prairie producers but I also believe that the prairie producers, as fair-minded Canadians, are prepared to support reasonable demands advanced by producers in all parts of Canada.

The hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Murphy), who is in his seat at the present time, made some very amazing statements in his contribution to this debate. Referring to the opposition he said, as found at page 971 of Hansard of February 8:
Why do they not come up with the same suggestion on wheat? Why do they not suggest that the government buy the wheat and give it to the Canadian public at such a low rate that bread will be a penny a loaf?
That is an open and public confession by the hon. member that he knows nothing about the grain business, that he knows nothing about the cost of the wheat that goes into a loaf of bread and knows very little about economics or he would not make the suggestion that bread, even if wheat were free, would come down to a penny a loaf. It might come down two, three, or three and a fraction cents a loaf but that is all because most of the cost of a loaf of bread is for something other than the flour content of the loaf.
Then the hon. member went on to criticize the western wheat producers in very strong language. He said:
It seems to me that the western wheat producer in this case is the man who holds the big stick . . .
He says that the wheat producer in the west is the man who holds the big stick. He does not hold a stick at all. He holds a lot of grain that he cannot sell. He is out of money and the only place where he can sell his grain is the Canadian wheat board. He believes the government that has taken responsibility for the functioning of the Canadian wheat board should also take the responsibility for providing money to the producer when he is unable to deliver his grain. If there is a big stick at all it is being held and wielded by the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). Because of the power he possesses in the government he has said to the western wheat producers, in spite of an almost unanimous request for cash advances, I will have nothing to do with it and I will oppose it. It is not the farmer in the west that is wielding the big stick; it is the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
I do not think the statements I have referred to do the hon. member for Westmorland any credit. Since he is a member of the legal profession and has had a good deal of training one would expect that he would not make such statements as these.


Mr. Murphy (Westmorland):: I am a Canadian, also.


Hazen Robert Argue: Well, I believe that is a correct statement. The hon. member needs to make quite a number of correct statements to live down the comments to which I have referred.
Grain
Even though the hon. member for Westmorland may take exception to what I am now saying, his statements were, in my opinion, not quite so bad as those made by the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hosking). In the statements he made he showed that he had no understanding not only of the grain business but of the livestock business of this country. As recorded on page 1298 of Hansard, he was quite prepared to interrupt the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Bryson) when that hon. member was making the statement that unless the government took action the prairie farmer would be forced to produce more livestock. The hon. member for Wellington South said:
Your farmer will certainly do some work for a change.
That shows the abysmal ignorance of the hon. member for Wellington South. He had already made other statements along the same line before he made that statement. At page 1297 of Hansard he had this to say. He had been questioning the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort regarding the production of livestock and he asked this question.
Why have they not done so before?
He was referring to the western producers. The hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort replied:
We were getting rid of some grain before.
To that the hon. member for Wellington South made this statement:
Because they were making so much money from their wheat they did not have to raise livestock, like the eastern farmers, to make a living.
I looked up the record in the dominion bureau of statistics agricultural statistics, and I found something that amazed me. I will admit that. I found on the farms in western Canada, as of the 1951 census, almost exactly the same number of cattle and calves as are on farms in eastern Canada, namely, in Ontario and Quebec. As a matter of fact, in that year on each farm in Ontario and Quebec there were 12-5 head of cattle. In the same year on the prairies there were 12-1 head on each farm. The statement of the hon. member for Wellington South is therefore inaccurate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member will read a little farther on page 1297 he will find I indicated that questions along that line should not be answered, and I am still of the same opinion that these discussions of livestock are not quite in order on this bill.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to abide by your ruling.


Mr. Robichaud:: Find something new.

Grain


Hazen Robert Argue: What other hon. members of this group have been endeavouring to say is that just so long as the government fails to take action to solve the problem of the farmer obtaining money for his grain there will stand an ever-present threat to the livestock industry across this nation of the western producer deciding that he has vastly to increase the number of livestock on his farm. Because we believe that such a thing can only further increase the misery of agriculture in this nation we have been pointing out the need for the government to take action to place money in the hands of the wheat producers. We can talk as we like on this subject; we can talk about cash advances that are so important, but the main thing finally will be to get the grain moved, to get the grain sold and to get money for the sale of the grain in the pockets of the producers.
We have been pointing out the fact that sales of grain in recent years have been going down. We have pointed out the fact that increased crops, because of new methods, are likely to add to the surplus rather than detract from it, unless the government should vastly increase the sales of grain; but we were surprised to learn, as I am sure the nation was, that according to the Minister of Trade and Commerce the trouble is not the matter of sales; the trouble is not the matter of giving cash advances or loans. The minister had this to say in the debate at page 603 of Hansard:
Our big problem now is not selling, but transportation. If deliveries of wheat by producers this crop year do happen to fall behind last year, it will be because rail transportation is not adequate to move grain forward quickly enough and thus clear space in country elevators.
We have heard alibis of all kinds, but this is the main alibi, this is the last alibi, that there is a transportation bottleneck; that there is a shortage of box cars; that sales are marvellous; they have been going up; but if the transport controller did his job-that is in fact what the minister was saying-and provided more box cars, then the whole marketing problem would not be nearly so difficult. The transport controller, who is supposed to be an authority on the control and movement of box cars, replied to this statement about three weeks ago, according to a Canadian Press dispatch of February 17. He had this to say:
Transport controller Roy W. Milner, whose powers parliament will be asked to renew for two years, said Thursday there is no shortage of box cars holding up prairie grain shipments.
The Canadian wheat board has made an estimate of how much grain it will want moved by April 15 and "we will have that grain moved before that date."
[Mr. Robichaud.l
I have heard the Minister of Trade and Commerce criticized in this house for the statements he has made from time to time. I have seen many hon. members rise in their places and attempt to argue against the Minister of Trade and Commerce and refute his statements, but this is the first time in my memory that a senior civil servant has gone to the press and said in fact, in so many words, the minister does not know what he is talking about. The Minister of Trade and Commerce says there is a big shortage of box cars; that is the bottleneck; that is the trouble in moving grain. The transport controller says there is no shortage of box cars holding up prairie grain shipments.


Mr. Trainor:: Give him credit for that.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am not too sure which one is right, therefore I do not know where to place the credit.


Clarence Decatur Howe: In other words, you do not know.


Hazen Robert Argue: I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce what had happened to the 58 million bushels effective capacity which was not used, as reported in an answer in this house on January 20. He said he did not know. He did not know whether it was more or less. We need a lot more information. I would like to see the agriculture committee of this house called at an early date. I would like to see the minister present his case to that committee for saying that the great difficulty is the shortage of box cars, and then it would be very interesting to have the transport controller tell us why he makes the statement that there is no shortage of box cars. In the last session and the present one we have seen increasing evidence that the government has lost touch and that the cabinet is no longer able to effectively carry out its duties. This is more evidence of the fact that the government is not effectively carrying out its obligations to the people of this nation.
I would like to see the Minister of Trade and Commerce make a statement in the house and tell us what the facts really are and tell us who is right. Is the minister right or is the transport controller right? Whatever the answer may be this situation should be solved so that the greatest effective capacity possible will be used and grain will be kept in position without having to pay demurrage on ocean vessels waiting in port and so on so that we may take advantage of every possible sale.
Someone made a statement in this chamber the other day to the effect that farmers have already marketed their normal crop. This statement was made by someone who

had been listening to the Minister of Trade and Commerce but who had failed to get the gist of his remarks. Farmers' marketings on the prairies so far this crop year are very low. There has been a calamitous drop in farm marketings. Day after day hon. members from western Canada are receiving letters and resolutions following meetings that are called asking for increased quotas, for more box cars and for the opportunity to go out in thirty or forty below zero weather to open a road by removing the snow so that they can get a few bushels to market.
The statistics I hold in my hand show that this situation is in fact prevalent on the prairies. I have here a list of farmers' marketings from the period August 1 to February 1 for a number of years. The high year in recent years is the period 1952-53 when farmers from August 1 to February 1 marketed 286 million bushels of wheat. The next year marketings in the same period were 241 million bushels of wheat and in that period 1954-55 marketings of wheat had dropped to 135 million bushels. For the current period marketings are down to 111 million bushels. In other words, from this period in 1952-53 when farmers marketed at country elevators on the prairies 286 million bushels of wheat, there has been a drop to 111 million bushels.
It is because of the lack of marketing and because of the fact that marketings have been so drastically curtailed that meetings in western Canada are still being held asking the government to provide a system of cash advances.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce keeps telling us that sales are better but when we ask him in the house what the sales are he says, "I will not tell you, it is not public; but I know they are better, I know sales are up." We have to rely on export figures, but a sale is transferred into an export before too long and the latest figures on exports which have come to my office are for the period August 1, 1955, to February 8, 1956. These figures show exports were 97-4 million bushels, a drop of approximately 18 million bushels from the same period last year.
I hope the Minister of Trade and Commerce is right in saying our sales are up, but if he is, he is going to be right this year whereas he was wrong many, many times last year when he told us in this house that marketings and sales were up and that the 8-bushel quota would be off the farms. In fact, he said that farmers would be able to market all their grain before the new crop was harvested.
There is a great need to make certain that our exports are increased. One cannot help but feel that, unless we are successful in obtaining a new international wheat agreement,
Grain
these figures I have used today and the optimistic statements the Minister of Trade and Commerce is now making will not prove to be correct and sales may in fact go down.
I was very disappointed to learn that Great Britain would not consider coming into a new international wheat agreement. The fact that Britain has said no to a new international wheat agreement is no excuse for the Canadian government to take the position the minister suggested it was taking on February 16 when he said it would not be prepared to enter a new international wheat agreement unless two-thirds of the wheat entering into the channels of commerce were provided for in that agreement. Even with Britain participating in an agreement, it is doubtful if we would have two-thirds of the wheat that is entering into the commercial channels of the world covered. We have an international wheat agreement at the present time. It is not what we would like it to be, but let no one think that it is not an important agreement or that it does not cover a vast quantity of wheat or that there are not many countries in the world who are signatories to the agreement. The guaranteed quantities under the present international wheat agreement which is still in operation are 395 million bushels, and while we have exported 97 [DOT] 4 bushels in the crop year to February 8 the report of the international wheat council shows that in the period August 1, 1955, to February 10, 1956, Canada sold 52,734,000 bushels under the current international wheat agreement.
In other words, with an agreement restricted as it is without Britain we have exported approximately half of our wheat so far this year under the terms of that international wheat agreement.
I regret the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that Canada, at least on February 16, is apparently not thinking in terms of supporting a new international wheat agreement even though it would cover a much smaller quantity of grain.
The minister this afternoon in answer to a question asked by me stated that I had always said he should take the advice of farm organizations and he said that is what he was doing; he was taking the advice of farm organizations. As a matter of fact, he is doing some of the things which are absolutely opposed to the statements of leaders in the farm movement. When he made the statement that Canada would not consider an agreement unless two-thirds of the wheat that is entering into the commercial channels of the world was covered, Mr. Alf Gleave, the vice president of the Saskatchewan

Grain
farmers' union, Mr. Stewart Thiessen, secretary of the Saskatchewan farmers' union, and Mr. Alex Gilliland, the wheat pool manager, questioned the wisdom of the minister's statement.
According to the Winnipeg Free Press of February 18 in a news item entitled, "Howe Stand on I.W.A. Criticized", Mr. Gleave had this to say:
Why send a negotiating team to Geneva, then three days before the meeting opens, lay down a policy which limits their powers of negotiation?
The minister says that he consults with the farm organizations and their leaders and listens to their representations but as a matter of fact, according to Mr. Gleave, the minister has not consulted with them at all and three days before the opening of the international wheat agreement negotiations the minister cuts the ground in large part from under the feet of the people who are to take part in the negotiations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: am going to suggest to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) that he is opening what could become quite a large debate within a debate; that is, the action which this government should take in the future in connection with the forthcoming wheat agreement. That undoubtedly will be a legitimate subject for debate if it comes before the house, and it can be discussed under the estimates of the department concerned if no agreement comes before the house. I would ask the hon. member to agree with me that we are a little far away from legislation dealing with the present financial condition of the farmer.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, you are absolutely right; we are some considerable distance away from a discussion of the second reading of this bill and of the amendment for the six months' hoist which is before the house.
When the matter was being considered previous to the debate I expected that the debate would be restricted largely to the question of bank loans or the alternative cash advances. However, when the Minister of Trade and Commerce opened this discussion on January 27 he made a most detailed statement, not only of the government's position as far as bank loans are concerned or even cash advances but as to exports of grain in the last few years. He gave all kinds of statistics and dealt at length with the government's marketing policy.
Any reference I have made to the wheat situation today and to marketing policies, any statistics I have quoted, have been right around the subject with which the Minister of Trade and Commerce dealt most adequately when he opened this discussion on

January 27. I was not endeavouring to extend the scope of the debate; I was merely making comments on the general statement which the minister made when we first began this discussion.
The Minister of Agriculture is not at all reluctant to make statements on wheat. I am glad he is not, and I congratulate him upon being ready to do that even though he is wrong and at times he must feel that he is wrong. That does not bother him. He goes out to meetings of all kinds, in eastern Canada and western Canada, and makes statements as to his version of the farmer's position, as to why bank loans are good enough, as to why the government is opposed to cash advances, as to why the minister himself is opposed to cash advances. I believe the minister might have a different idea and the government might have accepted a different policy if they had started from a correct instead of a wrong premise.
I should like to refer to the report of a speech made by the Minister of Agriculture which appeared in the Windsor Daily Star of Thursday, February 2. It is headed "Wheat in Bin likened to Farm Bank Account". If I had not known who was making this speech I would not have needed to read any more than that headline to have guessed that it was the Minister of Agriculture, because that is an old theme of his that wheat in the bin is like money in the bank.
I am sure that the Minister of Justice is prepared to say that the farmers of Minne-dosa and district do not believe that statement by the Minister of Agriculture? As a matter of fact the Minister of Trade and Commerce does not entirely believe it either, because he is bringing in something which he expects will provide farmers with some money in their bank accounts; but according to the Minister of Agriculture if you have wheat at home it is just as good as money in the bank. He cannot convince anybody of that. The minister was making this speech before a medical society, so he did not have many hecklers I suppose. The report reads:
Mr. Gardiner told the doctors he has been criticized tor earlier statements in that vein, "But X still say agriculture is making a pretty lair showing in Canada."
The fact is that the farmer today is in a worse cost-price position than he was when the Minister of Agriculture took over his present portfolio; the farmer is in a worse price-cost position today than he was 20 years ago. The minister stated that as far as he was concerned the farmer's position today was pretty fair. Then he went on to say:
Alter all, the best bank account a farmer can have is a bin of wheat. That's because he can't spend it.

The Minister of Agriculture apparently says, "Don't give the farmer any money; don't give him a bank account, but let him have some wheat and then stop him from selling it. Don't give him any money because after all it is good for him that he cannot spend it". Is it any wonder that the minister is running into trouble? Is it any wonder that we have a return such as the one tabled the other day for the hon. member for Prince Albert, containing many resolutions and petitions with signatures running into the thousands all saying that the Minister of Agriculture is wrong when he says that wheat in the bin is as good as money in the bank? They indicate that the farmers in fact want the government to do something that will transfer wheat in the bin into cash. The minister went on to say:
On my own farm I once held wheat twelve years in a row and it came out in first-class condition.
I do not think he meant that the wheat had been there for twelve years. He held it for just one year at a time. That is fine.


James Garfield Gardiner: No. My hon. friend says that is funny.


Hazen Robert Argue: I said, "That is fine". I am being misquoted now.


James Garfield Gardiner: The wheat had remained in the bin for twelve years.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Minister of Agriculture has another source of revenue; therefore he was in the happy position where he could make the statement that wheat in his bin was as good as money in the bank. I suppose if all farmers of western Canada had some side line where they could make-


James Garfield Gardiner: Perhaps I had better indicate to my hon. friend that I was feeding the wheat out of the bin for the twelve years and when the wheat came out of the bottom of the bin it was just as good as when it went in. I was selling cattle and hogs in order to get my return.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister still kept this
wheat for twelve years. In fact he was able to pay most of his accounts, I imagine, without having to charge them for an extended period because he had other sources of revenue.


James Garfield Gardiner: Every farmer will understand it.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is no wonder that the farmers cannot get cash advances when the Minister of Agriculture is against them. He thinks the farmer does not know how to run his own business, that the best thing for the farmer is to prevent him from selling his grain because
Grain
it will leave him in a good position. He will have a bin of wheat as good as money in the bank and he cannot spend either the wheat or the money. The minister says that the wonderful policy of the government means that the farmer is in a pretty fair position after all.
As I said before, I admire the Minister of Agriculture in many ways. He has courage. He is quite prepared to face an audience at any time, even one completely hostile to him where there may be many hecklers and where many questions may be asked. The Minister of Agriculture does not mind entering into a debate in this house at any time. Usually you do not have to challenge the Minister of Agriculture, but if you do you are almost certain to get a reply and he will make his reply interesting; he will make it in strong language.
But there is a silent member of the cabinet from the prairies. What I have just now said about the Minister of Agriculture I cannot say to the same degree about the Minister of Justice who represents Manitoba in the cabinet. The Manitoba farmer is short of money, and he would like to know the position of the Minister of Justice. I am sure the members of this house would like to have the Minister of Justice enter this debate and tell us why in his opinion the farmer takes that view.


An hon. Member:: Don't go away.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have a telephone call.


Hazen Robert Argue: We can excuse you. However, I think if it were the Minister of Agriculture he would say, "I will make my speech first and answer the phone a little later." The Minister of Justice makes big speeches about wheat and he gets great publicity on the front page of the Winnipeg Free Press about the government's position on cash advances. This speech was made by the Minister of Justice on Saturday, February 18, in the "Report from Parliament Hill" series. He made it over radio station CKDM in Dauphin.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not even on television.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister knew he would not have any hecklers when he broadcast over that station. I imagine he did the same as the rest of us do on the "Report from Parliament Hill" program, and went to Sparks street and recorded it. He was in the room all by himself and did not have a wheat farmer there. He had no hecklers.


An hon. Member:: No shotgun.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Minister of Justice maintains the safety of silence here and makes his comments over a radio station by means of a recorded transcription of a speech that he

Grain
makes in Ottawa. Then, of course, he very generously distributes it to the reporter for the Winnipeg Free Press, which gives the "Report from Parliament Hill" broadcast by the Minister of Justice a very prominent display on its front page. I say to the Minister of Justice that he owes it to this house to stand up here and give us his views and the views of the people of Manitoba, and not to continue his silence as far as parliament is concerned, using merely the safety of radio station CKDM in Dauphin.
The government gives the farmer bank loans requiring interest. The farmer wants money so he can pay off his mortgage, but the government gives him another one. Instead of getting rid of his debts when he gets a crop, he gets more debt. The government has no policy that will solve the wheat problem at home. It has no policy for solving the problem of getting rid of the wheat in the export markets. Europe, according to all reports, is now experiencing the worst winter in 100 years. President Eisenhower says that with the devastation in Europe, with the great damage to the crops there and with the suffering among the people, the government of the United States is prepared to make some of its surplus food available to help the people in need in Europe. We ask this government what it intends to do. Silence again. No comment. No policy. I suggest that the government-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but I have to advise the hon. gentleman that his time has expired.


Clarence Decatur Howe: 
Alfred Claude Ellis: That is one side of the coin.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I suggest to you that was a commission established by the Saskatchewan government to advise the Saskatchewan government on how to handle this situation, and the statement I have just read is the statement of the commissioners established for that purpose as to what they believed to be the solution to the problem at this time.
That report is dated 1956-in other words it is hot off the griddle-and it is published in the light of all the information and misinformation that the hon. member for Assini-boia has been able to put on the record during this session of parliament. I ask hon. members whether those who have been speaking from the C.C.F. group are the proper interpreters of the feeling of Saskatchewan. Perhaps they interpret their own opinions, but can they speak for the farm population of Saskatchewan with the same conviction as a commission appointed to determine the viewpoint of the province, to analyse what is best for the people and to present a report to the provincial government?
I think that extract is a fair measure of the filibuster we have had here, and a fair measure of the validity of this motion to give this bill the six months' hoist. The bill was recommended by the farm leaders of the province. It is endorsed by a commission of the provincial government, but it is opposed by this little group who represent perhaps some opinion but, if my own opinion is correct, it is a small portion of the public opinion in the province of Saskatchewan.


Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I am not participating in this debate for any particular purpose other than that of clarification. We who have listened for so many days, both on the government side and in the opposition, are placed in much the same position. We wonder who is right and who is telling the complete truth. From what the minister has just said I am satisfied that he has a particular statement from a commission which was set up by the Saskatchewan government, as he indicated, and that the report is hot off the press. That report would be applicable to the province of Saskatchewan.
The group with which I am associated in British Columbia do not have this particular problem. However, I have a problem in my own mind. To me it does not make sense that we would have so many members in this
Grain
house willing to commit political hara-kiri by trying to get rid of a bill that the farmers are wanting or not wanting, as the case might be. It raises an element of doubt in my mind as to whether or not the farmers themselves know what they want. I have listened to a great number of charges from the opposition side as to what is wanted. I have heard some answers from the government side.


An hon. Member:: Very few.


Frederick George Hahn: And I have also heard some ridiculous questions from that source. One of the reasons I rise this afternoon is something the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Wylie) had to say a short time ago. I used to be a citizen of the city of Medicine Hat. I was there for a good number of years. I know people in and around that area very well. I did not leave there too many years ago, in fact. Most of the men who attended a particular farmers' union of Alberta meeting there are known to me. I taught in that area for a good number of years.
The meeting of the farmers' union of Alberta was apparently called to discuss the grain situation. More particularly, some of the members who were there included Mayor Harry Veiner, the present mayor of the city of Medicine Hat. You will notice that I said "the city of Medicine Hat." I did so in order to endorse what was said earlier by my friend the hon. member for Medicine Hat. Others at the meeting included Harry Strom, who happens to be at this time Social Credit member of the legislature for Cypress; Bryce Stringam, member of the legislature for Bow Valley. He is a C.C.F.-Liberal-Conserv-ative, the one who beat out the Social Credi-ter and to whom I referred the other day. Also present was Anders Anderson, farmers' union of Alberta director for district No. 13.
Some of the things these individuals had to say proved to be most interesting, particularly when the mayor of the city in effect said that the people should demand a: 60 cents per bushel advance on at least 10,000 bushels of wheat. This was a demand. It is not a suggestion that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is wrong in his statement, but here we have this statement being made by this particular showman, Harry Veiner, who is well known across Canada for that matter, particularly for his showmanship and his ability to sell a commodity. He is particularly well known to the Minister of Agriculture. He happens to have been in his area for a good number of years.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that a statement of this type made by a responsible individual such as this man should be given

Grain
some consideration, not only because of the fact that he was making it for himself but because he was apparently speaking for a good number of citizens in that community. What is more, he said they should not be expected to pay it back at a rate of interest greater than 4 per cent. That also seems a strange thing when one realizes that in this particular bill the rate of interest that is suggested

not by the government of Canada but by the bankers, and the government follows suit-is 5 per cent. I would hold that to those of us who do not know the full story this gives reason to wonder what the truth of the matter is, as I indicated earlier.
Certainly it is not my intention to vote for a motion to give the six months' hoist to a bill if the farmers want that particular bill. I just want to know what they really want. I am not discounting what the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce have had to say. But I also like to think that the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) are not just raising something for political purposes. I think the lives of people in Canada have been played with politically just a little bit too much, and that it is high time we got the full truth of the matter.
It is a simple matter to get that truth. I would suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that he indicate to this house that if we allow this bill to be given second reading, he is prepared to let us call in individual farmers and farmers' organizations and get their exact viewpoint. Then I think we can vote on this question in a sensible and sane fashion.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Trade and Commerce was shooting a broadside at the C.C.F. for having courageously and most effectively battled, for many days now, on behalf of the people who sent them to parliament. I know it is not good politics on my part, but I think it is good Canadianism to congratulate the members of the C.C.F. who have planned and carried on this battle for having done a good job and for being ready to continue to do that job.
May I say this so the C.C.F. will not have to take all the opprobrium; that if they had not got in and started to move amendments to the motion for second reading, the Social Credit group would have done it. The members of the Social Credit group have been ready to move amendments ever since the motion was made for second reading of the

bill, if they could have only got the floor. The reason they were not able to get the floor is that the C.C.F. happens to have a few more members in the house than the Social Crediters, and consequently they have priority in the matter of being recognized. The Conservatives, as the official opposition, are recognized first by Mr. Speaker, as they should be; the spokesman for the C.C.F. is recognized second by Mr. Speaker, which is as it should be, and the Social Crediters have to wait until the others finish their show before they can commence theirs.
But let not the minister think for one minute that the Social Crediters are not solidly behind everything the C.C.F. people have advocated in this debate, with the exception, as I have said, of the resolution preceding the bill concerning which we disagreed with them because at that time we did not know what sort of measure was going to be introduced and we did not know that the government would refuse to let the bill go before the committee on agriculture and colonization, which is the logical place for it to be examined. Apart from that we have been with the C.C.F. in respect of all the arguments that have been put forward.
As far as I am concerned, and I speak for Lethbridge, I will wager that 98 per cent of all the farmers in the constituency of Lethbridge are solidly against the bill and solidly behind advances on grain in storage on the farms. I have not been able to talk to all of them, but I have talked to enough of them to feel quite safe in making that statement.
There are several matters which I think need to be considered at the present time and to which I should like to give some attention. In the first place I should like to congratulate those on the Liberal side who have spoken on the bill. The hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Bourque) gave a little talk today. There were many things in his speech which did the hon. member credit. He said he believed that the farming population should be kept prosperous, and he said a good many other things with which I am entirely in agreement. They do credit to the hon. member and the constituents who sent him here.
The only difficulty in his talk apparently arose from the fact that the hon. member had been slightly misled by men who should have informed him correctly. How could he, coming from Montreal, have anything like an accurate knowledge of conditions obtaining in the three prairie provinces unless he were told by the men in charge, like the Minister of Trade and Commerce? If the Minister of Trade and Commerce was no more clear and straightforward when talking in the Liberal

caucus than he has been on the floor of the house, I do not blame any Liberal for being completely confused with respect to the whole situation in the three prairie provinces.
Two other hon. Liberal members spoke the other day and asked questions. The hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Cannon) made a speech and another hon. member asked several questions. These men made statements which were honest, fact-facing and sincere. They showed that there was a question in their minds which should be clarified. I appreciate all of these statements and questions greatly and I say once more what has already been said many times, that it is my settled conviction after hearing all that has been said that if the people of Canada from coast to coast and the members of this house all knew the facts they would practically unanimously condemn this bill and unanimously demand cash advances on farm-stored grain.


Mr. Dupuis:: We will give you the whole of Canada, everything. You will get it.


John Horne Blackmore: I know the hon. member is very enthusiastic-


Hector Dupuis: Even your funny money.


John Horne Blackmore: -but the knowledge the hon. member has about western wheat is probably not very great. I realize the hon. member's enthusiasm, but I cannot see anything in his background which would necessarily give him the right to talk for prairie farmers.
Some doubt has been raised as to just exactly what the United States is doing for its farmers. Before I go into that matter may I ask every hon. member in the house through you, Mr. Speaker, is there any conceivable reason why the Dominion of Canada cannot do as well for its farmers raising wheat as the United States can do for its farmers raising wheat?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: Is there any conceivable reason why Canada should not be able so to do? If there is any reason that can be brought forward we will be glad to hear about it.
I contend there is no reason to treat our Canadian wheat growers like slaves while the United States is treating her wheat growers like kings. It must be admitted that the United States farmers are having difficulties because of a fall in their income. That is largely because of the rise in the cost of production-and we in Canada are suffering in the same way. But as far as what the United States is attempting to do and is actually doing, for her wheat growers is concerned,
Grain
she makes Canada look like a nation of pikers. There is no question about that.


Henry Joseph Murphy: The member
for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) says that eastern farmers are getting away with murder. What about that?


John Horne Blackmore: I think that was probably a slip of the tongue. The hon. member for Acadia will answer for himself. He is quite capable of doing so, as I think the hon. member knows full well. I am giving my speech now and I will welcome honourable, straightforward questions on anything I have to say. I am going to read a quotation here which will give the house the exact picture of what the United States is doing. I wish to read from an editorial in the Lethbridge Herald of December 5. It does not comment on what is going on in the house, so there is no danger of my being out of order. The editorial reads in part as follows:
Writing of the difference between the wheat marketing situation in Canada and in the United States, the agricultural editor of the Minneapolis Tribune visited Hegina recently and in his paper drew this rather startling contrast:
"Let's compare the difference in prices received by two fanners who raise 5,000 bushels of wheat on 250 acres, one near Bismarck, North Dakota, and the other near Regina, Saskatchewan. The North Dakota farmer could put his entire crop under government loan. If it graded No. 1 northern, he could obtain $2.10 a bushel and receive $10,500 for his 5,000 bushels, farm-stored. He could repay the loan or let the wheat go to the government when the loan matures."
Quite obviously that amounts to a purchase on the part of the government. I continue:
"The Regina farmer would get $1,221 a bushel for No. 3 wheat, comparable to U.S. No. 1 northern. And that doesn't figure' in the margin for his country elevator. He is allowed to market 300 bushels, for which he receives $367.50. But he still has 4,700 bushels on his farm. If storage opens up, he may be able to sell up to 8 bushels an acre or another 2,000 bushels for $2,230. That would bring his total sales to $2,597.50."
Compare that with the $10,500 which the man just a few miles away across the line receives! I continue:
"And the Canadian farmer would have 2,700 bushels of wheat on his farm . . . wheat that he doesn't quite know what to do with."
That pretty well settles the matter regardless of all the attempts to laugh it off or draw red herrings across the path, so that-


Mr. Byrne:: May I ask a question?


John Horne Blackmore: May I just finish my statement first? That simply shows up the government of Canada just exactly as it is. It has been guilty of an absolute betrayal of the Canadian farmers of the three prairie provinces. Now let the hon. member ask his question.

Grain


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: It would be interesting to know whether the United States government pays the $2.10. Do they make any reduction from that amount for handling charges, freight charges, and so forth, or is that the full amount the farmer receives?


John Horne Blackmore: I would say that if the picture given here by the editorial writer is not accurate in fact, then it would be a most dishonest thing. If there were any serious differences between the cost which the United States farmer would have to incur through freight handling, and what the Canadian farmer would have to pay, I would think that writer would pay attention to it. I would think that matters like freight, storage, handling and all that kind of thing would probably be just about the same on both sides. I am not in a position to speak with great authority respecting all that the United States is doing, but thus far the quotation I have given is absolutely clear and utterly unanswerable. I think everyone will agree with that.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Horne Blackmore: I would now like to refer-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, may I ask my hon. friend two questions? Apparently the man from the United States confuses acreage seeded to wheat with cultivated acreage. That is one mistake. The second is that he entirely neglected to mention the participating payment which comes after the wheat is sold.


John Horne Blackmore: Well-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: There is the question of freight rates.


John Horne Blackmore: If it is a matter of becoming a master of the whole technique of United States administration, I think I can probably acquire that just about as soon as the minister can, if that is the thing we are going to be debating; but there is not a question in this world but that the wheat farmer in the United States receives money on grain as soon as it is stored on the farm, and a lot of money, but the Canadian farmer receives no money on the grain stored on his farm, and what he does receive is very little, probably not nearly enough to cover the cost of production.
I trust I have dealt with the minister's questions. If he wants to bring on a debate at any time with respect to the way in which the United States handles grain, if he will just give me three or four days' notice then I shall be glad to debate it on his estimates or at any other time.
[Mr. Blackmore.l
Since I have referred to the comments of the two hon. members to whom I referred a few moments ago I think I should quote the actual words they used. I refer to the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Cannon) and the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hosking). At page 1309 of Hansard the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine used these words, which I think did him credit. I do not blame any hon. member for making these comments. He said:
We on this side think that money should be advanced to the farmers but that they should pay interest on it.
May I interrupt and say that the United States administration apparently does not think so. I continue:
The people on the other side think that money should be advanced to the farmers without interest.
Well, the people of the United States apparently think so, too. The hon. member went on:
Who is going to pay the interest? Evidently it is the people of Canada. Is it fair that the people of Canada should be called upon to pay interest for the farmers in the west?
That is a straightforward question. Farther down the page the hon. member used these words:
Why should the people of Canada pay that interest for the western farmers if they do not pay interest for all the other producers of this country?
And still farther down he used these words:
Why should a person be paid for something he has produced before that thing has been sold?
The United States gives the answer. I continue:
Why should he get that money without having to pay interest on it?
Again, apparently, the United States gives the answer. Farther on he used these words:
Why should they get money on their products, without paying interest, without having sold their products?
As I said, I do not criticize hon. members for saying these things. It is straightforward, honourable, manly and clear thinking, but without the very essential facts which we are now discussing.
When we come to the contribution of the hon. member for Wellington South, we find these words on page 1313 of Hansard, which I wish to quote:


Mr. Hosking:: Do you think our eastern farmers should supply the money for the loans?
The hon. member was perfectly justified in asking that question. He simply is not informed on a good many things or he would not have asked the question, and I hope to deal with those questions before we get

Grain
through. These two gentlemen by their statements and questions raised the whole matter of how the grain is financed now. With respect to grain marketing in Canada, when the grain is taken from the farmers into the elevators and from the elevators delivered to the wheat board and then sold abroad, how is it financed? So that hon. members will all be able to consider this, I am reading a quotation from the Alberta Wheat Pool Budget of February 10, 1956. It is taken from the report of the Canadian wheat board; consequently it can be relied on:
Financing-The board required to borrow money from the banks throughout the year to finance its heavy stocks of grain. Borrowings ran from a low of $85 million to a high of $100 million. It was also obligated at July 31,	1955 to grainhandling organizations for the stocks which they carried for the board account in country elevators, in the amount of $361 million.
The next sentences are very important:
Bank interest on loans to the board was 3 per cent compared to 31 per cent the previous year. Loan interest to agents of the board (elevator companies and pools) on board grain was 32 per cent compared to 4 per cent the year before. Agents make initial payments upon receiving the wheat in the country and receive reimbursements when they turn it over to the board at the terminal.
I am sure that every hon. member in this house will ask himself how can it be, if the wheat board, to its credit, was able to borrow money at 3 per cent, that the farmers of Canada should be required to pay 5 per cent interest on money borrowed on their grain? That is a question that will have to be answered. What I have given indicates that there is no thought in the minds of those who are asking for advances on their grain, or in the minds of hon. members of this house who are advocating advances on grain, that anybody in the Dominion of Canada will pay any taxes to pay interest on anything or pay any taxes to pay the advances. That matter will be taken care of in just the same way in which it has been taken care of in the past.
Let me ask any hon. member who has given thought to the matter of finance, is there any conceivable reason why the wheat board should have to borrow money from the chartered banks when there is a Bank of Canada which is capable of lending money by simply creating it?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: Remember that all those who are laughing are just disclosing vacant minds. They simply do not know.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Major Douglas is not the governor of the Bank of Canada.


John Horne Blackmore: Major Douglas did not set up the Bank of Canada or draft the Bank 67509-92i
of Canada Act. I am talking of pure, orthodox finance. Can the hon. member forget Social Credit long enough to realize that I am talking in terms of the instruments with which this country now finances its affairs?


Hector Dupuis: Not Social Credit dollars?


Mr. Quelch:: How do chartered banks make loans?


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: Answer that question.


John Horne Blackmore: 
James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I cannot borrow from the Bank of Canada-


John Horne Blackmore: Grain
I think probably that deals sufficiently with the matter of finance and with the objections any hon. members have raised on this count of having Canadian taxpayers pay the money with which to pay the interest or with which to make the advances.
There are other matters which I think require a considerable amount of attention. One of the difficulties which a great many people have is that they do not seem to be able to realize how big the prairie farmers' problem is. It is said that there are two types of people, one type which sees the world through a snake's eye and one which sees the world through a bird's eye. Altogether too many hon. members and other people are endeavouring to get a comprehension of the wheat problem as viewed through a snake's eye. Let them rise into the air and soar high into the atmosphere and look at the problem as its exists in reality, as a bird would see it. They will then be literally appalled at the magnitude of the wheat problem in the west.
I should like to devote a little attention to that aspect of this question. In the first place I wonder how many hon. members have taken the trouble to consult statistics and realize how colossally big are the wheat fields of the three prairie provinces. Do they realize, for example, that in the prairies there are 39-7 million acres, and note that I said million acres. That must be bewildering to a person who grew up in Quebec on the little farms on which they do so well there. Let them try to visualize a million acres! It is 39-7 million acres with which we are concerned in dealing with the wheat problem on the prairie provinces; 39-7 million acres, if you please.


Hector Dupuis: The Quebec farmers do not want to have capital without paying interest on it; that is the difference.


An hon. Member:: Don't talk about it too much or you might get an argument.


John Horne Blackmore: Some of these days when I have time to bother with the hon. member
1	shall do so, but today I do not have time to deal with his comments.
I am going to read a quotation from the Alberta Wheat Pool Budget, February 10, 1956, issue, which gives the amount of the prairie wheat acreage. It will be of great value to every hon. member in this house and to every person in the country to read this over and ponder it well. The "prairie wheat acreage dropped during the year by
2	million acres". The report indicates that the "total prairie acreage of all crops dropped from 39-7 to 37-7 million." In giving these figures we are leaving unnoticed the great
[Mr. Blackmore.l
amount of land which would have been under summerfallow or in grass. This deals only with the portion that was in grain. The following table gives yield comparisons. If the house is willing to have me do so I shall put the figures on Hansard without reading them. Have I permission to put them on Hansard?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Will
the hon. member identify the source of these figures?


John Horne Blackmore: They appear in the Alberta Wheat Pool Budget, which is absolutely authentic; February 10, 1956 issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Has
the hon. member permission to place these figures on Hansard without their being read?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Horne Blackmore: The tables are as follows:
Average Average Production Production Production
1946 to 1950	1951 to 1953	1954
Bushels
Wheat	
367,000,000	597,000,000	282,000,000Oats	
222,000,000	321,000,000	196,000,000Barley	
135,000,000	255,000,000	167,000,000Rye	
12,000,000	22,000,000	12,000,000Flaxseed ..	8,000,000	10,000,000	11,000,000Total ______ 744,000,000	1,205,000,000	668,000,000
Placing the table in Hansard will save time in discussing this matter. Let me now just quote the first line of these figures concerning wheat so hon. members can get some idea of the stupendous-


An hon. Member:: Colossal.


John Horne Blackmore: -amount of material
which is involved in wheat. The average production from 1946 to 1950 was 367 million bushels; from 1951 to 1953 it was 597 million bushels and the 1954 production was 282 million. I wonder if any hon. member would like to conjure up in his mind an image of a pile of wheat that contains a million bushels? In 1954 there would be 282 piles like that! What an enormous amount of material to take care of! It is not a small problem by any means.
This is one reason why we should give the prairie farmers' reserves of wheat most special consideration. Certainly no hon. member of this house can responsibly make any hasty remarks until he has given careful thought to all the elements in the situation, one of which is certainly the tremendous acreage and another the tremendous amount of wheat.
There is another most important matter and that is this. What are the western farmers going to do with that land? Do hon.

members actually wish the prairie farmer to raise weeds on that land instead of wheat?


An hon. Member:: They have cattle; they have cows.


John Horne Blackmore: They already feed the cattle, but please grasp the significance of this matter. Everything I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is of tremendous importance in this discussion. The people who come here representing those areas have seen those tremendous piles of wheat and have seen this vast ocean of soil. They know that if the land is not put into wheat it will either be blowing or raising weeds. Is there anyone who wants to see that land blowing or raising weeds?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: No.


John Horne Blackmore: Then something must be done with that land every year. What do hon. members desire to suggest that these farmers should do with that land?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Grow wheat.


Some hon. Members:: Grow wheat.


John Horne Blackmore: Grow wheat; is that not so?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: I am sure no hon. member would want to say, "Let the land go back to weeds and turn over a weed patch to the next generation". I am sure of that. Now, what would you prescribe as the course of procedure to be followed by the farmers in the three prairie provinces next year?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: If hon. members would
just rise one at a time and ask me a question I may be able to answer it.


An hon. Member:: What are you suggesting?


John Horne Blackmore: I am suggesting that provision be made on the farms of western Canada for the safe and secure storage of that wheat, every bushel of it. I am glad the Minister of Agriculture told us that he had kept wheat on his farm for twelve years. I ask any hon. member, even those who are quite talkative; would you rather see that wheat stored safely on the farm in bins, such as those in which the Minister of Agriculture kept his wheat for twelve years, or would you rather see it lie out on the prairie, or would you rather see it unproduced, in the face of the tremendous shortage of food in the world today? Which would you say was the humanitarian thing to do? Which is the common sense thing to do?
Going on to answer the hon. member's intelligent question, I would say that we should
Grain
make provision so farmers could provide adequate storage on their own farms in which they could put their wheat. Then let us pay them enough on the wheat in store on their farms to enable them to carry on and raise a crop next year. Then next year if we are unable to sell the wheat, let us store that wheat also. There is going to come a day when we will need it. They have had the most terrible storms in Europe that they have had in 100 years, and who knows that the same thing may not be repeated for four or five years? If we Canadians have plenty of grain of all kinds stored on our farms, think of the favoured position we would be in with respect to extending help to those needy people! Common sense dictates that no other course be followed but to preserve that wheat and pay the farmers enough money to enable them to pay their running expenses, buy their machinery and be able to carry on and raise more and more crops until the time comes when we should know whether we want to go on raising wheat or whether we want to turn that land back to grass, back to the Indians so to speak.
The trouble today is that we are facing an emergency. That is what confronts us right now. These farmers must have money with which to pay their bills, to pay for gasoline and oil and all the other things needed to carry on. This question of what to do with the grain is most important. This is one factor to which we must give attention before determining what we are to do in respect of measures like this, the silly bill we have before us now.
There is another matter to which thought ought to be given, and that is the large percentage of what is now the three prairie provinces was examined around 1860 by Captain John Palliser, who solemnly declared that it was unfit for human habitation. That area starts at a point in my constituency not far from Lethbridge, goes up somewhere near Saskatoon, and then down back to part of southwest Manitoba. If you place a map before you and draw that general triangle called the Palliser triangle you will see the amount of the land which Captain John Palliser said was unfit for human habitation. Why? He realized that that area might receive ample rain one year or perhaps two years, and then there would be three, four or five dry years during which even the grasshoppers could hardly live.
Let us bear in mind what the government of those days did. We are not blaming them, but we must remember that around 1890 men who sat here-not in this particular house- said, "Let us put people out there; let us let them take a chance." They advertised that

Grain
land as being far better than it was, and great numbers of people went out. Why did the government want them out there? They wanted them out there so the C.P.R. would have business hauling them out there and hauling their goods.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: Oh, yes. I can go to Hansard and find where hon. members got up and solemnly offered those reasons. I am not so sure that hon. members of this house would not advance the same reasons. The men of those days said that if those people survived we would have more population. Tens of thousands of people settled those areas and they have made good. The amount of wheat which they have grown on the Regina plains and in other areas within the Palliser triangle is absolutely astounding. That grain has all been sold abroad by Canada for good solid cash, foreign exchange.
I am not saying that the farmers who produced that grain made anything out of it. By the time the railroads got through hauling it, by the time the handling charges were paid, by the time their various expenses had been taken care of, many of them did not make very much, and many of them made even less.
The fact that those people are out there in an area which can become almost as dry as a desert for two, three, four or five years, when they might be deprived of everything; the fact that they are out there living under those conditions justifies us in doing everything in our power to help them to make good when they have wheat on hand.
I fear that my time is practically exhausted. There were other things which I wished to say, but I shall say only one more thing.
The latest report from Sir John Boyd Orr, the man who originated FAO, states that the world requires $12 billion worth of goods in order to relieve hungry people. As I said in a former speech, we have not had in previous parliaments men with intelligence and understanding enough to find out how to get those goods to those people who need them. Please the Lord, the time may come when we shall know how to get $12 billion into the hands of the needy people so they can buy up the surplus production which is now being brought into being.
The fact that there is such a colossal need for food certainly ought to impress any hon. member of this house or any person in the country that we should go full speed ahead with production and take whatever measures are necessary to enable our producers to produce and store and go on producing from

year to year, until we are able to decide upon a policy if need be, along some other line.
I do not hesitate one minute to say that I am going to vote for the amendment and against the bill. Then, if I have the opportunity, and my friends stand by me, I shall move some amendments myself.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Speaker, about an hour ago the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce made a statement, and at one point I interjected that that was just one side of the coin. Upon reflection I think perhaps I was a little charitable in suggesting that it was one side, because since the right hon. minister made his remarks I have had an opportunity of perusing the report to which he referred.
This was report No. 8 dealing with agricultural markets and prices, submitted by the royal commission on agriculture and rural life in Saskatchewan. I might say at the outset that I feel certain the minister is not trying to convince the house that this report had anything to do with persuading the government to undertake the type of legislation we are now confronted with because this report was not brought down until February 3 of this year.
I made reference to the minister giving only one part of the story, and a very minor part to say the least. I direct the attention of the house to the fact that the minister quoted a few sentences from the main body of the discussion, and I think it is most significant that the section which he quoted starts out with the word "perhaps". It goes on to discuss certain alternative proposals that have been suggested to the commission. I notice that the minister was very careful to omit the conclusions, which I suggest are the most important parts of any royal commission reports. The minister neglected to mention them.
I am sorry the minister is not in his seat. I notice he left the house a few moments ago. I hope we shall not have a repetition of something that happened in this house the other day, when the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was accused of having deliberately chosen a time when another minister was not in his seat to discuss something that had been said by the minister previously.


An hon. Member:: Don't worry about that.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I draw to the attention of the house that on page 207 of the report to which the Minister of Trade and Commerce made reference is conclusion No. 17, arising out of the very exhaustive study made by this royal

Grain
commission. In conclusion No. 17-and I am Mr. Gardiner: Read the rest of it. Do you going to read the most pertinent part-	want me to read it?


An hon. Member:: Read the whole of it.


Alfred Claude Ellis: It says:
A survey ot present storage facilities-


An hon. Member:: Put the whole thing on the record.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I shall read the entire conclusion.


An hon. Member:: Read the book.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I certainly wish I had the chance to read the entire report into the record. As a matter of fact I hope the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who apparently seemed willing to pick out one recommendation from the report, would be willing to take the report as the basis of a sound agricultural policy.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Minister of Agriculture could do that.


Alfred Claude Ellis: But I am going to put on the
record the concluding remarks of this commission on the matter presently under discussion. Once again, on page 207 of the report it says:
A survey of present storage facilities is urgently required to determine whether new storage is needed and, if needed, where it should be built. In the meantime, advance payments could be made by the wheat board on properly stored grain on the farm to ease the farmer's immediate cash shortage.
That is the conclusion arrived at by the royal commission. The Minister of Trade and Commerce selected certain sentences out of the preliminary remarks of the commission, but he neglected to read the conclusion.


John Horace Dickey: I challenge the hon. member to put on the record the whole of conclusion No. 17.


Hazen Robert Argue: I challenge you to put all the conclusions on the record.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I suggest that any hon. member who wants to read the report may do so. I have put on record the last sentence of the recommendation, which sums up the entire recommendation in this respect. If there is any doubt at all-


William Earl Rowe: Read it again.


Alfred Claude Ellis: As some hon. member has suggested, I shall read it again.
A survey of present storage facilities is urgently required to determine whether new storage is needed and, if needed, where it should be built. In the meantime, advance payments could be made by the wheat board on properly stored grain on the farm to ease the farmer's immediate cash shortage.
What could be more explicit than that?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I take it that the hon. member has not given his consent to this interruption.


Alfred Claude Ellis: When I took my seat I was under the impression that the Minister of Agriculture was rising on a point of order. It was quite obvious that he rose to make another speech.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not rise on a point of order. I asked you to read one more sentence.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I realize that this is most unpalatable to the minister and his supporters.


Some hon. Members:: Read it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is impossible to hear the hon. member, and I hope he will be given the opportunity to make his remarks.


Alfred Claude Ellis: If I had more time this afternoon I should have been happy to read all the recommendations contained in this report, because I feel they would bring a great deal of worth-while opinion that would be to the advantage of this government, if it would accept the recommendations outlined in the report in so far as they affect federal matters.


John Horace Dickey: A complete fake.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The Minister of Trade and Commerce also put on the record the names of the members of the commission. This is interesting, because the members of the commission whose names were quoted by the minister are in some cases members of other organizations that have gone on record in this connection. I noted that some reference was made to Mr. J. L. Phelps. Hon. members will recall that it was Mr. Phelps who, according to a report in the Ottawa Journal of February 20, was quite active in negotiations that resulted in a statement of policy in support of cash advances on farm-held grain on behalf of some one million organized workers throughout Canada. Mr. Fowler's name was also mentioned, the same Mr. Fowler who is an officer of the federated co-ops, an organization representing 150,000 patrons which has also gone on record as being in favour of cash advances on farm-stored grain.
The Minister of Agriculture tried to create the impression that the members of the government were speaking for organized agriculture on the prairies. This should be viewed in the light of the fact that there are only five Liberals in the house from Saskatchewan and there are only 11 Liberals in the Saskatchewan legislature-and there will be a great

Grain
many less after the election next June. We have the recommendations of the Saskatchewan farmers' union and the emergency resolution passed last November 1 by the delegates of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, who went on record as advocating cash advances on farm-held grain. In the recommendations of the Saskatchewan farmers' union it was pointed out to the government that there had been scores of mass protests held throughout western Canada, and there had been resolutions and petitions developing spontaneously.
I might add that many hon. members on the government side have had ample reason to- appreciate the truth of the statement I have just made. The Minister of Justice could
speak from his own personal experiences in his own constituency. There were meetings held in other areas in Manitoba. A meeting was held in my own constituency, at which there was no question as to where the farmers in that constituency stood.
On motion of Mr. Ellis the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: We shall go on with this tomorrow, sir.


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

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Follwell: 1.	What has been the total cost to the federal government of the trans-Canada highway?
2.	How much has been spent by the federal government in each province?
3.	How much has been spent by each province?
4.	How many miles have been completed on the trans-Canada highway?
5.	How many miles have been completed in each province?
6.	How many miles are now under construction in each province?
7.	When will the trans-Canada highway be completed?
Answer by: Mr. Winters:
1.	$82,750,095.97 including Banff and Yoho national parks, as of February 1, 1956.
2.	To February 1, 1956:
Newfoundland	 $ 6,453,804.33
Prince Edward Island	 1,530,178.31
Nova Scotia	 309,903.60
New Brunswick	 3,577,757.77
Ontario	 22,785,104.94
Manitoba	 6,320,949.51
Saskatchewan	 8,589,474.71
Alberta	 9,807,943.19
British Columbia	 17,232,481.53
3.	No information.
4.	1,588 equivalent miles to December 31, 1955. (Including parks.)
5.	Equivalent mileage of trans-Canada highway completed to December 31, 1955:
Newfoundland	 141
Prince Edward Island	 50
Nova Scotia	 26
New Brunswick	 65
Ontario	 387
Manitoba	 151
Saskatchewan	 347
Alberta	 208
British Columbia	 193
Total
1,568
6.	Equivalent miles under construction:
Newfoundland	 60
Prince Edward Island	 0
Nova Scotia	 16
New Brunswick	 4
Ontario	 65
Manitoba	 25
Saskatchewan	 7
Alberta	 6
British Columbia	 46
Questions
7.	Under the terms of a proposed new agreement the completion date being established will be December 31, 1960.


VANCOUVER POLICE FORCE-INVESTIGATION BY R.C.M.P.
Mr. Fulton: 1.	Did Inspector Dube of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police proceed to Vancouver for the purpose of special investigations in connection with the royal commission of inquiry into the Vancouver police force?
2.	If so, where did he live during the period of his investigations, and for how long?
3.	Did any other Royal Canadian Mounted Police personnel accompany him or were any such personnel assigned for the purpose of such investigation? If so, how many and of what rank?
4.	By whom were the costs of such investigations, including living expenses, borne? If by the federal authorities, what was the cost?
5.	Are the investigations concluded? If so, did they reveal any criminal activities, and what has been the result of such revelation?
Answer by: Mr. Garson:
1.	Yes. Proceeded from Regina, Saskatchewan to Vancouver, British Columbia,after a request in writing was received from the deputy attorney general of British Columbia for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to investigate suspected criminal offences arising out of matters coming to light before the Vancouver police inquiry.
2.	Resided at a hotel and autocourt, respectively, in Vancouver, British Columbia. Duties commenced on July 16, 1955, and ceased on February 15, 1956.
3.	Yes. Four resident members of the British Columbia division Royal Canadian Mounted Police were assigned to the investigation. These were one sergeant, two corporals and one constable.
4.	Costs of investigation were borne by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police under the terms of the agreement between the government of the province of British Columbia and the federal government for the policing of the said province. Total costs were $2,628.69 plus police car mileage of 10,129 miles.
5.	Yes. The results of the investigation have been passed to the attorney general of British Columbia. To date, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have received no instructions to enter prosecution against any person.
1458

Dominion-Provincial Relations



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
Similar letters sent to the premiers of all provinces. The letter to the premier of Quebec was in the French language.
Ottawa, February 18, 1956.
The Honourable Leslie M. Frost,
Premier of Ontario,
Toronto, Ontario.
My dear Premier:
Since the federal-provincial conference adjourned in October, the federal government has made the fiscal proposals outlined in my letters of January 6 and explained them in some detail early this month to provincial treasury officials. It has also made contingent commitments to recommend to parliament financial participation on a large scale in provincially-administered hospital insurance plans. It has received written comments on the proposals from the premiers of three provinces, which have been studied along with comments and questions received in conversation.
I am enclosing a memorandum from the Minister of Finance giving answers to a number of questions that have been raised by provincial representatives. Some of these answers involve some modest development in the details of the proposals advanced by the federal government in January. In particular the government has decided that it would be in accord with the spirit of the present arrangements and with the special nature of the federal tax on insurance premiums to treat provincial taxes on insurance premiums as not being special corporation taxes within the scope of paragraphs three and five of my letter of January. This will improve the arrangements from the point of view of all provinces.
In view of the suggestion that we should meet again in committee to discuss these fiscal arrangements, I feel it would not be fair to the provincial governments if I failed to indicate at this time that the federal government believes its own fiscal situation in the next few years would not justify adding any substantial further financial commitments beyond those already proposed.
In the replies I have received to my letters of January 6, the premiers of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have expressed regret that the federal government was not able to accept suggestions such as they made for a wider application of the fiscal need principle,
and the premier of Saskatchewan has also indicated that in his view fiscal need has not been given sufficient weight. My colleagues and I feel there is a very substantial recognition of fiscal need involved in the equalization payments we have proposed and also in the high level of returns in these tax fields which we are prepared to guarantee to provincial governments. These are, of course, in addition to the existing statutory subsidies which already make special provision for the fiscal need of the Atlantic provinces. We believe we should all have some experience in the practical operation of these proposals before going on to consider other concepts of fiscal need.
I note that only two of the premiers have suggested a resumption of the conference for the purpose of considering the fiscal proposals. Since our federal responsibilities and commitments are now so heavy that we would not be warranted in making any increases in the basic offer we made in January, it may be that the provincial governments generally would not feel that there would be any advantage to be derived from another meeting to discuss fiscal relations.
If a further meeting in committee is generally desired, we would suggest it be held either on March 2 or March 9 in order that final decisions can be reached before the Minister of Finance completes the preparation of his budget. If, on the other hand, most of the provincial governments see no substantial advantage in a general meeting, Mr. Harris and I would be happy to confer at any time between now and the early part of March with the premier or treasurer of any province wishing individual discussions of particular aspects of the proposals.
I should be grateful to have your views at your earliest convenience.
Yours sincerely,

[Stage Direction]
Memorandum from the Minister of Finance of Canada in the matter of certain questions raised by provincial governments relative to the federal fiscal proposals of January 6, 1956.
In the course of discussions on the fiscal arrangements between Canada and the provinces advanced by letter of the Prime Minister dated January 6, 1956, certain questions were asked and clarifications requested. The federal government's position relative to these matters is set out in this memorandum.

1.	Royalties and the taxation of income from
certain natural resource industries.
Under present fiscal arrangements, the provinces have not been restricted in the imposition of royalties on natural resources. No specific suggestions have been made for changes in the methods employed and none would seem warranted.
Present procedure gives the provinces a substantial concession in the taxation of the income from mining operations and the income from logging operations. It is proposed that this general position be maintained. The federal government would be willing to undertake, should any province wish, further studies in an endeavour to determine if better formulae for the allocation of profits between the primary and secondary phases of the industries can be devised.
The extension of this special treatment to the petroleum and natural gas industry is not warranted, in our opinion.
2.	Tax on insurance premiums.
Under present arrangements, a full offset against the federal tax is given in a nonrenting province for the insurance premium tax charged by that province. In a renting province, the province has been paid for relinquishment of the corporation tax field and the insurance premium tax is included in that category.
In order to put all provinces on an equal basis in this field and at the same time provide to them a substantial additional source of revenue, the federal government is prepared to allow any province an offset for a tax on insurance premiums. Accordingly provincial taxes of this nature would not be considered corporation taxes for purposes of paragraphs 3 and 5 of the Prime Minister's letter of January 6.
3.	Definition of corporation tax.
The definition of corporation tax included in the present tax rental agreement would not seem to require any changes in substance. There are however two exceptions to it where provinces have requested some liberalization of the terms. These are in relation to the limits on license fees now set at $250 per annum for each corporation, and the gross receipts or gross revenue tax on certain public utility companies now set at 4 per cent in the case of telephone companies and 3 per cent in the case of all others.
The federal government will be prepared to increase the allowable limit on license fees to $400 from $250 as now authorized.
As to the rate of tax on gross receipts or gross revenue of certain public utility companies, we will be prepared to study this in 67509-93i
Dominion-Provincial Relations an effort to determine if some increase in the present rates is justified.
4.	Base year for purposes of equalization.
In the proposals the base year on which calculations are made for purposes of equalization is that taxation year preceding the fiscal year for which payments are to be made. The calculation of payments under the current rental agreements has always been on this principle. In view however of the desirability of placing these payments on as current a basis as possible, the federal government is prepared to calculate these equalization payments on the basis of the current taxation year as is provided for in calculation of proposed tax rental payments. This decision accepts the fact that all payments in a fiscal year will be on the basis of estimates and that some substantial if indeterminate financial cost to Canada is involved in this change.
5.	Fire marshal tax.
The federal government is willing to consider a more flexible policy in this matter providing that the principle of the tax being used for costs of operation is maintained.
6.	Tax on income of non-residents.
The federal government will regard tax revenue from income of non-residents of Canada as being subject to allocation under the proposals.
7.	Withholding tax.
The federal position is that taxes shared with the provinces should be confined to those of a nature normally employed by them. Withholding tax does not come in this category and therefore cannot be included for purposes of provincial sharing.
8.	Sharing of income tax from companies
whose main business is the generating or distributing of electrical energy, gas or steam to the public.
The federal government is prepared to continue these payments for the time being but will not incorporate the provision in any formal agreement entered into.
9.	Deduction of certain corporation income tax revenue losses from the payment due a province.
The federal government will not require the inclusion of this provision in any future arrangements.
10.	Collection agreements.
The federal government will undertake to enter into a suitable agreement to make its facilities available to any province for collection of provincial taxes on personal or corporation income providing that the terms of
[Stage Direction]
Dominion-Provincial Relations the provincial statutes do not differ from those of the federal statute and that the rates imposed are at the standard rates of tax as contained in the proposals.
Any agreement would be on an agency fee basis subject to cancellation on adequate notice by either party.
11.	Formula for allocation of corporate profits between provinces.
The current federal procedures in this will be followed.
12.	Special provision for raising revenue for a provincial health program.
The exceptions contained in the definitions of individual income tax in the present agreements will be carried forward into any new agreement.
13.	Old age security tax.
The federal government's position is as stated in the Prime Minister's letter of January 6, 1956.
The old age security tax is not part of the federal income tax structure proper, and will be excluded from calculations of the provincial share of tax fields and from abatement of federal tax.
14.	Adjustment for changes in definition of income, etc.
Under the proposals it is provided that adjustments will be made for changes in rates and personal exemptions in personal income tax and succession duties. Miscellaneous changes in income definitions, allowances, etc., are most difficult to assess and it is therefore necessary that the adjustments be limited to those as originally set out in the proposals.
15.	Tax credits after expiry of agreement. It is not considered necessary or desirable
that the federal government should limit itself to any specific tax policy beyond the period of any agreement entered into. For the purposes of any province entering into a new tax rental agreement, Canada will be prepared to undertake that at the conclusion of the agreement a renting province will not be placed in a less favourable position than a non-renting province relative to federal tax abatements or credits.
16.	Termination.
It is proposed that the same conditions apply as under the present tax rental agreements.
W. E. Harris Minister of Finance.
Ottawa,
February 18, 1956.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 23, 1956