1956-02-17

CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 121, to amend the Canada Elections Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to extend the privilege of voting at an advance poll to any qualified elector who finds that he will be absent from his constituency on election day. All the other clauses of the bill are consequential to that one change.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TRANSPORT


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That It is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the continuation for a further period of two years of authority to make regulations for the control of transport of goods in hulk including, amongst other things, the appointment of one or more controllers and one or more deputy controllers to carry out the provisions of such regulations and the payment of their remuneration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) arising out of the feelings consequent upon the Coffin case and on what happened yesterday in Great Britain. Will the government give consideration to giving the house an opportunity by a free vote to reconsider the question of the maintenance of capital punishment?


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: May
I ask a supplementary question. I was going
to rise to ask a somewhat similar question, but this one is different. Will the government set up the committee on capital and corporal punishment and lotteries at an early date so that the house may have an opportunity of considering the report when it is made, and giving an opportunity also for a free vote?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Replying first to the question asked by the hon. leader of the C.C.F. party, may I say that on Votes and Proceedings for today there will be a notice of the setting up of that committee. When a committee is set up it will consider this question and report to the house. I think at that time it would be appropriate for the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) to ask the question which he has asked this morning.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask a question
supplementary to the supplementary question. Is it the government's intention to permit a free vote if the committee so suggests?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think I have anything to add to what I have just said, that after the committee has made its report to the house will be the appropriate time for the government to consider whether there should be a free vote.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister? In view of the fact that no committee can recommend how the members vote, will the Prime Minister indicate whether or not he is prepared to indicate to his own party that it will be a free vote when the committee makes its recommendations?


Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is a question I should answer at this time. When we have the recommendation of the committee, we shall give it serious consideration and we shall take such responsibility as we may feel it is our duty to take in respect of the recommendation.



INQUIRY AS TO PENDING DEATH SENTENCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question to clarify the urgency of a previous question. Are there any death penalties pending in Canada at the present time?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend means by "pending" whether there are any convictions for capital cases which have either come or have not yet come to the Department of Justice for consideration, I would not state it as a fact but I feel sure that there are. I would have to make inquiries, however, to find out how many.


Ernest George Hansell: There is urgency associated with the matter. Perhaps the minister might make a statement later.



REPORTED STATEMENT RESPECTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister comment on the statement made by his transport controller, as reported in the Montreal Gazette, that there is no shortage of box cars holding up prairie grain shipments?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I have read the statement very hastily, but from what I saw in the statement there was nothing, in my opinion, that seemed to require comment.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Does the comment by the transport controller now mean that the railway transportation bottleneck, to which the Minister of Trade and Commerce referred a week or ten days ago, has now been removed?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, it is the duty of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to sell the wheat. It is the duty of the Minister of Transport to move it. I understand the Minister of Transport has given his answer.



REPORTED IMPROVEMENT IN RAIL TRANSPORTATION-EFFECT ON STORAGE CAPACITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the reported improvement in rail transportation resulted in any decrease in the 58 million bushels unused capacity for grain reported by the minister to the house on January 20?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I do not even

know what the unused capacity is. I will look into the situation. If there is any useful information that can be given the house I will be glad to give it.
lLater:l


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Transport. Will the Minister of Transport take appropriate steps to see that the cars are made available to deal with the situation since there are over 100 million bushels of available space for wheat in our elevators at this time?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, the figures I have seen recently with regard to the movement of wheat are, I think, most encouraging and show that the railroads are meeting their responsibilities with regard to the movement of wheat.


George Alexander Drew: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister of Transport question the fact that there are 100 million bushels of space available in our elevators at this time?


George Carlyle Marler: The amount of space in our elevators at the present time is not a matter that comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, can the Postmaster General inform the house whether his department is about to instal burglar alarms at a number of postal stations in Montreal?


Mr. Speaker:: Could that question be postponed until the estimates of the department are before the house?


William McLean Hamilton: Can the Postmaster General inform the house if his department has recently changed its policy regarding the installation of burglar alarms in major post offices in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Unless I am very much mistaken, that is the same question that the hon. member asked a moment ago. At that time I suggested that the question be postponed until the estimates of the department are in committee of supply.


Mr. Green:: On that point, may I submit that the hon. member has asked whether there has recently been a change of policy. The estimates of the Postmaster General may not be under consideration for several months.

Surely we are entitled to ask a question of this type on the orders of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: When one considers the urgency and the national character of questions that are to be asked at this question time period, may I ask the hon. member if he feels that the time of the house should be spent at this time in investigating the question whether or not burglar alarms should be installed in post offices?


An hon. Member:: In view of the epidemic of robberies?


Howard Charles Green: I do not know why not, Mr. Speaker. Far less important subjects are being raised every day.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has never spoken truer words. If it is the wish of hon. members to have a question of that sort asked, I shall not object. But it would seem to me that the first question was somewhat different. The second one was somewhat rephrased because the word "policy" was introduced. I do not think it was in the first question put by the hon. member, but it means the same thing: Questions such as "Are there any doors to the post offices across the country?"-"Are there any fences around the grounds?"-"Are there any burglar alarms?"-are matters that may be important to the hon. member and to many others but do not appear to me to be the type of question that should be asked at this time. I may be wrong.


Howard Charles Green: As I heard it, the first question had to do with a burglar alarm system in Montreal. You said that the hon. member could not ask that question. Now he has asked a question having to do with policy right across the country. Surely that question should not be ruled out.


Mr. Speaker:: As I just said, I may be wrong. However, hon. members should realize that at this moment when questions are being asked, I must be careful to give to hon. members an opportunity to ask questions of the widest nature and the most urgent character and therefore to eliminate those questions which appear to me to be not of the type that should be asked at this time. I think hon. members will realize that every time I ask hon. members not to press a question, I may be completely wrong. I am not omniscient. When I ask hon. members not to press a question I would hope that my request might not provoke a discussion on a point of order, thus causing the house to lose the benefit of my intervention, which is for the purpose of saving time. As I say, I may be completely wrong on this score,
Inquiries of the Ministry but am I so wrong that we must spend several minutes in discussing a point of order?


Howard Charles Green: I submit, Your Honour, that where an hon. member asks whether there has just been a change in policy by one of the departments on some matter having to do with the whole of the country, it should not be ruled out. I would point out to Your Honour that hundreds of thousands of dollars have been lost in thefts from post offices. It seems to me that a question of that kind is quite properly asked by the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is not convincing me that whenever a question is asked on a matter of policy having to do with burglar alarms, just because of the fact that it is a matter of policy it is always a permissible question at this time. I am not of opinion that that question should be asked at this time.



BURNABY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Postmaster General. Is he aware that the post office sorting staff has been removed from Burnaby to Vancouver? If so, what are the reasons for the move?


Mr. Speaker:: I think this question also could be postponed until the estimates of the Post Office Department are before the committee of supply.


Tom Goode: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I must ask hon. members not to argue with the Speaker. The rules say that the rulings of the Speaker are not debatable. I have previously asked hon. members to observe that rule as much as possible.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY BRITISH COLUMBIA-REQUEST FOR SURVEY OF JUMBO PASS ROUTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Her ridge (Kootenay West): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct an inquiry to the Minister of Public Works, whom I am sure we are all glad to welcome back to the house-
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Fisheries, too.


Mr. Herridge:: -in such a healthy and suntanned condition. I should like to ask the



X284 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry minister this. How long does the minister intend to pigeonhole requests from chambers of commerce and other organizations in southeastern British Columbia for a thorough survey of the proposed Jumbo pass route as a section of the trans-Canada highway prior to a final decision being made concerning the route between Revelstoke and the Alberta border?
Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, whether or not a survey of any part of the route is to be made is a matter for the provincial government concerned.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport if any number of huts has recently been declared surplus at the Patricia Bay airport?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I shall answer the question of the hon. gentleman by saying that a number of buildings have been declared surplus. The list is much too long to be given on the orders of the day, but I shall be glad to give my hon. friend the particulars of them.



WELCOME TO MINISTER OF FISHERIES FOLLOWING ILLNESS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I hope I may be permitted at this point to make a comment.


Mr. Harris:: No.


George Alexander Drew: If hon. members would wait, they would perhaps see how wise it is to wait for the finish of a sentence. I was going to say that I am sure all hon. members are very pleased to see the Minister of Fisheries back in his place. We had the opportunity to welcome him before but we know it was necessary for him to have a further holiday, and with the utmost sincerity I know that all the members of the opposition hope he is fully restored to health.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of

Public Works. Can he give the house a statement supplementary to that which was given yesterday with respect to the loss of the departmental vessel Hilunga on the west coast?


Robert Henry Winters: No, Mr. Speaker, I am unable to add to the information given the house yesterday. Although search and rescue have been active in trying to locate the vessel or signs of wreckage, they have been unable to do so. They have been joined in the search by the ships of the Department of Transport and the Department of Fisheries. I think I should say, however, that the report that the crew were seen leaving the ship and proceeding towards shore has not been confirmed.


Howard Charles Green: In connection with this question may I ask the Minister of Transport whether or not this vessel, which apparently was known as the Hilunga, was designed only for service in minor waters, class 1, whereas she foundered in minor waters, class 2?


George Carlyle Marler: I am afraid I will have to take the hon. gentleman's question as notice and make some inquiry in order to be able to reply to him.


Howard Charles Green: Is this not one more case in which the United States coastguard was called in for help?	'


George Carlyle Marler: I am afraid I cannot answer that question either, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinfon):: May I
ask the Prime Minister if, in view of action taken at Washington during the last 24 hours to impose an embargo on the shipment of arms to the Middle East, the government will reconsider its position in that respect and consider taking parallel action?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter which the government always has under consideration. The information that has already been given to the house is that we keep in close contact with our allies and try to keep our policy such as will occasion no greater anxiety about the Middle East than that which exists at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to ask a question that may perhaps concern both the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Transport. 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 government to see that Canadian land on the lakes is being properly protected against change of water levels?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Offhand, I cannot give a reply to that question, but I shall look into the matter and see if such negotiations are being conducted.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he is now in a position to table the return that was passed on February 6 dealing with the representations made by western farm bodies in reference to advances on farm-stored wheat.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the return went to the Secretary of State a day or so ago and I presume it will be brought down shortly.


Hon. Roch Pinard (Secretary of State):: may say the return will probably be brought down today. There is only one department which has not supplied its answer.


John George Diefenbaker: We should have it for this debate.



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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, February 16, 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.
Grain
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: I have read carefully, Mr. Speaker, your remarks at the conclusion of my address last night and I want to say that, as usual, you are absolutely fair and correct. Your assistants found it necessary to call me to order when you were absent from the chamber and they, too, were quite correct and fair. But in my defence I should like to say that members supporting the government had been so far from this subject that I felt without some reference to some of the remarks made it would have been interpreted that we accepted those views. I have discussed the remarks I propose to make this morning with my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and I will try to be absolutely on the beam all the way.
We are discussing Bill 82, which is an act to provide for short-term credit to grain producers in the prairie provinces to meet financial difficulties arising from inability to deliver all their grain. I am against that all the way. We do not want credit. We have had too much credit. We want to get fair consideration, nothing more and nothing less. This -is not a temporary situation. While the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) has not taken any part in this debate I want to call him as my witness in saying that this is not a temporary situation. The Minister of Finance, speaking in New York, quite correctly said that this situation has been caused by policies in other countries. He also said that his government, the government of Canada, is concerned about the fact that wheat production is the principal source of cash income to the great majority of western farmers and his government was bound to be greatly influenced by anything so vital to them and to the whole national economy.
I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). The Prime Minister has established, and has earned, the respect of a great many Canadians. I feel it is not fair for him to be in a position where the two senior members of his cabinet are so irresponsible in discussing this national problem. The Prime Minister is still the chief, and with all due respect to the contribution the Minister of Trade and Commerce has made in the past

and I am among the first to give him credit for the outstanding job he did during the war-if he were to approach this problem as he did his problems during the war, he would be saying the same sort of thing that the Minister of Finance is saying, that this is not a problem which has resulted from beneficent nature. It is a problem which results from policies which are not formed outside of Canada.

Grain
If we had had as minister of agriculture during the war a man who approached this problem as did the minister of munitions and supply at that time, our present Minister of Trade and Commerce, our farmers would not be in the position where they are so bitter as they are now. Therefore, I suggest to the Prime Minister that he deal with this problem in two stages; that he persuade his two senior members to take a holiday right now and go to Florida and have the Minister of Finance pilot this bill through the house, because I am sure the Minister of Finance would say that this is not a temporary problem. He would admit that it is a problem, and I am sure the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters), whom we are glad to see back in the house this morning, would do as he did last summer, namely, take over agriculture during the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, and he would certainly do a much better job than the Minister of Agriculture in getting this piece of legislation discussed. I am sure that with the two senior members out of the country the cabinet would be prepared to accept the analysis made by the Minister of Finance in New York.
The farmers do not want too much. They merely want recognition of the facts as they exist and an indication that the government is prepared to do something about them. After having taken that step, the logical step that would follow would be for both ministers to see that parliament got on well without them and they would tender their resignations, and we would be able to proceed from there on.
I suggest to the Prime Minister that over the weekend he should take a look at what his colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, said during this debate. I wish to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no bitterness on my part as a result of the interjections of the Minister of Trade and Commerce last night. While I was speaking and giving him credit for supplying me with certain information, the Minister of Trade and Commerce interrupted by saying, as reported at page 1275 of Hansard:
The Minister of Trade and Commerce has supplied you with nothing.
I accepted that and made my apologies, and later on at page 1276 of Hansard the minister said:
I would not furnish you with a postage stamp. That is all right. I suggest the Prime Minister have a look at the editorial in this morning's Globe and Mail having reference to the remarks made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I am not going to read the editorial, Mr. Speaker. I merely ask the Prime Minister to read it and decide whether or

not it is in the interests of good government in Canada to have his minister suggesting while one of his colleagues, the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), was speaking that this should not be degenerating to a debate. I think the Prime Minister would agree that the statements made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce are subjects for debate and that members of the opposition in all parties should not be muzzled. Either this bill is worth debating and contains certain principles, or it is not. The Prime Minister should look at it.
It is also suggested that he review the performance of the second senior minister, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). I am indebted to Judith Robinson for her analysis of the barter proposals of the Minister of Agriculture. While the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) says that there is no marketing problem, that there is no problem facing the farmers of Canada, at that very moment his colleague is negotiating a barter deal with Great Britain to exchange wheat for British immigrants. I am sure that everyone who has come to Canada in the last 50 years from any country will resent very much the proposal that we should now consider bartering human beings in order to get rid of a surplus of wheat which the Minister of Trade and Commerce says does not exist.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member still
speaking along the lines suggested to him by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and I are almost 100 per cent in agreement on most points, but if the hon. member is considering continuing along the line upon which he has now embarked I do not think he would be relevant to this bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does not the proposal made by the Minister of Agriculture suggest that there is a real problem, and is not the fact that there is a problem so far as the marketing of wheat is concerned relevant to the bill now before us?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) has indicated the views of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in his opening remarks this morning, Which are to the effect that in his opening statement on the second reading of the bill apparently the minister referred to the fact that the condition of farmers was not as bad as perhaps might have been pictured by other people, or that it is good. Ever since this debate was initiated hon. members have tried to refute that part of the minister's statement. They spend most of their time on that and then at the end of their remarks

they come back to the bill and say, "We are going to be for or against this measure which has to do with loans."
In a 40-minute speech an hon. member, in order to maintain the relevancy of his remarks may refer incidentally to what may appear to be irrelevant and then apportion most of his remarks directly to the principle of the bill before the house. I am just picking a percentage out of the air, but as a rule we do not hear anything about short-term credit to grain producers until about 35 minutes of an hon. member's time has been spent in trying to prove that the position of the farmers out west is much worse than is imagined by some hon. members.
My point is that all kinds of arguments may be presented to prove just what is the position of the farmers out west. Indeed last night the hon. member was travelling all across Canada to show that the position of the farmers was not as good as some people had pictured. Then the hon. member should have returned to a discussion which was relevant to the bill.
I will be at a loss in directing the discussion on a bill of this kind if the position of farmers over the years or at the present time in the economy of Canada is to be relevant to the discussion. As I said the other night, we may as well look at the international picture to see how Canada stands and how it affects various classes in Canada and then come to the farmers. By that time an hon. member's speech would be over and we would not have heard about the bill before the house. That is my point.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I merely wanted to point up the fact that one cabinet minister says one thing, that there is no problem, while another minister says that there is. That is all I want to say. I submit it is relevant because the Minister of Agriculture has endeavoured to indicate that. I suggest to the Prime Minister that he take time over the weekend to read Judith Robinson's article in last night's Toronto Telegram entitled "Gardiner's Barter Bargain".
Representatives of farm unions from five provinces are in Ottawa and I understand are trying to see as many members as they can to discuss a variety of problems. Yesterday they presented a brief to the government. One of the delegates, the vice-president of the farmers' union of Saskatchewan, saw me last night. I am sure that hon. members who do not want to accept our views on this problem would be well advised to see some of these delegates while they are in the city and get their opinions.
Grain *
The failure of the government to do something other than arrange for credit is actually going to cost the taxpayers a great deal of money directly. May I illustrate what I have in mind. Mr. Turnbull, vice-president of the farmers' union of Saskatchewan, has outlined what he is being forced to do with 10,000 bushels of wheat which he has on the ground. He is going to be obliged to go into hog production because there is a floor price under hogs, or so we are told.
One of his neighbours is putting up buildings in which to feed 500 hogs. That man has 15,000 bushels of barley on hand. As a result of our failure to recognize this problem there is going to be a tremendous increase in hog production and the taxpayers of Canada are going to have to subsidize pork production.
Mr. Turnbull mentioned that another farmer is acting on the advice of the Minister of Agriculture and is going to market his wheat through livestock. He is putting up pole shelters at a very low cost to house 200 head of cattle. No farmer in Ontario or Quebec can hope to compete with the sort of competition which is sure to develop.
The vice-president of the farmers' union is going to seed 200 acres with rapeseed this year because there is a guaranteed price. He knows that that will have an effect on butter producers. My colleague, the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Bryson), acting last year on the suggestion of the Minister of Agriculture seeded 400 acres to rapeseed and had a production of 400,000 pounds. A process developed in Germany indicates that rapeseed will make a very palatable butter substitute.
I submit that it is most important that this bill to provide short-term credit to grain producers should not be read a second time. I think the Prime Minister should have an opportunity over the week end to consider the suggestions that I have made that these two members be given a chance to have a holiday. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the word "now" be left out, and the words "this day six months hence" be added at the end of the question.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that I wish to refer to some remarks made by the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Murphy). He is not in his seat at the moment; so if the whip can bring him in he will be able to hear what I say.

Grain
There are a few things I wish to discuss on this second reading of Bill 82, an act to provide for assistance to farmers. The title of the bill is:
An act to provide for short-term credit to grain producers in the prairie provinces to meet temporary financial difficulties arising from inability to deliver all their grain.
First of all I find that some of the subjects mentioned in the bill are a little difficult for me to follow. In the first place, I am of the opinion that the difficulty has not arisen particularly because of the farmer's inability to sell all of his grain. Certainly the difficulty has arisen because of the government's inability to sell the wheat of western Canada. It is not the farmer's job at all to sell this wheat. The government's policy should be so designed as to take care of the wheat of western Canada. The government has been solely responsible for the sale of wheat in this country. Therefore it is the government's responsibility now to see to it that the farmers are given assistance towards obtaining some cash in this time of emergency.
It is not my intention to establish need at this time, because I have already done that on another occasion during this debate and many members in the House of Commons have brought forth that very point. It has been well established by all soundthinking members that the western farmer is in need of assistance. I said that I thought the fact had been established by all soundthinking members in this house, but there are some members apparently who disagree with that point of view.
The thing that amazes me is that, despite the fact that almost every member, particularly from western Canada, has brought this to your attention, no Liberal members from Alberta have got up and spoken on Bill 82 which deals with this question. Why are they so profoundly silent? Certainly on other occasions they have made themselves heard. In view of the fact that the Liberal leader in the province of Alberta has come out and condemned this bill, I think it is about time some of the Liberal members from Alberta got up and made themselves known in this respect. Are they afraid of the whip that will be cracked over their heads if they get up and assert themselves on the side of the farmer? The people in Alberta who sent them down here expect them to get up and make a statement on this bill. It is vital to the welfare of the western agriculturists. The only one who has styled, himself as an expert is the lawyer from Westmorland. Let me tell you what he said. I am sure the western farmers of Alberta are not going to appreciate the attitude taken by the Liberal members in this House of

Commons as expressed by the hon. member for Westmorland. This is what he says, as reported on page 970 of Hansard:
I of course am not a wheat expert.
I think we would all agree with that. Then he says:
As an eastern barrister I therefore feel I have a right to speak on this question.
What impudence that he, as an eastern lawyer, has the right to get up and speak on behalf of the western agriculturists of this country.


An hon. Member:: What about the hon. member for Eglinton yesterday?


Charles Edward Johnston: Who does he think he is? Not one of the Liberal members from Alberta has got up and contradicted these statements. He said:
It is a debatable point as to what is for the benefit of the wheat growers of Canada, but I believe this resolution is and that is why I am supporting it.
The Liberal members from Alberta, having him as their spokesman, are saying that the position in which agriculture finds itself is a very debatable one.


Mr. Philpott:: You voted for the resolution.


Charles Edward Johnston: I shall tell you in a moment why I voted for the resolution, but you let the Liberal members from Alberta do the speaking-


Mr. Speaker:: I am quite prepared to let the hon. members from Alberta do whatever speaking they wish to do within the rules. The hon. member has just told me to let the members from Alberta do their speaking. I say I am quite prepared to do that.


Charles Edward Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that I had to remind members in the opposition that they should not be asking questions-I mean members on the government side.


An hon. Member:: They are in opposition to good legislation.


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes, I agree with the remark that they are in opposition to what is of benefit to western agriculture. Then he goes on, and this is the way he believes the western farmers should be treated. This lawyer expert on agricultural problems says:
... we know that the judgment of the majority of the western wheat growers does not seem to be too good.
I am sure the people of western Canada who supported the Liberal members and sent them down here to carry on their affairs*are not going to appreciate that type of inference. It is not an inference; he states it as a fact.

In other words, the western farmers of Alberta have not enough sense to know what they want. Not a Liberal in this house from Alberta has got up and contradicted that statement.
Who are these members from Alberta who say that the people from western Canada should send down no one except Liberals who will get up and support their cause? It was stated by the Liberal leader Mr. Prowse from Alberta over television the other day that there were five Liberal members in this house. Of course, that is not so, but we do not mind his exaggerating the truth. He always does that. There are, in fact, four members. There is the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore), who has not said a word on this resolution. There is the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna), who has not said a word on this resolution. There is the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Dechene), who was here a while ago but is not now, and who has not said a word about this resolution. There is the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Prudham), who has not said a word on this resolution. So they must be taking the side of the hon. member for Westmorland. Then this great sage who no doubt has taken his advice from the two cabinet ministers, from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) who has said during this debate that farmers in general in western Canada are not too hard up-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said no such thing. If my hon. friend is going to quote me will he please read from Hansard. He will distort anything that comes his way but I object to his distorting my remarks.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the minister is always being misquoted. He is one of those who are always misquoted, but I recall quite vividly that the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that Bill No. 82 was being introduced to accommodate the very few who were in need of assistance. He based it on the 1951 legislation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said nothing of the kind. I have asked my hon. friend to quote from Hansard if he wishes to quote me. I hope Mr. Speaker will support me in that. I do not know that a man can get up in this House of Commons and put words in my mouth.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to quote the words of the minister in a few minutes because I have never tried to misrepresent anyone on any occasion. I am paraphrasing, and I think correctly, what the minister said.
Crain


Clarence Decatur Howe: You will do it with reluctance.


Charles Edward Johnston: If the minister did not say that these loans were being made available to accommodate only the few who would need them, I will take back everything I have said about him, but I know that he said it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The last time you said "very few".


Charles Edward Johnston: Very few, yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I said that I will-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You will what?


Charles Edward Johnston: Oh well, we are not going to quibble over a word or two. The general meaning is clear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Edward Johnston: The general meaning is clear and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) backed him up in that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Charles Edward Johnston: Then this allwise barrister from New Brunswick concluded with these words:
We in this party are doing what is best for the western wheat producer.
My, oh my! The people of western Canada have not got enough intelligence to know what they want, but a few of these so-called barrister experts down here tell them what is good for them and what is not good for them. Of course we have the minister of the department doing that very thing too. When the hon. member says that the people of western Canada do not know what is good for them, let me remind him once again, as I did the other day, about the Saskatoon conference which sent a submission to the government of Canada on October 11, 1955, respecting the urgent need for cash advances on farm-stored grain in western Canada. For the benefit of some of those people who do not know who sent the submission, let me read the names again. I put them on Hansard a couple of weeks ago in discussing this question, but some of you people over there who are so all-wise and who are going to endeavour to speak for western agriculture had better listen to the names of the organizations that sent the submission to the minister and see what they ask for. Then they will be able to speak intelligently on the subject.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has placed me in the same position in which I was a few days ago. He actually admits he is going to put the same material

Grain
on Hansard for the second time, which is pure repetition and should not be allowed under our rules.


Charles Edward Johnston: No, Mr. Speaker, this is not repetition because I am going to read the names so they will know who they are. The submission was presented by the Alberta department of agriculture, the Manitoba department of agriculture-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, they have been read into the record at least three times.
1 Mr. Johnston (Bow River): -by the-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The minister is rising on a point of order.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My point of order is that the list of names has been read at least three times, I think twice by the hon. member who is now speaking.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, of course the minister's memory is not-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. That is the point I raised a few minutes ago. The hon. member said quite distinctly that he intended to put this record on Hansard again. That is a straight admission of repetition, and I feel I am on quite sound ground when the hon. member himself admits that it is repetition. Many times remarks are phrased a little differently and it is very difficult for the chair to decide that a statement is repetitious, but in this case I feel I can rely on the words of the hon. member himself and say that this is repetition and it cannot be allowed to proceed.


Charles Edward Johnston: Let me put it
this way, Mr. Speaker. The departments of agriculture of the three western provinces were among those who made this submission to the government together with all the farm organizations and chambers of commerce. Despite the fact that the submission was made by all these people who are directly and intimately concerned with western agriculture, the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr' Murphy) says that the people of western Canada do not know what they want and therefore some of the eastern Liberal members are going to tell them what is good for them. I say some of the eastern Liberal members because the Liberal members from Alberta have not had gumption enough so far to get up and express themselves. We do of course have the views of Mr. Prowse, expressed on a television program, who said that he was strongly opposed to such legislation. Why is that so? Because he is right out in western Canada where he has to answer to the people. When these members go back

to western Canada they too will have to answer to the agriculturists of western Canada.
Therefore when these people say that the farmers do not know what they want they certainly do not know what they are talking about. This organization asked very clearly for advances to farmers on grain in store on the farms. Can anybody say that they do not know what they are talking about? In their submission they differentiate between advances and loans from the bank. In the one case they stated that there should be no interest and then they go on to say there are other methods that could be used, including bank loans. In that regard they say that if bank loans are to be used in any event there should be a very low rate of interest, and they state emphatically that the current rate of interest on bank loans is too high. Certainly no one can say that the western farmers do not know what they are talking about. If anybody does not know what they are talking about it is members on the opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Yes, yes.


Charles Edward Johnston: I mean on the other side of the house. When I speak of opposition-


An hon. Member:: A good admission.


Charles Edward Johnston: -I mean those who are opposed to the interests of western agriculture. Make no mistake about that.


An hon. Member:: Now you are changing.


Charles Edward Johnston: Let me tell you what was said here the other day when the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) was speaking.


An hon. Member:: We heard it the other day.


Charles Edward Johnston: I interjected in his speech and asked him if he was differentiating-


An hon. Member:: That gives us the right to interject too.


Charles Edward Johnston: -between loans and advances. I want to say right here that whether or not I agree with the hon. member for Rosthern is not the point at issue. The point at issue is that he did have courage enough to stand on his feet and express his own thoughts. He expressed his thoughts in strong terms when he said that he did not even have to agree with the Minister of Trade and Commerce. There are not many on the other side of the house who would dare to get up and make such an assertion.


An hon. Member:: Oh, rubbish.


Charles Edward Johnston: Let me read what the hon. member said as found at page 629 of Hansard of January 27. He was speaking and I interrupted and said:
Are you differentiating between advances and loans?
The hon. member for Rosthern replied:
Advances are exactly the same as loans.
Let me interject there to say that the Minister of Trade and Commerce does not agree with that. At that time I said:
The minister does not agree with that. He says everybody who asks for advances is a sabateur of the wheat board.
I suppose the minister will deny that too but that is a fact. The hon. member for Rosthern went on to say this:
I am dealing with the question as I see it. The minister makes his own speeches. If my hon. friend thinks I have always got to agree with the minister, he is mistaken.
At least the hon. member for Rosthern had the courage to stand up and say there were times that he did not agree with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe).


Mr. Hosking:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit me to ask a question?


Charles Edward Johnston: Surely; go
ahead.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Does he suggest that the farmers from the eastern part of Canada should pay the interest on advances so that these farmers in the west can take the money on those advances and invest it in government bonds and draw interest on those bonds and that our farmers should pay the interest on them? Is that what he is suggesting?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member forgot to include the old crack about trips to California.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is really amusing, Mr. Speaker. I did not suggest anything at all of that nature but through you,
I would like to ask the hon. member this question. Does he think that western Canada is going to derive any material benefit in reduction of freight rates by the deepening of the St. Lawrence river that is costing us over $300 million of which western Canada is paying its share? Surely we were in favour of it. We were in favour of helping eastern Canada. We have helped eastern Canada so much down through the ages that they do not know how to get along without us.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I remind hon. members on both sides of the house in 67509-82i
Grain
the vicinity of the hon. member who has the floor that the microphones are open and it is extremely difficult at this end of the house to hear the hon. member who has the floor when the various members are trying to speak at the same time.


Charles Edward Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, once again for that interjection.
Let me refer again to the remarks made by the hon. member for Westmorland, and may I say that I am sorry he still is not in his seat, although I gave notice that I was going to refer to him. It was during that same speech-and this is one of the reasons that prompted me to say these few words- that the hon. member had this to say as reported at page 970 of Hansard:
For a while in this debate the hon. member for Bow River criticized the action taken by the government in guaranteeing these loans, and then he said that he would support it.
I want to stop there for just a moment. The reason why the members of this party supported the resolution was that there was a faint hope that some assistance would be given to agriculture in western Canada. Quite contrary to some of the opinions expressed on the other side of the house, we knew that agriculture was in need of assistance. We were in hopes that when the bill was brought down there would be provision for some material assistance in this respect.
The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), who was speaking the other day, went still further and suggested to the government that we would support this second reading of the bill if they would assure us that this bill would be referred to the agriculture committee of this house so that western agricultural organizations would be able to come down here and present their case. The minister decided that matter in one word, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) spoke for him or on his behalf and said no, it would not be referred to the committee on agriculture and colonization. Why should the government be so greatly frightened to have this bill referred to a committee of the house? Why should they be so greatly disturbed lest these agricultural organizations in western Canada-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I point out to the hon. member that this particular phase of the question was decided by a vote of the house last evening. I think he is now precluded from reviving that debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order and suggest that what was decided by a vote of the house was whether or not the subject matter of the bill be referred to a committee. The question which was asked, and which the Minister of Finance

Grain
answered, was that an assurance be given that the bill, after second reading, would be referred to a committee. Those are two different things. Your Honour is correct in saying that what we voted on last night should not be revived. But surely it is still permissible for members on this side of the house to ask that the bill itself be referred to a committee after it gets second reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There may be some
accuracy in what the hon. member has just said. I now have the resolution before me and I see that it states:
.	.	. but that the suhject matter thereof be
referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.
That would appear to resolve the matter. However, I would ask the hon. member to refrain from reviving any debate on the resolution which has already been decided as of last evening.


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will abide by your ruling there, as I always do. But I found it was necessary to make that reference because of the untrue statements which appear in Hansard in the speech of the hon. member for Westmorland. I thought it was necessary to make that correction.
Let me say also that we agreed to support the second reading of the bill provided it was sent to the agriculture committee. We have never been obstructionists. We have always tried to do that which was best for the interests of Canada as a whole, whether those subjects referred to eastern Canada or to western Canada. We could see no logical reason why the government should not refer this matter to the committee on agriculture and colonization. Certainly any other important question which arises in this house is almost always referred to a committee of this house. Yet on this occasion the government has definitely refused to send this matter to a committee. Without any explanation their answer has been no.
The hon. member for Westmorland went on to say this:
I know that in Alberta the farmers would prefer to have loans guaranteed at the chartered banks because they would sooner have real money than funny money.
That is the learned lawyer from Westmorland who styles himself an expert and who also has the courage to get to his feet and express his opinions about western Canada on behalf of the Liberal members from western Canada while they sit mutely in their chairs.


Ernest George Hansell: He is a funny lawyer.


Charles Edward Johnston: Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker,-and I am sure you personally

know it-that there is no funny money involved as far as this party is concerned. This hon. member refers to the fact that the farmers of western Canada would rather have credit issued through the banks. This stuff that I have here in, my hand is Bank of Canada bills. These so-called wisecrackers the other day said this is sound money. This is a $10 bill and it is signed by Coyne and Towers. This one I am holding is only a $1 bill and it is signed by Beattie and Coyne. These so-called lawyer experts say this is sound money. As a matter of fact, this is the funny stuff because it can be stretched ten to one.


Mr. Quelch:: It is starting to shrink again.


Charles Edward Johnston: As my friend the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) just said, it is starting to shrink again. It expands and contracts. If there is anything funnier than that, I should like to know what it is. The banks who issue this stuff- of course the banks did not issue this; that is done by the Bank of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Throw it away. I will pick it up.


Charles Edward Johnston: This is issued by the Bank of Canada. But the chartered banks, when they get this stuff, can expand their credit ten to one. What have they as a guarantee? Nothing but the whole of the Dominion of Canada. They did not pay anything for that expansion. On the other hand, let me tell the house that the provincial government of Alberta wrote to this government and asked them for permission to issue these loans having the same guarantee as the chartered banks are getting under this legislation. The other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated that the government could not permit that under this legislation. When this money is issued by the chartered banks, the farmers are required to pay 5 per cent, and with a 100 per cent guarantee. This is a greater guarantee by far than the government gave the lending institutions under the National Housing Act. Then the government only guaranteed 25 per cent of the loss, but here the government guarantees 100 per cent and the farmer is charged 5 per cent on that money.


William McLean Hamilton: On
a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is customary when an hon. member refers to a document and quotes from it, as the hon. member has just done, that the document is tabled. Would the hon. member be good enough to table this document?


Charles Edward Johnston: The hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace (Mr. Hamilton)

Grain
is speaking of ordinary letters or documents which are referred to in this house. This is a sacred document, so I think the hon. member is out of order when he suggests that I be obliged to table it. I shall put it in my pocket so hon. members will not bother me any more about it.


Mrs. Fairclough:: Give a reasonable facsimile.


Charles Edward Johnston: The government of Alberta asked permission of this government to have the same guarantee, not more but the same guarantee, as was given to the banks. They were going to loan this stuff that I just showed you with Coyne's name on it and Beattie's name on it. Every time the treasury branch makes a loan they have it backed 100 per cent by this stuff, and that is more than the banks do. Let us hear the self-styled Liberal lawyer expert expound that theory a little bit.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the farmers of Alberta would have greatly appreciated the opportunity of borrowing money from the treasury branch if the federal government had given the treasury branch the same guarantee as they are giving the chartered banks. Never within my knowledge has the treasury branch lent money to a farm organization or a municipality at a rate as high as 5 per cent. I am quite confident that if the same guarantee of 100 per cent had been given the farmers of Alberta would have obtained their loan at greatly reduced rate.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask my
hon. friend a question? I am sure that the treasury branch of the Alberta government is making loans on grain. Can he assure me that they are made at less than 5 per cent?


Charles Edward Johnston: These are guaranteed loans we are talking about, guaranteed by the federal treasury.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The treasury loans are guaranteed by the province of Alberta. Is one guarantee any better than the other? Is that security not as good as a guarantee by the federal government? In other words, is one government able to guarantee and the other not?


Charles Edward Johnston: Of course the minister knows that is just ridiculous because the provincial government has not got the same means of raising money as this federal government has. Hon. members in this house always like to point to Alberta and say, now since you have had a Social Credit government you are considered per capita
the most wealthy province in all Canada. Of course we are, but that only happened in the last 20 years. We have got our wealth through the development of our resources and proper management, as has been indicated. Neither the federal government nor the chartered banks have to obtain their money in the same way. The chartered banks can expand their credit as high as twenty to one, but of course they only do it about ten to one.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think I am entitled to an answer as to what rate the government of Alberta does charge on grain loans?


Charles Edward Johnston: What obligation has the province of Alberta to lend money to the farmers of Alberta when they, the farmers, are in dire circumstances as a direct result of the inefficient policies of this government. This government is responsible for the condition in which the agriculturists find themselves in Alberta. Wherever the province of Alberta has had to deal with these matters internally, we find prosperity. Wherever the federal government sticks in its hands, we find distress and need.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I want to apologize for asking the hon. member such an embarrassing question. I know he would answer it if it were not so.


Charles Edward Johnston: The minister is not asking me any embarrassing question.


An hon. Member:: Why not answer it?


Charles Edward Johnston: I want to say to him right here,-


An hon. Member:: What is the interest rate?


Charles Edward Johnston: -will he deny the fact that no one can export wheat except through the wheat board, which is under the jurisdiction of this federal government? If he can say that, let him answer it. He knows that what he is asking now is just nonsense. He is the one who controls the export of wheat, and that is why the farmers in western Canada find themselves in the dire circumstances in which they are now. The minister tries to get up and drag one of those red herrings across the road, but it just does not work. He had better consult this lawyer expert on western affairs who lives in New Brunswick, and get some advice from him, because it appears he is the one who is expressing the views of Liberal members from Alberta.


Mr. Sluder:: What is the interest rate?


Charles Edward Johnston: We should support this bill were it not for the fact that it

Grain
is not a farm bill at all. It is a banker's bill. I do not know of any other legislation that has ever been introduced in this house that gave an industry that has a monopoly of a product a 100 per cent guarantee on its loans, as has been done in this case.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister off to Florida?


Charles Edward Johnston: The bank just could not lose under this measure. Show me another place where the banks can lend their money as safely as this one? It just does not exist.
When we find a bill like this, which is loaded against the farmer, we just cannot support it. Perhaps Liberal members from western Canada will support a bill which is so loaded against the farmer. We will see when the time comes. But certainly, we would not be in that position. Here is a bill that proposes to lend the farmer $1,500. Of course, that is misleading; it does not propose any such thing. Of course, hon. members on the other side have not read the bill, nor, I suppose, has the hon. member for Westmorland.
If I understand the bill correctly, and the minister who is not now in the house will correct me if I am wrong, if a farmer has sold wheat to the extent of $1,400, the amount he can get would only be $100. The farmer cannot receive more than $1,500 in total from the disposal of his crops. If he gets that $100 loan and makes one little slip, oversteps the regulation, he is subject to a fine of $500 plus a penalty which is the remaining balance to be paid. Could you say, Mr. Speaker, that that is not loaded against agriculture? Can you understand why the leader of the Liberal party in Alberta condemns it? Can you understand why some Liberal members in this house can be silenced by, and have as their spokesman, the all-wise hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Murphy), who styles himself as a lawyer expert?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I am obliged to advise that his time has expired. Is the house ready for the question?


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Grain
1 must say that I do give credit to some of the government backbenchers who have come to me personally and asked for my views on the situation of the farmers in western Canada. Those hon. members have an appreciation of the problems which exist in western Canada.
We cannot for one minute assume that farm conditions in other areas are similar to Saskatchewan. There are many factors which must be considered and a comparison of similar circumstances is most difficult. I suggest to members of the government that they would indeed be well advised to invite the western farm organizations-I am thinking of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, the interprovincial farm union council and other prairie pools-to send representations down here to discuss the problems with them so that they may become acquainted with those problems.
The attitude of Saskatchewan Liberals is most unreliable and it is because of that unreliability that many Ontario and maritime members have spoken to me. I appreciate that fact and I appreciate the attitude they have adopted after I have discussed the problem with them. Many times they have said to me that they did not realize that things were that bad, that a farmer might have been able to sell only 300 bushels of grain when he had 5000 bushels in store on his farm.
I would point out that one of the inequalities which exists is in the distribution of box cars among the marketing points in western Canada. It is pointed out in the wheat review that there are many marketing points in Saskatchewan which are still on the initial unit basis. That means that the farmers at those points are allowed to deliver only 300 bushels of wheat. At the same time it is significant to note that a number of points are on the 3-bushel quota.
This indicates to me that the transport controller has not been paying close attention to the problem. There is a dispatch in today's Montreal Gazette which indicates that the transport controller has stated that the grain will be moved before the Canadian wheat board has made an estimate as to how much grain it will want moved. According to this article the controller stated that there is no shortage of box cars holding up prairie grain shipments.
If there is no shortage of box cars holding up prairie grain shipments then the Minister of Trade and Commerce should be severely criticized for allowing a situation to arise whereby there are 58 million bushels of storage space available in the terminals. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) has

denied any responsibility for filling up the terminals, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce has stated that the moving of the wheat was not his responsibility. Those two ministers would be well advised to get a little closer together and give some thought to the position of the farmers of western Canada who are supposedly being served by the transport controller.
It is fairly obvious that members on the government side who are not conversant with this problem are creating a serious break in relations between western and eastern Canada. Their determination to prevent the introduction of any legislation which would prove to be of material assistance to western farmers is doing much to undermine the co-operation which must exist between all farmers of Canada if we are to achieve our fair share of the national income.
I do not think you will find many farmers on the western plains who will begrudge the freight rate assistance being provided for Ontario farmers, who will begrudge the assistance given to the maple sugar producers to purchase aluminum equipment, or who will begrudge other forms of direct and indirect assistance which have been given to the farmers in this area. I think also that eastern farmers generally have a great deal of sympathy for the western farmer.
I am making the statement now that if the government members continue to try to make a breach between the farmers of Canada, if they continue to be ignorant of the conditions which exist in western Canada, there can be only one answer or only one solution. I have heard this discussed many times during the last few months in Saskatchewan.
The people of western Canada are becoming fed up with the attitude of the government in denying them the South Saskatchewan dam and other things which would improve conditions in western Canada, so much so that they are considering marching on Ottawa. I must say that some of them are thinking in terms of secession.
I submit it is a pretty tragic indictment of the government of Canada when one section of the country realizes that it has been ignored, that it can no longer expect to get consideration from the government. It may be that if this Liberal government continues in power for too many years the only alternative will be for the western provinces to devise their own form of legislation so that they can be treated as they wish to be.
The challenge is out. I do not think any hon. member of this house will agree that the work done many years ago to bring about a national Canada should be so easily wrecked

by the failure of Liberal members from the prairies to present to their colleagues the conditions which exist in western Canada, present them with insistence in their party caucus and before this parliament of Canada. The challenge rests with them and I hope we will not be disappointed.


Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldl-Melfori):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it has been a rather disappointing experience to the government, and particularly to the Minister of Finance, to And that, in spite of revisions in the rules of procedure, legislation such as we have before us today is only inviting lengthy discussion.
We are discussing this at length for the very simple reason that the government has failed to appreciate and understand the problem that is involved. Certainly it will be as lengthy a discussion as it is possible for us to make it.
I rose primarily to deal with one or two of the questions posed by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but before I deal with them I should like for a moment to say something about the very ill-considered remarks made a few moments ago by the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hosking). The hon. member for Wellington South proved beyond question something that has been cropping up in this debate ever since it began-that the eastern Liberal members have been led to believe that this problem is not as acute as we would like to make out it is. They have been misinformed to the point which prompted the hon. member for Wellington South to make a most irresponsible statement in this house this morning. He asked the question, "Do the farmers of western Canada expect the taxpayers of eastern Canada to subsidize the western farmer in connection with cash advances?" I should like to point out to him and to all other members from eastern Canada-


Mr. Richardson:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Yes.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: Thank you very much. How many members of the C.C.F. party are presently in the house?


Mr. Martin:: Only two. That shows their real interest in this matter.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: There are as many farmers in the C.C.F. party present as there are Liberal farmer members present.


Mr. Dickey:: His speech has driven his own supporters out of the house.


An hon. Member:: Where is the minister?
Grain


Paul Joseph James Martin: Where is the leader of the C.C.F. group?


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I want to deal for a moment with the question posed by the hon. member for Wellington South. This is not a local problem. It is a national problem. I think it is high time the Liberal members from eastern Canada faced up to the fact that it is a national problem. This morning the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) proved in his remarks that this is a national problem. It is time hon. members appreciated that fact. Here is what is going to happen, as pointed out by the hon. member for Mackenzie. We in western Canada have tremendous supplies not only of feed wheat but of feed grain of every other description. What are we going to do with it? The farmers are going to produce livestock in such a way that no farmer in eastern Canada will be able to compete with them.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Why have they not done so before?


Hugh Alexander Bryson: We were getting rid of some grain before.


Henry Alfred Hosking: 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.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I remind hon. members that the hon. member who has the floor may not be interrupted without his consent? May I also remind the hon. member who has the floor that possibly he would not invite so many interruptions if he adhered more closely to the principle of the bill?


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I do not mind interruptions of the type I am getting, because they only prove my point that this government has completely misrepresented the problem with which we are dealing.


Henry Alfred Hosking: May I ask another question?


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Yes.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Would you suggest to me what our eastern farmers think of the government of Saskatchewan for not being willing to spend $15,000 for butter instead of margarine?


Charles Edward Johnston: The same thing as they-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That question will, of course, not be answered. We are dealing with Bill 82, and I would like hon. members to adhere to the principle of this bill.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I am very serious about this. I am not saying this just for something to say. I am telling the members of eastern

Grain
Canada that the situation is serious. I realize it is physically impossible for the farmers in eastern Canada to compete in the livestock business with the people in western Canada, and there is a very simple reason why they cannot. We have tremendous stocks of grain. That is the chief reason. We are going to go into livestock production. I am not acquainted with what has been going on in the last two or three months as far as the people in my neighbourhood are concerned on this question.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I am concerned about the farmers in my area.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I very reluctantly bring this case up as an example. I can tell you that according to the last letter I had from my farm at Tisdale, they are going to breed 100 sows this winter. That gives you one indication. It is useless for a farmer to go into the livestock business and merely raise a few dozen head if he has 15,000 or 20,000 bushels of feed grain he wishes to get rid of. He has to go into the livestock business on a much bigger scale. This should be a sinister warning to the farmers of eastern Canada that, if this government is not going to accept this responsibility to the western farmer, the whole Canadian agricultural economy is going to collapse because of that fact.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Your farmer will certainly do some work for a change.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: That is another irresponsible statement.


Henry Alfred Hosking: You will find out, and so will he.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention now the reason why I rose primarily to answer the question. I should like to say, before I leave this matter of the eastern farmer, if the representatives of the Liberal party who are representing farmers from farm constituencies in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec would get up in this house and make the same kind of fight for them as the members from the west have made.


Henry Alfred Hosking: We would get as little done as you over there.


An hon. Member:: What are you doing?


Hugh Alexander Bryson: You have done nothing. You just think you have. I rose to answer the question that was posed yesterday by the parliamentary assistant. He said that this bill was being accepted by reputable farm organizations right across western Canada. He quoted two or three very dubious organizations. He mentioned the Alberta federation of agriculture, I believe, and he mentioned Mr. Brownlee's organization, which I again

say is very dubious, but he did not mention the six or ten organizations which came out with forthright statements in favour of cash advances through the wheat board. I wonder how many members across the way have received letters of condemnation and have received signed petitions from farmers-I am speaking, of course, of the Liberal members from the west-condemning this piece of legislation. I have several in my file, and I would like to put on the record a typical one from a farmer in Saskatchewan in connection with this piece of legislation, because I think it typifies the fundamental thinking of western farmers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has indicated he intends to place on the record an opinion with regard to this legislation. I think the hon. member will agree that Mr. Speaker has consistently indicated that such a procedure is not in order.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Well, I accept your decision.


Hazen Robert Argue: Just refer to it.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: He says that the legislation is worse than useless. I do not know what else he could say about it. We have heard a lot of statements during the course of the debate that cash advances are absolutely not feasible in any shape or form. I should like to point out that the wheat board has already established a principle very close to cash advances in that they are now accepting delivery of grain without' any hope of an immediate market for it. They say that they will accept grain when there is room in the elevator. It is placed in the elevator and there it stays. Why can they not go to the farmer and say: We will pay you and you keep it in your elevator. What would be the result? We would save millions and millions of dollars in storage charges. I am not critical of the action but the people of Canada are going to be asked to pay a minimum of $30 million in storage charges. That would have been unnecessary if the government had put forward the proposition of cash advances, paid the farmer for the grain and left it in the farmer's granary. Such action would have saved the taxpayers of the country some $32 million a year.


Irvin William Studer: Interest free.


Mr. Blackmore:: Why not?


Hugh Alexander Bryson: In the face of what I have just said I think that to argue that cash advances are not feasible is rather ridiculous.


Irvin William Studer: Interest free.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Studer) is trying to prove he is just as stupid today as he was yesterday.


Irvin William Studer: I am not stupid. You cannot teach me anything.


An hon. Member:: Just a vacuum.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: The government is relying on scarcity to relieve them of the burden with which they are confronted today. They are saying the only way the situation is going to be remedied is by a series of crop failures. Once again that is a very false premise upon which to establish any kind of realistic agricultural policy. A policy of scarcity is a criminal policy. It is an immoral policy. Of course, as has been said before, and it is worth repeating, the most potent arguments against acceptance of the legislation have been the arguments made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). I should like to quote one or two things he has said to show exactly what I mean. As found at page 127 of Hansard the minister had this to say.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have occasion to remember that page from yesterday. That is a page in Hansard in another debate, the debate on the address, and I do not think the hon. member should refer to another debate of the same session.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I can refer to it without reading it. In this part I have in my hand-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member misunderstood me. I do not have the rule before me but my recollection of the wording is that a member must not refer to another debate of the same session on the same subject.


Henry Alfred Hosking: You have been out of order so often you do not know when you are in order.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I will refer generally to the remarks that were made. First of all he said that there was no need to have the wheat board handle the matter because we have so much wheat that the farmers do not know what to do with it. Then the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) made the statement that there are many other reasons involved in the question besides the one mentioned by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In any case we are dealing with a bill which is of no consequence whatsoever. If the government had wanted to do something worthwhile they would have done some hard thinking about the matter, but the cabinet has given out misinformation to the private members of the Liberal party and they are now prepared to support the decision of the cabinet. The members of the cabinet are tired. They are so bankrupt of ideas that the best they can do is to go out to the old Liberal boneyard behind the buildings where they bury things 67509-83J
Grain
they do not like and which are of no use to them, things they would like to forget like the Liberal promises at election time. The unsuspecting new members of the Liberal party go with them and they dig up this old carcass of a bill which they buried in 1951 after it died from pernicious anaemia in the same year. After it is exhumed and they take a look at it it does not look very good so they sprinkle it with a little bit of tinsel by reducing the interest rate by one-half of one per cent and making the bank guarantee larger. Then they present it but they have not fooled anybody because regardless of all the efforts they made to dress it up it is the same old decrepit carcass it was in 1951. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue to reject this legislation. May I call it one o'clock?


Charles Edward Johnston: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, when I was speaking a while ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce interrupted me to say that my paraphrase of remarks made by him some time ago was incorrect. I stated at that time that it was always my intention to be able to back up everything I say and that if I had inadvertently misquoted the Minister of Trade and Commerce I would withdraw my remarks immediately.
I have looked up the references now and I should like to put them on the record. First of all I said that the Minister of Trade and Commerce had said on other occasions that there were very few farmers who would take advantage of this legislation. He objected to that statement. I think the words he objected to most strenuously were the words "very few". I claimed then that I was right and I want to put the references on the record for the minister's guidance. I am sorry he is not here.


An hon. Member:: Page, please.


Charles Edward Johnston: At page 129 of Hansard of January 16 he said:
A certain number of producers have found themselves in difficulty this past season, and the purpose of the guaranteed loan was to relieve those smaller producers.
I contend, Mr. Speaker, that when the minister said that a certain number of producers have found themselves in difficulty it meant that there were very few who had found themselves in difficulty.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Edward Johnston: Just one minute.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is quite in order if he wishes to refer to the page and read the remarks, but in my opinion he is now introducing a matter which

Grain
is purely debatable. I think he has sufficiently made any question of privilege which is proper under the circumstances. Do I understand that the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort has concluded his remarks?


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, that is only one instance and that is the weakest. I want to put more on the record which are irrefutable so far as I am concerned. He also had something else to say at page 129. There are three references I want to give.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is not a true question of privilege and I must rule accordingly. May I also point out to the hon. member that it is one o'clock and that I am leaving the chair.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that I will be able to carry on this question of privilege after one o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am unable to see that there is any proper question of privilege raised in the hon. gentleman's remarks to date. During the lunch hour I shall be glad to read the blues of Hansard and, if I come to a different conclusion, I shall be glad to inform him accordingly.


Charles Edward Johnston: Otherwise, I shall be obliged to speak again after the house resumes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do I understand that the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Bryson) has resumed his seat or did he wish to call it one o'clock?


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I wish to call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Charles Edward Johnston: On the point
of privilege that I asked to raise just before the lunch hour, Mr. Speaker, have you given it further consideration? May I go on?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: During the lunch
hour I obtained the blues from Hansard. The hon. member for Bow River rose on a question of privilege which resulted from an interchange between himself and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. During the course of the remarks of the hon. member for Bow River, he was citing what he considered the minister had said on previous occasions. I recall that the minister rose

and requested the hon. member for Bow River not to paraphrase but to quote from the Hansard record.
On the question of privilege which the hon. member raised before one o'clock, he made the following remarks: "First of all I said that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has said on other occasions that there were very few farmers who would take advantage of this legislation. He objected to that statement." The hon. member's question of privilege was then to read the remarks of the minister from page 129 of Hansard of January 16, 1956, as follows:
A certain number of producers have found themselves in difficulty this past season and the purpose of the guaranteed loan was to relieve those smaller producers.
The hon. member for Bow River then went on to say: "I contend, Mr. Speaker, that when the minister said that a number of producers had found themselves in difficulty it meant that there were very few who found themselves in difficulty."
At this time I interjected and indicated that the hon. member was then embarking on what I considered a debatable matter and not a true question of privilege. The hon. member rose and said that this was only one instance and was the weakest. He wanted to put more on the record which were irrefutable so far as he was concerned. I presume this is the same type of reference and I must rule that this is not a true question of privilege but rather a matter for debate.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Just before we rose at one
o'clock, I said something about the storage bill which is on the order paper following the one with which we are dealing. I mentioned this as a piece of progressive legislation for which the government is very glad to take credit.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is my hon.
friend talking about another bill on the order paper? Surely he should confine his remarks to the bill under discussion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As a matter of fact,
I have not been able to hear what the hon. member was saying. Perhaps it is the fault of the amplifying equipment or perhaps the hon. member might speak a little louder.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I mentioned that the storage
bill is a piece of progressive legislation. The government is very happy to take credit for it. But they are very careful not to take credit or accept responsibility for the lowest farm income this country has ever experienced. They are very careful also to take no credit whatever for policies which have resulted in the highest cost of living we have ever had in this country.

Grain
The farm union delegation is now in the city and what they have to say concerning the value of this piece of legislation with which we are dealing only confirms the convictions that have been held by a great many of us. It is a very sad commentary on conditions when a man has a piece of land which only two years ago was sold for $38,000. The man who bought it placed improvements on it to the value of $5,000, and is now offering it for $20,000 yet no one will take his offer. When he tried to get a mortgage on it for any amount, he was refused everywhere. I think that is a fairly common thing. I know areas in the west where 80 per cent of the farmers are now engaged in some other occupation in order to maintain a miserable standard of living.
When we have conditions such as these and at the same time find the granaries full of wheat, I think it is a very serious situation. Certainly when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), as he has done on every occasion, maintains that inventories of grain represent a farmer's net worth, that too is a faulty premise on which to establish any sound foundation for this legislation. I venture to say that possibly 50 per cent of this grain will never be placed in an elevator because of spoilage. In conclusion, may I say once again on behalf of the farmers of my constituency who have sent me down here with express instructions to resist this legislation at every opportunity, I once again take this opportunity of doing just that.


John George Diefenbaker: Having received the return which was tabled today by the Department of Trade and Commerce-


Clarence Decatur Howe: By the Secretary of State.


John George Diefenbaker: -by the Secretary of State on behalf of the Department of Trade and Commerce-


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, on his own
behalf.


John George Diefenbaker: I wish to refer now to a matter to which general reference has been made heretofore, and that is the general demand in the prairie provinces for cash advances on farm-stored wheat. The question that was passed as an order for return was as follows:
For a copy of all resolutions supporting the demand for cash advances on farm-stored wheat which have been received from western farm organizations and other public bodies, by the Prime Minister and any of the ministers of the government, or officials of the government, since the 15th day of August, 1955.
I have this return before me which tells the story. It indicates that more than 500
western farm organizations, municipalities and the like, have petitioned this government on behalf of what they demand, namely cash advances on farm-stored wheat.
One of the resolutions here is from Prince Albert and it is dated October 6, 1955, and signed by W. C. Bliss, Junior, subdistrict director of the Saskatchewan farmers' union, and represents the viewpoint of farmers generally in western Canada. After giving a general summary of the situation and the financial position in which the farmer finds himself, the resolution reads:
The most pressing problem is the shortage of cash, and we strongly urge the government to make cash advances on farm-stored grain in an amount not less than 85 per cent of the present initial payment.
It deals also with other matters and other demands of western farmers and ends up this way:
We urge that parliament be reconvened to take action . . . prompt and courageous action.
Now, this file has not shown all the returns because many of the resolutions were identical one with the other, but passed by more than 500 organizations throughout western Canada. It is for that reason I find it so difficult to understand why western Liberal members are adopting the attitude they are in this house on this matter. I have a tremendous regard for the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Studer). He has a scintillating wit and the power to make parliament really understand problems. I think he spoke with such power this morning when, in an interjection with an hon. member, he said in effect, in reply to the remark that he was stupid: "I am stupid because you cannot teach me anything". Well, in that statement I think the hon. gentleman seemed to be speaking generally, in reference to this particular matter, for those members of the Liberal party who represent constituencies in western Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know why those hon. gentlemen take the stand that they do.


Mr. Mcllraith:: The hon. gentleman-


John George Diefenbaker: I am speaking to those from western Canada, not the wheat farmers from Ottawa.


George James McIlraith: No, you are addressing the house.


John George Diefenbaker: I am dealing with the situation in the west and with income of agriculture generally.


George James McIlraith: You accused the Liberal members of certain characteristics. Maybe

Grain
you are the one who suffers from that characteristic, and not the ones you accused.


John George Diefenbaker: I simply say to my hon. friend I do not know what he is saying. I know it has nothing to do with the problem with which I am dealing, and as the cuckoo is in June, he is heard but not regarded.
I say to my hon. friend, in the last couple of days the farmers' union has made a submission and has set out in very careful detail the position of the gross and net farm income for all of Canada between 1951 and 1955, and also the gross and net income in the last several years. These statistics indicate the serious cash situation in which the farmer finds himself.
As far as Canada in general is concerned, starting with 1951, the gross and net income among farmers is set out as follows: In 1951 it went down by 10-72 per cent; in 1953, by 21-1 per cent; in 1954, by 48-2 per cent. The figures for 1955 will indicate a further reduction in net income. Net income, of course, is based on a relative comparison between gross income and the cost that the farmer has to incur in order to operate his farm. These costs are rising.
I now come to the gross and net farm income for the prairie provinces for the same period. In 1952 the net income was down by 3-13 per cent; in 1953, by 21-6 per cent; in 1954, by 66-64 per cent. The final 1955 figures are not yet available, but they will indicate a further decrease. A 66 per cent decrease in net farm income in a matter of three or four years is one which explains as clearly as possible the need of cash. If these figures were based upon the purchasing power of the dollar the condition of affairs would be even more serious than is apparent from the simple percentage statistics that I have placed before you, Mr. Speaker.
Farmers generally-and I say this cannot be contradicted; the return tells its story- want cash advances, and everything has been done to prevent their getting them. The minister has threatened; he has endeavoured to intimidate, all with a view to securing the passage of this bill, regardless of the demands of the western farmers. In one instance he has used a stick. I referred yesterday to a speech he made recently in which he enunciated that new principle of parliamentary freedom. On the occasion of the 20th anniversary celebration in honour of himself and of the Minister of Agriculture the stick was used, the toe-the-line philosophy. On the other hand, the carrot is held out as well, the promise to the farmers of western Canada that if this legislation is passed, then and then only will the government give consideration to making further advances or a distribution of moneys on account of 1954-55 pool.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, may I point out to my hon. friend that either today or yesterday a distribution was made to the farmers of western Canada. Perhaps he will withdraw that statement.


John George Diefenbaker: I am just mentioning
what the minister said the other day; that is all.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Again I am misquoted. If I said something the other day perhaps my hon. friend will read it from Hansard. Hon. members think they can rise in their places and say: "The Minister of Trade and Commerce said so and so" whether he did or not. My hon. friend knows that he is not quoting accurately.


John George Diefenbaker: I am quoting accurately -I am not quoting; I am paraphrasing what the minister said.


John Horace Dickey: Misrepresenting.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Misrepresenting.


John George Diefenbaker: If the minister says what I say is not correct all he has to do is to follow me and indicate that it is not. What I am saying is the fact. He held out a threat, a whip, a stick, accompanied by a carrot.


Mr, Howe (Port Arthur):: May I ask, am I not permitted to say whether I did say it or not? I know what I said. My hon. friend is quite capable of quoting accurately. If he will take the trouble to do so, let him turn up Hansard.


John George Diefenbaker: All right, I will turn to Hansard just as soon as I sit down, and indicate the page, because the minister so often forgets what he said.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Distorted.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Weasel words.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, my hon. friends interrupt. If we had the kind of domination the minister would like in this house, hon. members would be merely puppets in a puppet show. That is his attitude toward it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have the best puppet show right now.


George Alexander Drew: You certainly have.


John George Diefenbaker: I agree so heartily with that interruption.	[DOT]


John Horace Dickey: In other words, the shoe fits.


John George Diefenbaker: Turning members of parliament into pantomime puppets, whereby they are threatened with what will happen,

an election will take place, threatening parliament, trying to steamroller this thing through when farmers on the prairies say: "We do not want this type of legislation; we do not want to be placed in the position of having to pay interest on what we have already earned". What about the legislation? Well, as the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, it is the counterpart of the legislation of 1951.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Read where a man has to go to jail.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, now-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Read from the legislation where a man has to go to jail.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman must have had somebody else draft it because he does not know the bill. I will read the section.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John Horace Dickey: Wait until we get into committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I remind the hon. gentleman that he may not read the section.


John Horace Dickey: He did yesterday.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, you saved him that time. I will whisper to him "section 9". I come back to 1951 when the legislation was known as the Prairie Grain Producers' Interim Financing Act. That act was very similar, almost a counterpart except that the present legislation goes further and actually in effect places a yoke about the necks of western farmers. I quote from the 1951 legislation:
Where a person is convicted of an offence under this section there shall be imposed on him, in addition to any fine, a penalty equal to such amount of any guaranteed loan made to him in respect of which the offence was committed as has not been repaid by him, with interest thereon to the date of the conviction, and the penalty shall be paid to the bank-
If the farmer is proceeded against and fails to pay his fine, the alternative is jail. In addition to the fine there is also a penalty of the amount of the loan. I say that that type of thing is disgraceful legislation. It is actually providing for imprisonment for debt and it is adding to all the security of the Bank Act and the further security that is provided in that a farmer may not sell except when he makes payment and to the degree provided for the making of payment. If he commits an offence he immediately finds himself in the position of being subject, first to a penalty up to $500 and then in addition to be ordered to pay as a penalty the amount that he owes.
Grain
If he has made a misleading statement, if he does not get cash and is unable to pay the amount of the penalty, the amount of the loan, there is only one alternative open to him, prison. That is provided by the section in question.


Irvin William Studer: They have that in Saskatchewan if you do not pay.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to disagree with my hon. friend. It just shows the degree to which this government is imitating the socialists in Saskatchewan with legislation such as this.


Major James William Coldwell: That was on the statute books before the C.C.F. were elected.


John George Diefenbaker: This is a private argument between the C.C.F. and my hon. friend and I am simply an onlooker. I pass on to this legislation of 1951. In 1951 conditions were such that legislation similar to the present act was placed upon the statute books. We said that insufficient had been voted-$20 million was the amount-and ever since the right hon. gentleman has pointed out to us that the legislation was not used. He asked me to quote, and I shall quote what he had to say on November 18, 1953, as reported on page 128 of Hansard. At that time he was giving the reasons why advances on the farm, as be called them, were not necessary. I quote:
It will be understood, then, why the government considers that the need for farm advances has not been proven.
The government also had before it the results of the legislation approved by parliament In 1951 for advances to producers of grain on farms. Hon. members will recall the circumstances of that year. A very large crop had been grown but a great deal of it was tough and damp and a very large area was under snow and could not then be harvested. Faced with this situation, which was certainly very much grimmer than now prevails, the government introduced a bill to provide shortterm advances to farmers. The banks were to be guaranteed against losses on loan advances up to $20 million on both grain in storage and grain in the fields.
After a few pleasantries directed at myself-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Better read it all, do not skip anything.


John George Diefenbaker: The right hon. gentleman had this to say:
I regret to say, however, that even though advances under this 1951 legislation were very limited and one might have thought that the risk was negligible, over $40,000 is still outstanding and the Department of Finance has paid losses to the banks in excess of $11,000. These results must cause anyone to pause who advocates that the wheat board or the treasury should become involved in a widespread system of advances on farm-held grain.

Grain
He said the legislation did not work, that it was worthless, and then in order to show how worthless it was he duplicates it in 1956 and asks the farmers to accept that which he said was not successful in 1951. Is it any wonder that in 1951 the farmers did not accept that kind of legislation? They were not looking for passports to jail, they were looking for advances which would make available to them the necessary money to pay their current expenses.
What happened-I say this with great respect-to the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) a few days ago simply summarized the attitude of western farmers everywhere. As a matter of fact, if I might be allowed to paraphrase-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Something more.


John George Diefenbaker: My right hon. friend will understand this because he was an American until recent years. Paraphrasing Emerson I would say: Here once the embattled farmers stood and fired their shots heard around the west. That represents the attitude of western farmers everywhere. They are demanding that cash advances be provided. The record before us indicates the extent of that demand.
If the legislation did not work in 1951 why embalm it in another piece of legislation which is almost a photographic copy except for the amount which the banks may lend and also the extension of the penalties provided in 1951. The reason given by the minister in 1953 was that this kind of thing could not be done because the farmers were dishonest, because they were evading it, and because we have suffered loss. Ever since 1951 whenever any member of the opposition has suggested that something should be done to assist the farmers by cash advances on farm-stored grain the minister has bravely stood his ground and pointed out that the 1951 experiment was unsuccessful, that it did not work, that only a very small percentage of the total amount guaranteed was taken over by the farmers.
That is the reason for the small amount. What is the percentage? I understand it is about 4 per cent of the farmers. Four per cent have taken advantage of this, and that is all. They have been forced into that position against their own wishes and desires, against the resolutions which they themselves joined in having passed.
That is the reason why we take the stand that we do, and it has been a consistent stand. Last September when the matter was first mentioned, with the approval and consent of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) I said that we believed in cash advances and that parliament should be called

together. When the Leader of the Opposition was in western Canada in October and November and saw the situation he reiterated over and over again the need for action along this line being taken. But parliament was not called. If parliament had been called, the whole matter could have been discussed. Instead of that, the back-door method of cabinet decree was used and we are asked in parliament to rubber-stamp what the government did when it acted in derogation to everything the western farmer has demanded.
I was surprised this morning to hear the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hosking) make a statement which in some ways seems to epitomize the viewpoint of some of my hon. friends opposite. Referring to the western farmers, he said this: "Your farmer will certainly do some work for a change."
That was a statement that ought not to have been made. I would like to see some of the Liberal members from Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta stand up and repudiate that-unless my hon. friend has indeed become the voice of the members of the province of Ontario supporting the government. That was a very serious statement. We are not asking for any handouts. The government is the only market, through the wheat board. The farmer is entitled to what he has earned. Being in that position, he resents having to pay interest on the work he has done. We took that stand first in September, then when our leader visited western Canada, then again in the initial speech made in this House of Commons this session by the hon. gentleman, and also during the month of December when we said, as far as the resolution stage was concerned, "We shall accept this, because apparently something is going to be done."
I say, with all respect to the Department of National Revenue, which seems to have a monopoly of this sort of thing, that what is produced is almost a photostatic copy of a bill that did not work then. We were defeated when we asked that it be submitted to the agriculture committee. What we are trying to do is to secure through parliament by parliamentary means what the western farmer is asking for and what he has demanded over and over again. It may be that in the stand we take, because of the overwhelming government majority, this legislation will be pushed through. If it is, my answer to those who push it through is that if the 1951 legislation does not work, this legislation cannot work either. The experience of the past few months and the degree to which it has not been made use of indicates that it does not meet the situation.

indeed, this problem is one that recurs from year to year. Not every year, but from time to time, it has recurred since 1952. In November 1953 the Leader of the Opposition, then speaking as I say he was speaking, for those in western Canada who had been asking for this kind of thing, demanded that legislation providing for cash advances should indeed be brought into effect. When finally the bill came up for second reading, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) showed the attitude of this party in the amendment he tried to move, but it was ruled out of order. That amendment-and I am now paraphrasing-provided that the bill be not now read the second time but that there be substituted therefor legislation to provide for cash payments on farm-stored grain. In other words, cash advances are what we in this party have demanded over and over again. The support we have given to them is indicated by what I mentioned a moment ago-our support of similar legislation in 1953 and since.
Apparently even among members of the government there was not very much certainty as to what they were going to do. You will remember when Mr. McDonald, the leader of the Liberal party in Saskatchewan, came here-I think it was in October-and said something had to be done. He said, "I can't tell you what it is." It is like the old Indian medicine, Kickapoo juice; it would cure anything, but they never told you the contents. He returned and said, "I have found it; I have got it." Then it was rumoured that the plan was indeed guaranteed bank loans. On October 24, 1955, the Minister of Agriculture, speaking in Winnipeg, said that while there were complaints, including a complaint from the Manitoba government, these complaints were based on a belief that the federal government had chosen bank loans rather than advances. He said, in effect, "Don't believe it." There was the criticism of the Manitoba government and its representative. There has been the criticism of the leader of the Liberal party in Alberta, who knows what the people think.


Mr. Prudham:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
question of privilege. It is bad enough to misquote a member of this house, but I think to misquote someone outside the house, who is not here to defend himself, is not right.


John George Diefenbaker: That is his privilege, is it?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am afraid what the minister has raised is not a true question of privilege in the House of Commons.


John George Diefenbaker: If my hon. friend does no better at interpreting the feelings of the western farmers than he does at interpreting
Grain
what Mr. Prowse said the other day on television, then I am very sorry for the people of Alberta. Everywhere throughout the western provinces the farmers are asking that we take action in this parliament to meet the situation.
I make this last appeal, that the government reconsider the matter now. I know that in recent weeks of this session, this government has scintillated in confusion, but I hope that out of the confusion of jarring statements made by various ministers since October last will come at last a realization that what the western farmer wants is cash advances. If even now they will withdraw this legislation and bring in what the farmer wants, it would be assured of immediate passage in this house.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I have not had a great deal to say on this matter in the past week or so, because I have felt that there were many others who wished to speak and that they should be accorded every opportunity of doing so. In this group we are fortunate in having with us most of the practising farmers on this side of the house, and I have been very happy indeed that, while I represent a constituency that is primarily interested in this problem, we have men who are actually engaged in production-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Major James William Coldwell: I should correct that and say "western farmers". I have risen this afternoon to make one or two observations I have wanted to make for some time. I want to say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that the position in which western farmers have been placed by this situation is deeply resented by them. I informed the minister of a constituent of mine who for two reasons, one because he needed the storage space and the other because he needed cash, was actually selling 1954 feed wheat to the stockyards in Saskatoon for a cent a pound and paying 20 cents a bushel for hauling it. In other words, he was getting a net of 40 cents a bushel at Rosetown, Saskatchewan, for that wheat. When you examine the value of the dollar today compared with what it was in the 1930's, about which we have so often talked in this house, that means that in pre-war currency he was getting about 19 cents a bushel or about the lowest price that farmers in that area got for their wheat at the elevator in the very depths of the depression.
I am not going very fully into the legislation before us this afternoon because it has been gone into by so many. It is unsatisfactory legislation. It is legislation which we

Grain
saw introduced in 1951 and which we opposed at that time by an amendment to the resolution urging the government at that time to adopt a policy of cash advances. That has been our plea in the house ever since 1951. I am going to say to the minister that I am not in agreement with those who say that because we have a surplus of wheat at the moment on the western prairies our farmers should be told to cut down their production of wheat next year. I am not sure when that wheat will be needed in view of the reports coming to us from Europe at the present time that hundreds of thousands, yes, millions of acres of winter wheat have been destroyed by the great frost in Europe. Next year, or the year after this, wheat may be a very valuable asset to Canada and to the world.
I am never one of those who believe in restricting production to meet a situation of this sort, but I am saying that this valuable reserve, this valuable asset to Canada and to the world should not be carried by the farmers who produced it but that the people who should carry the burden are the people of this dominion. Of course it can be done in two ways, by making cash advances repayable when the wheat is marketed on a quota basis and then the surplus stored and storage paid to the farmers who have their wheat properly stored to meet the future needs of people here and across the world.
As was said this morning, because of the inability of the farmer to market his grain and his inability to get cash advances which would enable him to build more adequate and safe storage space, there has been a serious deterioration of wheat on the western prairies which we as a nation and the world may regret in the days to come. I have never had very much faith in the government's protestations about the wheat board. I am very glad that recently in the debate we have not heard it said that those of us on this side of the house are weakening or undermining the wheat board. That can be demonstrated to be quite untrue. As a matter of fact the records clearly prove on which side of the house the people sit who through the years have been supporters of the orderly system of marketing.
I regret that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is not in his seat this afternoon. Last night he accused me again of having misrepresented him on many occasions over recent years. I have no recollection of having done so except in so far as I said a few days ago that I had been misinformed and that I had misquoted the Minister of Agriculture. I admitted that and put the record straight. But the Minister of

Agriculture is constantly saying that he has been misrepresented either in the press or in this house. He said it last night when it so happened that I had the Hansard on my desk from which I am going to quote in a moment.
The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) was referring to a statement made in the house by the Minister of Agriculture on April 5, 1939, and the minister disputed the accuracy of the statement of the hon. member for Mackenzie. I happened to have the Hansard with the verbatim report of what the Minister of Agriculture said. It is true that speaking from memory the hon. member for Mackenzie left out the reference to 20 bushels to the acre, but otherwise the statement was correct in every particular.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Was not the 20
bushels to the acre the essential part of the statement?


Major James William Coldwell: I would not say that was the essential part of the statement. If the minister thinks so I will not argue that point, but in any event the matter was cleared up immediately. The accurate statement was placed on the record last night from Hansard of that date. Last night the hon. member for Mackenzie said, as found at page 1276 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, when the matter comes up again I will have the reference in Hansard and I will be very glad to place it on the record.
Then I said, "Here you are." Then the Minister of Agriculture said:
The hon. gentleman who has misrepresented it for all these years is now handing it to you.
I have not misrepresented it. I have not referred to it for some years now but whenever I did I used to carry with me a copy of the Hansard for April 5, 1939, and read what the minister had said from the record.
I went further and read more than what was read last night although I do not think it made a material difference to the argument in question that, if we raised 20 bushels or more to the acre, wheat could be produced at 30 to 40 cents a bushel in western Canada. But the other day I was speaking in the house and I said this in this same debate-I am not quoting from a previous debate but the same debate-as found at page 843 of Hansard of February 3:
... I remember perfectly well the Minister of Agriculture rising on occasion after occasion in the house and defending the grain exchange method of marketing.
The minister said, "Oh, no." Then I said:
Hon. members who were in the house at the time, and I am sorry to say there are only a very few of us left, can remember it as vividly as I can.

Then the minister said:
... My hon. friend should not quote unless he has Hansard here to prove it.
One reason I am speaking this afternoon is that I have Hansard here to prove it. In the same debate the minister said that he had not supported the competitive system of marketing, which is the grain exchange method of marketing, since he had been in the house. Well, here is the record. Speaking in the debate on April 5, 1939, he referred to a speech of the late Hon. J. L. Ralston, to which I had referred, and said, as found at page 2612 of Hansard of that date:
Hon. J. L. Ralston, speaking in 1935 for the Liberal party, then the official opposition, on the grain bill of that year, which later became the wheat bill, and replying to Mr. Bennett, said, as reported at page 3581 of Hansard:
"I do not believe that the people of the Dominion of Canada are favourable to a compulsory wheat board, to a board the constitution of which will mean that every wheat grower, every elevator man and everybody engaged in the wheat business must deal with the government agency and no one else. This matter of policy has been discussed before not only in this house but throughout the country. The government has carried on with a voluntary system for five years as Mr. McFarland and the Canadian Co-Operative Wheat Producers Limited have been nothing more or less than a board conducting voluntary market operations. A man was entitled to sell or not sell to Mr. McFarland as he saw fit. I submit that so far as the western wheat grower is concerned that the voluntary system should be continued until there has been more opportunity to consider the matter. I do not believe the compulsory feature of this bill will meet with approval, either in the west, in the east or in this house."
That is the end of the quotation. Then the minister added these words:
There you have the issue clearly drawn between the two parties at that time-
I will refer to those words in a moment. -in the house: One was for compulsion: the other-
The Liberal party.
-was for a continuance of the voluntary system.
Those were the words of the minister in this house on April 5, 1939. Then he went on to discuss the undertakings that Mr. Bennett had given at the time the wheat board was under discussion and he said this:
When these undertakings were given, indicating that the legislation was to deal with a temporary condition, that it was not a permanent policy, and that even while it was in force it was subject to the control of the government of the day, it passed the house unanimously.
I place this record on Hansard in order that the position may be quite clear in any discussion which may take place in regard to the actions of the government from that day to this, whether under the previous prime minister or the present Prime Minister.
Then my hon. friend the minister went [DOT]on to describe some of the operations of
Grain
the wheat board under Mr. McFarland and subsequently, at page 2615 of Hansard of 1939, having clearly outlined all this, he summarises what we took to be his own opinion in the matter. He says:
I have come to the conclusion that to ignore the so-called law of supply and demand, as Mr. Bennett said his government intended to do when they brought in the first bill in 1935, will eventually wreck any system that can be devised, by loading the system with an enormous surplus or by giving it an enormous deficit.
There we have the record indicating quite clearly that the statement which I made- and which the minister denied-was perfectly correct in every particular. I had, of course, quoted a former minister of agriculture, the late Hon. W. R. Motherwell, to the effect that he had been deceived, that when he wished to market his grain through his own local elevator through the wheat board, he was unable to do so in 1938.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You win the argument by default.


Major James William Coldwell: How?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The minister is absent.


Major James William Coldwell: I am sorry the minister is absent, but what I have done is to quote the record. I cannot understand how the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) could say that I win by default when I have quoted the record; and I have tried to quote it accurately.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You quoted it in the absence of the minister.


Major James William Coldwell: I am sorry the minister is absent.


Mr. Ellis:: Whose fault is that?


Major James William Coldwell: As a matter of fact, I thought he would be here.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps the hon. member picks his days.


Major James William Coldwell: No; I do not pick days. If the minister really wants to know the truth, I may tell him that I did not speak yesterday because I was not well. That was the only reason. Perhaps I should not be speaking this afternoon. But I want to say that what I have tried to do is correct a statement which the minister made in reply to a statement that I had made that afternoon.
I hear from a good many of the wheat producers in western Canada. My constituency is wholly a wheat-producing constituency. I was over the whole of it last autumn from one end to the other. My constituents at various points-and all of them are wheat farmers-expressed deep resentment at the

Grain
proposal once again to introduce this bank loan plan which-as the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said in the speech he has just made-was proved to be a failure in 1953. We knew that it would be not only unpopular but mainly useless in 1951 when we moved the amendment to which I have referred calling for advances. We are therefore opposing this legislation because we disbelieve in it, because we think it is inadequate and because we think it is resented by the people who sent us here, and we are saying so. Not only are we saying so but at every opportunity we are going to vote against it.
I know we were the only party in the house which voted against it at the resolution stage. We voted against it then because we hoped that if the house showed its disapproval of this legislation at the resolution stage, a bill such as the one we have before us might not be introduced but rather that the government might reconsider its proposals and introduce another bill designed to meet the needs of the western wheat growers. I think that is what they hoped for as well. The government have not seen fit to do so. They have adopted this policy and they are going to put it through, I have no doubt. But they will put it through over our opposition.
Let it not be said that the opposition that has been indicated in this house to this measure is in any way fomented by those who are opposed to the wheat board. That was said on occasion but I am glad to say it has not been said just lately. Let that not be said. The Winnipeg Free Press, the newspaper which has been said to be opposed to the board, was opposed to the board, I know, when the board was originally set up and for some years afterwards. But as I read the Free Press today, even it accepts the situation as an accomplished fact, realizing that the producers want such a method of marketing and realizing perhaps that with an international wheat agreement-which I may say I hope will be consummated-this is the only way in which wheat can be marketed successfully under agreements and on the markets of the world. Hence today I believe there is unanimity in Canada-except for a minority who would like to restore the entire grain business to the grain exchange-in support of the wheat board method of marketing. We therefore do not need to argue that point.
I am going to say this to my hon. friends of the Liberal party. While I have said-and it is my belief-that they were opposed to this method of marketing for a long time, and that they wanted to do all they could to keep the
[Mr. Coldwell.l
voluntary system or, as they call it, the competitive system, because of the experience of the government during the war years and subsequently I believe they, like the rest of us, now believe that the wheat board is here to stay and that it is the best method of marketing.
But that does not mean that, under circumstances such as those which now exist, our farmers are able to market enough grain to pay their expenses and their taxes; and those taxes are an extremely serious consideration in all the three western provinces where wheat is grown in large quantities. The municipalities in Manitoba, in Saskatchewan and in Alberta are all finding it difficult to maintain their essential services and their school systems. These bank loans will not suffice. If a man can get a bank loan under this legislation, he can get a bank loan anyway. If he is marketing some of his wheat, the bank loan he will get is so small that it will make little difference to him and it will not enable him to pay his taxes or to prepare his machinery for seeding in the springtime. So it is that we are opposing this legislation because we should like to have seen something different. Today, of course, I suppose it does not matter, from the point of view of the western farmers, whether or not this legislation is supported by the opposition members. Loans have been made and the guarantee was given by the Minister of Defence Production-


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris).


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, the guarantee was given by the Minister of Finance to the banks, and I have no doubt that guarantee will be carried out. I want to say this to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), who is also not in his seat: When this was contemplated the proper thing to have done was to have called parliament together to have this legislation, if this was to be the legislation, passed by the house.
I think the pledging of money on behalf of Canada is not a matter that can be done by order in council. If there is one traditional right we have in this House of Commons, it is the control over expenditure. It may be a very shadowy thing in a house where the government has the huge majority it has in this parliament, but the real function of this house it not to initiate legislation, which is the business of the government, but to control expenditures. This might have been a very heavy expenditure. I do not know what amounts are out at the moment but I imagine they are relatively small and yet, in many

people's eyes, probably quite substantial. This has been done without the consent of this parliament.
Parliament should have been called together when the situation was realized last September, and provision made, not for bank loans or loans upon which the farmers would have to pay 5 per cent interest on what has been described in this house as their own earnings. At the same time we were told that a powerful company, controlled in almost every particular in the United States, would have very great advances, not in the form of actual cash but in the form of a great national project which I think should not be alienated, at 3-5 per cent interest. The contrast is striking, Mr. Speaker. So I am rising this afternoon to support the amendment we have moved, just as I rose to support the other amendment we moved, to give this the six months' hoist.


Mr. Charles Cannon (Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: We have listened to this debate for some time, Mr. Speaker, and I was going to say mostly but I will say nearly all the speeches from the opposition were irrelevant or repe-titous. I think, therefore, we on this side of the house have good reason for not intervening in the debate to prolong it uselessly. But having just listened to the speech by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) and the speech by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) I think that one or two remarks would be in order at this time.
In my opinion the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar put his finger on the crux of the problem when he said he is of the opinion that the surplus wheat we have in the west at this time is a great national asset. In saying that, he is repeating what the Minister of Trade and Commerce has already said, that it is no calamity to have a great wheat surplus because at this time they have bad weather conditions in Europe which may lead to a bad crop and we will undoubtedly sell our wheat crop eventually.


Major James William Coldwell: May I say-


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: What impressed me most in what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said, if the hon. member will allow me to continue, was that he thought the people of Canada should pay for the carrying of this surplus wheat; that is the crux of the problem. We on this side think that money should be advanced to the farmers but that they should pay interest on it. The people on the other side think that money should be advanced to the farmers without interest. Who is going to pay the interest? Evidently it is the people of Canada. Is it fair that the people of
Grain
Canada should be called upon to pay interest for the farmers in the west? Why should I not say, as the member for the Madeleine islands, that the people of Canada should pay interest to the fishermen on their fish products that have been canned but not sold or that have been frozen and not sold. There are many other instances. You could go to the coal mines or anything that is produced in the country.
You could say, why should the people of Canada not make advances on all of these things that are produced? Why should they pay interest on such money? I think what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has stated illustrates how weak is the position of the opposition and how strong is the position of the government. He has put his finger right on it. 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?
Now, I want to mention what the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said. I am sorry he has left the house. He has a reputation, which I am sure is well deserved, of being a distinguished lawyer. He has made a statement that I think is a legal heresy. His statement was more or less along the same line as that of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. He says the farmers have produced this wheat, and therefore they should be paid for it and they should not have to pay interest on the money they get for it, whether or not the wheat is sold. There again, you cannot support a statement like that if you have a legal brain and if you know what the law is all about. Why should a person be paid for something he has produced before that thing has been sold? Why should he get that money without having to pay interest on it? I think perhaps all the western farmers can expect us to do for them is just what we are doing, to facilitate their getting bank loans on which they pay interest. It is only the normal thing. Why should they get money on their products, without paying interest, without having sold their products?
I think we are doing the right thing for the farmers. I am sure the farmers in the west are just as good citizens as any of us are. I am sure they are pleased with the legislation we are passing for them, which is privileged legislation, but I do not begrudge it. I am sure they realize they are getting a privilege through this legislation. I am sure the members of the opposition, and particularly the members of the C.C.F. group who have carried on a filibuster against this legislation, have not gained one vote but on the contrary have lost votes in the western part of the country.

Grain


Victor Quelch: I wish to say a few words on Bill No. 82, Mr. Speaker. A number of us in this group at the resolution stage criticized the government's proposal at some length. On the other hand, it was a resolution to introduce a bill and we did not vote against the resolution because we wanted to see just what was going to be in the bill. We wanted to be in a position to accept or reject the bill on its merits. After we read the bill, there was no doubt in our minds that the bill should be rejected. Therefore, when the C.C.F. moved an amendment to report the subject matter of this bill to the committee on agriculture, we supported it.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) suggested that such action would kill the bill. However, I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) showed quite clearly that that would not necessarily be the result, but that the subject matter could be sent to the committee on agriculture, and if the committee saw fit it could recommend to the house that the bill be again presented. Then, the bill could be put through the house if the house saw fit. Therefore the argument of the minister was not a very sound one.
However, I did present an alternative to the government. I suggested that after second reading the bill itself should be sent to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization. There was nothing unique about the proposal. We do it every year. At the time I was somewhat disappointed, but I will not say surprised, that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) rejected the suggestion and said the government was not prepared to send the bill to the committee. I think it is a pity. It is quite an important measure. I should like to see a bill of this kind given far more consideration than it is going to get, and perhaps be extended into something of a permanent character, useful in the future instead of just for the moment. If this bill had been sent to the agriculture committee and we had called representatives from various farm organizations, then they could have given their views on the bill itself.
I do not know whether the government actually consulted any of the officials of the main farm organizations on the drafting of this bill. I doubt very much whether they did because I was speaking to one of the officials of one of the main farm organizations just two days ago, and I asked him what he thought of the bill. He said: "I have never seen it". He has not the slightest idea what is in the bill. He could not say whether he was in favour of it or not until he had seen it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask my hon. friend a question? Is it customary to issue copies of bills before they are introduced in the house?


Victor Quelch: No; but in a matter of this kind, in view of the fact that the minister had been out west and as a result of that visit came to the conclusion that loans should be made, it would have been a wise act on his part to call representatives of the unions down to Ottawa and discuss with them just what they thought should be in the legislation. In so far as agriculture is concerned- I may be wrong in this-I have a very strong feeling that the government acted differently in regard to the banks. I am not suggesting that the government issued the bill to the banks before it was introduced, although that may be possible, but I am pretty sure they consulted closely with the banks relative to various sections of the bill. If banks are to be consulted in that way regarding matters in the bill relating to them, surely it would have been a matter of courtesy, if nothing else, to give the same privilege to farm organizations. The minister could have very well discussed those sections that he intended to put into the bill relating to farmers because there are some features in the bill that I am satisfied the farmers will bitterly resent when they learn about them. At the present time they do not know about them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can assure my hon. friend that responsible farm leaders well known to my hon. friend suggested that we use the form of legislation of 1951.


Victor Quelch: Well, the situation in 1951 was very different from this one. What did you have then? You had your wheat unthreshed under the snow on the prairies. There was quite a question whether or not that wheat would ever be harvested at all. Undoubtedly, a great deal of risk was involved. What is the situation today? The grain is in the bins and the loans have been made on only a percentage of the grain, on only 50 per cent, I would imagine.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, for a small farmer it could be 100 per cent.


Victor Quelch: Well


Clarence Decatur Howe: This bill is meant to help the small farmer.


Victor Quelch: Only half of each delivery is to be paid to the banks. Therefore, it must be 50 per cent. Otherwise, what has happened to the other 50 per cent? It is not 100 per cent; it is 50 per cent. Therefore, I say it is only a percentage of the wheat against which the loans are to be made; just

Grain
half the wheat. If a farmer should have
10.000	bushels and loans are made against only 5,000 bushels, the most he could get would be $5,000, but actually the maximum loan is only $1,500, therefore a man would need at least 3,000 bushels of wheat to get a $1,500 loan.
As I say, there are a number of features of this legislation which are of a very questionable character. When the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) spoke the other night-I am going to use his own words, especially since he is not in his seat- he said this, as reported at page 1218 of Hansard:
By suggesting that this bill should be sent to the committee on agriculture and colonization they are in tact saying that the western farmers are in no hurry for cash advances of any kind and can afford to wait for months and months.
By "they" he meant the members of the opposition.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Is that not right?


Victor Quelch: That is where you are absolutely wrong. They do not have to wait for months. Loans are already being made. Over
8.000	farmers have had loans up to the end of December, according to the figures given by the minister. I think $7 million has already been lent.


Henry Alfred Hosking: You are learning something.


Victor Quelch: The average loan is around $800. There is no question of the farmers having to wait. It makes very little difference whether this legislation goes through today or a month hence. Loans have been made in a large number of cases and I suppose they will continue to be made.


Irvin William Studer: The hon. member said they were not getting them.


Victor Quelch: If the hon. member would just listen he would not make an unwise statement like that. Let me finish what I have to say on this point. Loans have been made, 8,000 of them. I will guarantee that the majority of those loans would have been made whether this legislation had gone through or not. If this legislation were withdrawn tomorrow the banks would continue to lend in the same way as they have lent in the past. Why have the farmers hung back? For the simple reason that they do not like going into debt when they have wheat in the bin and they want to sell it. They want to sell wheat, not borrow money on it. Why should they borrow money on that wheat in order to pay bills? That is what most are doing.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Will the hon. member permit a question? Why should farmers get cash
advances on their wheat without paying interest on it any more than any other primary producer in Canada?


Hazen Robert Argue: Do you pay interest on the butter floor price?


Victor Quelch: Let me finish this other point. The point I was making is that the farmers are getting the loans, and will continue to get the loans even though this legislation is not passed.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: They are paying interest.


Victor Quelch: Yes, of course. That is the reason. The reason they have not asked for loans is that they do not want to pay interest. They are hoping to be able to sell the wheat. That is the reply to the hon. member who just rose to his feet. The reason the farmers should not have to pay interest is this. The government is in control of the marketing of wheat and of transportation. Last year sales broke down. They could not get orders. This year they could get orders but they could not get box cars. It is transportation that has broken down. The government is in full charge of that policy. The farmers have a right to expect the government to at least pay them the price of the normal delivery for wheat on the farm. That is all they are asking for, the normal delivery of wheat. Why should they pay interest on that?


Henry Alfred Hosking: They have already sold more than an average crop.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is not true.


Victor Quelch: That shows just how little the hon. member knows. The minister himself said that some points have a one-bushel quota. Is that a normal crop? Some points have a 2-bushel quota, and some have a 3-bushel quota. Does the hon. member call that an average crop? It might be in his part of the country, but if so, he must live on a stone pile. That is certainly not the situation in western Canada where the average yield even in an average year was around 17 bushels. In the past five years the average yield has been considerably in excess of that amount.
While I say there is a 1-bushel quota at some points, there are many farmers at those points who have not been able to deliver one bushel on the 1-bushel quota. Most points have been able to deliver the initial amount of 300 bushels, but there are many farmers who have not been able to deliver one bushel on the 1-bushel quota. It is not very pleasant for those farmers when they see a point 30 miles away where the farmers can sell three bushels to the acre and they are unable to sell one. As a result of that situation they

Grain
have bills in town at the different stores unpaid. They would like to pay them. They are not paying any interest on those bills. Can you blame them for not going to borrow money and pay interest on it in order to pay another bill upon which they are not paying any interest? It would not be very good business; it might be good ethics. That is why many farmers are taking loans today to pay bills on which they do not have to pay any interest. They are doing that because they like to pay their debts. They would rather pay interest on the debt to the hanks than continue to allow the bill to run in the store, because they realize it is a hardship on the storekeeper. I would say that is true of 95 per cent of the cases. It just goes to prove that the farmers of the west, as a rule, are honest men and like to pay their debts. But they think there should be a limit to the extent to which they should be plunged steadily further and further into debt. They have the right to expect that they should be able to deliver a normal delivery. All that the farmers in the constituency that I represent ask for is for the government to make an advance up to 50 per cent of the normal delivery. By advance in that case they meant payment on the wheat and not a loan. They rejected the idea of a loan. They suggested that the normal delivery should be on the basis of 8 bushels to the acre because they were afraid that if it stated merely the normal delivery the government might take only 2 or 3 bushels to the acre. That is the stand they have taken to date. I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that if they read this bill they will reject it.
The farmers did not tell me that. As a matter of fact when matters of this kind come before a convention in my constituency and I try to get the farmers to give me a directive as to whether I should vote for or against something, they have always insisted that I use my best judgment. They say, "You are on the spot; you know the facts; therefore we are going to leave it to your discretion to decide whether you vote for or against the measure." I am using my discretion at the present time in rejecting this bill. The title of the bill reads:
An act to provide for short-term credit to grain producers in the prairie provinces to meet temporary financial difficulties arising from inability to deliver all their grain.
I suppose that could be said to be the purpose of the bill. I would appreciate the minister correcting me if I am wrong, but I gathered from what he said that the purpose of the bill is to make loans available to the weaker farmer, the small farmer, the new farmer or the farmer who is financially embarrassed. I take it that is the main purpose

of the bill, that is the class he has in view. I think he will agree that this is a fair interpretation of his attitude. I do not wish to misinterpret him and it would take too long to find his actual statement by going through all the pages of Hansard. I take it that this is the general purpose.
Therefore the minister will agree that if that is the purpose it is most important that this bill should carry out that purpose. I claim that the bill does not carry out that purpose. As a matter of fact, I claim that many farmers who might borrow under this bill will be worse off than farmers who borrow from other sources. I will give the reason why I say I think it will actually worsen their position. My contention is that the contents of this bill violate the purposes of the bill. We have heard it said that some members are dirt farmers, that some have had no farming experience. Speaking personally, I think I am in as good a position as anyone to speak on this bill.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You do not need the bill then.


Victor Quelch: No, I do not need the bill. I am not supporting or rejecting this bill on the basis of what I need, I am supporting or rejecting it on the basis of what I feel the people in the area I represent need. I have farmed for some 40 years. Let me state frankly that 75 per cent of that time I was short of capital. I have had lots of experience in borrowing from banks, so I know something about this situation. It is true that for the last 25 per cent of the time I probably did not need to, but for the first 75 per cent I did.
I homesteaded in the west in 1909. I did not have any capital, I did not have any money at all. I used to work in railway construction camps for a few months in the summer in order to get enough money to run my farm.


Henry Alfred Hosking: You have done pretty well in this country under the Liberals.


Victor Quelch: I have done fairly well in spite of the Liberals, you might say.


Henry Alfred Hosking: There are a lot of people in the same boat from the sound of it.


Victor Quelch: By 1914 I had just started to get on my feet, and then I was overseas for five years. When I came back I had to start all over again. Everything I had was worn out, my machinery was all worn out and the price of everything was sky high. I settled under the Soldier Settlement Act which was a pretty tough act, quite different from the present Veterans' Land Act. Within a few

years the value of my chattels had fallen to about half their original value. It was about 1929 before I again started to get on my feet.
In 1929 I was still farming with horses. I realized then, as did most farmers, that if I was going to make any real progress I would have to have a mechanized farm. I went to the bank and asked for a loan in order to buy a tractor. I was quite interested in the attitude taken by the bank manager. He had my financial statement and he told me I was in excellent shape, that in a short time I would be sitting on top of the world, but he then went on to give me some sound advice. He told me not to borrow any money with which to buy a tractor because within a short period of time we would be going into a depression.
That was in 1929. I have always wondered why a bank manager was able to tell me in 1929-it was not being publicized in the press -that we were going into a depression when credit would be restricted and therefore it would be unwise for me to buy a tractor. I continued along with my horses. Just two years later I went to the bank again, but I could not borrow a cent although my physical assets were exactly the same or a little bit better than in 1929. In 1929 I could have borrowed enough on my personal note to buy a tractor, but in 1931 I could not borrow a cent.
I might mention that they had changed the bank manager in the meantime. Any time they bring in a new policy of restricting loans they seem to change their managers, because it might embarrass a bank manager to refuse a loan to an old friend. I thought it very strange that with no change in physical assets I could not borrow any money.
We all remember the depression, and I am not going to deal with it. We got through it. I did not go under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act because I did not like it, just as I do not like this bill. There were too many restrictions in it. However, we farmers got through the depression and then came some good times. I admit quite frankly that we have had some good times.
There are many farmers who realized that in order to produce efficiently they had to have an efficient unit. Professor Hope has defined an efficient unit as two sections of moderate land or one section of heavy land. The area which I represent is a good one, and many farmers thought it advisable to expand their land holdings and borrowed money with which to buy land. They borrowed money to buy farm machinery under the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
Those are the farmers who are in so much difficulty today. They are not new farmers,
Grain
they are not young farmers, they are not small farmers; they are fairly large farmers. They have been farming quite a long time and have lots of experience. But they have incurred heavy liabilities which normally would be met from their sales of wheat. These are the farmers who are facing a great deal of difficulty.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Do you think our eastern farmers should supply the money for the loans?


An hon. Member:: Get up and make your own speech.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I am. It is short and to the point, and I am not delaying the debate.


Victor Quelch: You want to know whether I think the eastern farmer should be prepared to pay income tax for the purpose of helping to pay interest or to make loans available without interest? There need not be any interest involved, because the government could make advances to the farmers and get the money from its own institution, the Bank of Canada, without borrowing from the chartered banks. But it goes far beyond that. Even if it was costing some money I say that the western farmers are entitled to it because during the latter part of the war they subsidized the consumers of Canada to the tune of around $136 million. The same thing applies to other products of the farm.
Therefore a suggestion like that does not embarrass me at all. The hon. member talks about income tax. Let me remind him that the majority of the income taxes paid by farmers is paid by farmers in the west and not by farmers in the east. I suggest it would be a good idea if the Minister of National Revenue sent as many inspectors into that part of the country as to the west; then they would collect a little more money. The only reason they collect more income tax in the west is the fact that wheat is one of the main products and it is very easy for the Department of National Revenue to check on the farmers' incomes. In the east, where the farmers peddle their products in the local markets, there is no check at all, and I think many of them get away with murder.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Is that the only reason your farmers are honest?


An hon. Member:: Sell your gas.


Victor Quelch: I am sorry the minister went away, though the parliamentary assistant is here, because I do not like to say anything specifically referring to the minister when he is out. I was just going to say that I have been puzzled at times' during this debate over the fact that the minister seems to display

Grain
quite an ignorance of the true situation in regard to agriculture. However, that is perhaps only natural, because he is not a farmer and the problems are quite complex.
I believe he thinks he is stating the facts when he makes certain statements, but when I spoke the last time he made two or three interjections, and I was somewhat amazed at the questions he asked. I should have thought he must have known at that time that his questions did not really make sense, as for instance when he suggested that no large farmer had trouble getting money from the banks.
I have just explained why so many farmers are having trouble. It is because many of the big farmers have borrowed to expand their capital in the form of machinery, and have borrowed to expand their land holdings. They are large farmers, but they are heavily in debt. They may have 20,000 or 30,000 bushels of wheat on the farm but cannot sell it. If they could sell their wheat they would be able to meet their obligations. They cannot borrow money from the bank because they have gone as far as they can go in that direction. They are not interested in legislation like this. They are interested in being able to sell their wheat.
Right through this debate the minister has shown that he does not understand the situation as between the smaller farmer and the larger farmer. He jumped to the conclusion that the large farmer must be considerably better off than a small farmer. I agree that the size of the farm is a great factor, but there is another factor even greater, and that is the quality of the soil. You could have a three-section unit of marginal land which would not be nearly as good as a one-section unit in, for instance, gumbo land.
The constituency I represent is remarkable for the different types of soil it contains. On the western side of the constituency we have the gumbo plain, probably the best wheat country in Canada. I resided on the edge of that area. This legislation will be of little if any value to the farmers in that area. Whatever money they want to borrow, they can borrow from the banks. But they do not want to borrow today because, as I say, they do not like paying interest. They are already paying enough interest on their land holdings, machinery and so on. As they have the wheat, they feel they should be able to sell it and so pay off their obligations. If they want to borrow from the banks, they can borrow without this legislation.
Then we have the northern area of my constituency, around Stettler on the C.P.R. line. That is not such good land, but there is a greater rainfall there. I think the same
fMr. Quelch.l
thing applies to that area as to the western part of the constituency; it is a mixed farming area. Then you have an entirely different situation on the eastern side of the constituency. From Hanna east is what used to be known as the drought area of Alberta. This is where irrigation would be put in if the Red Deer diversion scheme were proceeded with. The government has been talking about that and making surveys for it since 1922, but the only time there is any real activity is just before an election, and I suppose next June there will be a great deal of activity there again. The farmers are still hopeful, however, that some day that program will be put into effect.
That is a dry area. Back in the years around 1919 or 1920 most of that land was sold for tax arrears. Most of the farmers got hopelessly into debt and the land was put up for sale. The mortgage companies did not consider the land worth sufficient to pay the reserve bid and so the land reverted to the provincial government. The provincial government realized that no farmer could make a living in that area on a half-section unit. Most of the land was taken back, and then any farmer who had a quarter or half section in that area was allowed to lease from the government about 2,000 acres. The units in that area are about 2,000 acres per farmer. They had to own one-quarter sections.
Just because a farm is large it does not mean that the farmer is in a position where he can borrow all the money he needs. As a matter of fact, the farmers in that area-all those big farmers-until recently, at least, were never able to go to the banks and borrow much money. Indeed, that area was blacklisted, and the farm loan board refused to make loans in that area. I have received many protests and have taken them up with the farm loan board, which has insisted it has not blacklisted the area but has judged each application on its merits and found the situation does not warrant making loans in that area.
However, in the past four or five years we have had heavy rains in that area and, generally speaking, there have been good crops for the past five years and these farmers are getting on their feet. Four or five years ago the average yield in that area was only six or seven bushels to the acre. During the last few years it has been about 16 or 17 bushels to the acre.
I want to relate that situation to this bill, because there you have large farms with fair yields of wheat, about 16 bushels to the acre. Take a farmer in that area getting a loan under this proposal. I do not say he would

not get a loan. He might get a loan of $1,500. What is the situation in which he finds himself if he takes a loan under this bill? We shall say, for example, that a two-bushel quota is put into effect and that the farmer has six or seven hundred acres of cultivated land, which would be a very moderate holding in that area. Many of the units are 2,000 acres, because it is considered necessary for a farmer to have that amount of land to make a living. At one time a farmer there was allowed to carry only three head of livestock on a quarter section, but that has been changed a little owing to the rains in recent years.
When a two-bushel quota is put into effect, that farmer takes a load of wheat to the elevator agent and asks what grade he can get. Probably there will be a dispute between him and the elevator agent, and the agent may say it is 4 while the farmer will say, "It is a good 3, and I am not going to take 4." What can the farmer do in a case like that, unless he is prepared to sell it for what the agent says he will pay? He will have to put that wheat into storage and a sample will be sent to the head office. Then the grade is sent back, and he is paid on that grade.
However, under this act he is not allowed to put that wheat into storage. Therefore, any farmer who has borrowed under this legislation, and who in order to get a fair grade tries to put his wheat into storage until such time as a grade has been arranged, puts the elevator agent in the position where he can be prosecuted if he allows the grain to be stored.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say, if I may, that the department has taken cognizance of that fact and an amendment will be offered if and when we get the bill into committee which will make it possible to put grain in storage. In the 1951 legislation there was a reason for that provision but in this legislation there is no similar reason and that restriction will be removed.


Victor Quelch: I am certainly glad to hear that, because that was one of my very strong objections to the bill. Then there is another objection. The minister will probably say this one is not quite so well founded. He will probably say the provision is necessary, but I can tell the minister that it is going to be bitterly resented.
Take two farmers who are living side by side. I am speaking from experience in this case; it is something that has happened many times. Two farmers are living side by side and one is hailed out 100 per cent. What happens in a case like that? If his neighbour
Grain
has a good crop the practice in the past has often been for the farmer with the good crop to lend his neighbour who has been hailed out maybe a thousand bushels of oats, barley or wheat. I have done it myself, and I have had grain lent me.
The farmer who gets the grain and has no money can deliver the wheat on his own quota and sell it. Sometimes he makes a dicker with the farmer from whom he got the wheat and pays some of the money to him. If any farmer does that under this legislation he can be fined $500 and, if the hon. member for Prince Albert is right, he can land in jail. If the farmers find that out they will be hopping mad, because it is very often the only way they can help themselves.
I think the minister will agree that is a fine co-operative spirit, and nothing in this legislation should allow that fine co-operative spirit to be destroyed. The farmers help themselves.
I do not believe that anywhere in Canada you will find a better co-operative spirit that you will find amongst the farmers of the west. If one gets in bad shape his neighbours help him out if they can.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask a
question? What would happen if that cooperative spirit extended to the transferring of all the grain from one farmer to the other?


Victor Quelch: Well, the minister sees one ship and he talks about a fleet. I am not suggesting that at all. Remember that the farmer can only get a loan of up to 50 per cent of the amount of wheat. The minister knows that in many cases the farmer will have far more than the amount of wheat needed to cover the loan. Therefore it should be possible in a case like that for the farmer to transfer some of that wheat to a neighbour if he so desires.
Under the legislation he pledges so much of that wheat. He tells the bank manager how much wheat he can deliver and the price he expects to get, but so long as he states a certain amount of wheat and a price and the bank manager agrees to that, then any wheat the farmer holds in excess of that amount should be his property to do what he likes with. If he wants to lend a thousand bushels to his neighbour who has been hailed out there should not be any danger of that man being prosecuted or thrown in jail. At least the legislation should be wide enough to allow a certain amount of discretion so that the farmer can discuss the matter with the bank or with the wheat board and get permission for that transaction.
The minister knows that the situation today is difficult. We will not talk about who is to blame for the situation, but we are faced with

Grain
a situation today and it is a difficult one. Therefore anything the farmers can do among themselves to try to relieve the situation, to try to relieve the pressure, is something the minister should be glad to help them to do. I hope the minister can say the same thing about that provision as he said about the other one, that an amendment will be moved to modify its operation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I say that if my hon. friend will draw up the amendment the government will consider it.


Victor Quelch: I hope I have said enough to the minister to make him realize there are certain features of the bill that the farm organizations should be allowed to discuss. Therefore I again ask the minister to reconsider his decision not to allow the bill to go before the standing committee on agriculture. Let the bill go before the committee and call representatives from the farm organization. If they are able to make worth-while suggestions to the government and the government is prepared to accept those recommendations we may then have a bill that we will be able to support in the house. If the minister will pledge himself to send the bill to the agriculture committee after second reading, even now we will support second reading and vote against the amendment; but if the minister is going to stand by the statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) that the bill will not be sent to that committee, then we will be obliged to support the motion of the C.C.F. for the six months' hoist.


Mr. W. A. Tucker (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to detain the house very long. The only reason I am speaking is that something was said last night by the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Ellis) to which I wish to refer. As found at page 1268 of Hansard he said:
While we are on this point, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. I just wonder what organizations at the Saskatoon conference had wanted to take bank loans. I wonder whether the hon. member for Rosthern could inform hon. members of the house what organizations at that conference asked for bank loans. Was it the wheat pool? Was it the Saskatchewan farmers' union? The hon. member for Rosthern is not able to name one Saskatchewan farm organization which at that conference came out for bank loans.
I had said that organizations at that conference had suggested bank loans and that legislation like that of 1951 was the solution to this temporary difficulty. Apparently that was not believed by some hon. members opposite. Therefore I obtained the record of that meeting as kept by the secretary, and I looked over the record. I have thereby refreshed my memory on the matter, and I am going to give

the stand taken by some of the people representing organizations at that conference. Anyone who wants to check this can see the record in the hands of Mrs. Norman because as the conference went on she kept notes of what everybody said.
When this matter came before the conference on the afternoon of September 27, 1955, one of the first speakers was Mr. Wesson, who first of all dealt with the statistical position and gave various statistics. This is Mrs. Norman's record of what he said:
The shortage of cash was the problem. Wheat pool opposes advances of wheat board through elevators. Propose we ask federal government through parliament pass the same act as in 1951, advance through banks and guaranteed by federal government. Bank advance loans on the basis of the security of grain stored on the farm. Don't believe it should be interest free but some arrangement made by government through Bank of Canada making available to farmers at between 2J per cent and 3 per cent. This he felt would help to solve the immediate situation of farmers to help pay for urgent pressing financial bills.
At that point the conference recessed. I wonder what those members have to say who sneered and jeered and said that nobody had suggested bank loans, that everybody there was in favour of advance payments by the wheat board. Then I come to Mr. Schulz, the chairman of the interprovincial farmers' union and his attitude to the suggestion of Mr. Wesson, the president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool. This again is Mrs. Norman's record:
Mr. Schulz continued debate on Mr. Wesson's proposal. He stated he was in favour of Mr. Wesson's proposal but suggested that the government should absorb all interest.
Mr. Forsythe of Alberta chamber of commerce observed that about 20 per cent of Alberta machinery was sold through finance companies. His organization was proposing farm loans of long term and interest no higher than bank loans to their provincial government.
Mr. Barber of the Winnipeg labour council stated his council had passed a motion requesting that farm loans be advanced to farmers interest free.
Then my friends across the way stated that there was never any suggestion of farm loans.
Mr. Forrest of retail merchants association expressed the opinion that this was a recurring problem in recent years. Suggested that advances of half the value of the grain be advanced so that banks are repaid on a bushel basis as deliveries are made rather than in a lump sum. Felt there should be a concession in the interest rate as well.
Mr. Hansen submitted a table outlining the average purchasing power of wheat over a series of years. He felt also that other alternatives should be explored. Any plan considered should also be considered in light of practicability in future years.
Mr. Appleby-

Grain
He used to be president of the farmers' union.
__felt there must be supervision on when bank
loans are repayable which he felt should not be left to the discretion of the banker.
Mr. McFarlane of United Grain Growers outlined a plan of cash advances designed to be handled on the quota books through banks up to 50 per cent of grain he has on hand at a rate of 4 per cent interest.
The Manitoba government through their minister of agriculture indicated as follows:
Both plans suggested by Mr. Wesson and Mr. McFarlane would meet their approval . . . Interest rates he believed should be lower than in past.
Mr. Douglas of the Saskatchewan teachers association felt that bank loans might prove unpopular. He suggested advances to farmers through elevators. He thought there should be an interest rate of 3 or 4 per cent to discourage borrowing by farmers who weren't really in need.
There is there a reference to loans repayable with interest. Yet we were told that loans were never suggested.


Irvin William Studer: Socialist political acrobats.


Walter Adam Tucker: Then here is something which was said by Mr. Nollet, the provincial minister of agriculture in Saskatchewan:
If the Bank of Canada was able to loan money to banks to loan to farmers, it should also be able to loan money to the Canadian wheat board for loan to farmers.
We were told by the C.C.F. there never was any thought at the conference of loaning money to farmers.


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


Alfred Claude Ellis: Do it through the wheat board, not through the banks?


Walter Adam Tucker: I suggest that I be permitted to make my statement. Then the hon. member can ask questions afterwards if he wishes to do so. I continue:
Mr. Brownlee . . . expressed the opinion that other problems in grain marketing must be considered. Looking upon the problem as an emergency, supplemental to bank loans municipalities must be engaged on a basis whereby they can advance money to farmers on the backing of government loans. This would spare the small farmer from being left without recourse if bank loans were refused and would be convenient to those farmers who live great distances from banks.
In other words, he said that it is quite all right to pass the legislation but this further provision should be passed supplemental to it.
Later:
. . . Mr. Brownlee stressed the need that advances must be placed on a business basis and not as a charity.
Later:
Mr. Hogg suggested that the resolutions committee consider the following resolution:
"Move we request advances on grain up to 50 per cent stored on farms and loaned through banks guaranteed by the dominion government at low rates of interest."
This was a resolution put before that conference.


Alfred Claude Ellis: It was not passed.


Walter Adam Tucker: A resolutions committee was set up to bring in a resolution. They brought in a resolution. There was an amendment moved to it. According to the notes the motion was as follows:
(In favour of principle of advances being made and made immediately)
Wesson-50 per cent of wheat.
Appleby-75 per cent of initial payment.
That is, Mr. Wesson thought it should be 50 per cent of the wheat and Mr. Appleby thought it should be 75 per cent of the initial payment. Mr. Brownlee thought it should be a flat maximum rather than "up to half".


Mr. Knighi:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask what was the motion, just for information.


Walter Adam Tucker: I will give it to you in a minute. Then on the question of the dominion-provincial conference:
That this be presented to three prairie governments at once and they take it to Ottawa.
The question was whether it would be through the banks, through the wheat board or have the government set up a fund and administering it through a body, perhaps the municipalities. That is from Mr. Brownlee's remarks. An amendment to the amendment was moved by Mr. Schulz, seconded by Mr. Waldbauer:
Advance payments without interest when this is an emergency.
The amendment was that they delete:
-at a normal rate of interest not to exceed 3 per cent-
This was to the resolution as brought in by the resolutions committee. That rather sounds as though they were talking about loans. As this resolution committee brought in the recommendation for the resolution it contained these words:
At a normal rate of interest not to exceed 3 per cent.
The amendment was moved that these words be struck out and the amendment to the amendment was that the words "interest free" be substituted. That amendment to the amendment was defeated, that it was to be interest free. Then the amendment was carried that they strike out the reference to interest. Then the resolution which was brought in and has been cited in the house was passed. I just wanted to lay that before

Grain
the house so the house can judge who was telling the truth about that Saskatoon conference.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I wonder whether the hon. member for Rosthern, before he takes his seat, would answer the question I was going to ask and which he did not allow me to ask when he was speaking. The question I wanted to ask is this. Is what he has referred to a stenographic record of what went on at that conference or is it signed by the chairman of the conference?


Walter Adam Tucker: At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I said that I had a vivid recollection of what took place at that conference.


An hon. Member:: So have I.


Walter Adam Tucker: That resolution was questioned; some hon. members here said they were there and that they knew what took place, that there was no question of loans, nobody had said anything about loans and so on. I therefore asked the secretary appointed by that conference, and who I saw was making notes of what was said, if she would make those notes available to me. What I have given to the house are excerpts from those notes which she made as people spoke.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, it had not been my intention to speak on this occasion, but the two speeches that have been made from the opposite corner of the house

I refer to the one we have just heard and the previous one by the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Cannon)-make it necessary for me to say a few words. First of all, referring to the document from which the hon. member for Rosthern has just quoted, may I say that it is quite obvious that what he is quoting from is a set of notes made by one person at the conference. It is not a stenographic record. I asked him whether it was signed by the chairman of the conference. He did not answer that question, so I assume it was not signed by the chairman. We can therefore accept it only as being the opinion of the person who made those notes as to what transpired there.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I suggest that the hon. member certainly cannot rest his case on a set of notes drawn up by someone who is expressing from memory what transpired at this conference.


Walter Adam Tucker: Just to correct my hon. friend, may I say this. This person whose notes I cited was duly elected secretary of that conference and made the notes at the time of the conference.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am not disputing for a moment that the person referred to was elected as secretary for that conference. I am pointing out, however, that this is not a stenographic record of what took place. My friend the hon. member for Rosthern is in the legal profession, and he knows that if he attempted to present evidence which was contained in a set of notes which he could not identify and which he could not prove as being correct, he would not get very far.


John Horace Dickey: He has identified them.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: He has identified the person who made the notes. But everyone knows that if he is going to use a document and assert it to be a correct record of what took place, that document should be signed by the chairman of the conference. That has not been done. It is therefore not a document which represents what went on at the conference.


John Horace Dickey: He was present.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I was present also.


Mr. Wylie:: Many others were present also.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I would accept his notes if he would read the rest of them.


Irvin William Studer: May I ask the hon. member a question? Where are the records signed by the secretary and chairman of this meeting, as stipulated by themselves for the last week?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am very glad to have that question-


John Horace Dickey: He cannot face the facts.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: -particularly from the hon. member who is so voluble. The only resolutions I placed on the record in this debate were taken directly from the records of the conventions at which those resolutions were passed. They were authentic records signed by the secretary of the organization, which is altogether different from what the hon. member for Rosthern put forward.


Walter Adam Tucker: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the resolutions which have been used in regard to that conference are signed by Mrs. Bernice Norman, secretary of the interprovincial farm union council, and were not signed by the president.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: It is quite characteristic-


Mr. Marlin:: This will stop the filibuster.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: It is quite characteristic of the hon. member for Rosthern to begin talking about something different. I was talking about the notes he used and he is trying to bring in the resolutions; that was not the

Grain
subject under discussion. The subject was these notes he used which are not signed by the chairman of the conference and are not a stenographic record of the conference; that is all I am saying. So far as the resolutions are concerned, no one is disputing the resolutions or the wording of them. I say he should rest his case, if he has one at all, on the resolutions themselves and not on what one person at the conference set down in her notes as her interpretation of what she heard.


John Horace Dickey: Pretty weak.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: If these hon. gentlemen want to chip in every few minutes with interruptions while I am speaking, I may tell them there is still plenty of time left for them to speak.
As I said at the outset, I rose to comment particularly on the contribution that the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine made to this debate. During his speech he made a couple of rather astounding statements. He asked the question, and he repeated it later when he interrupted the hon. member for Acadia, why should the farmers be paid for what they have produced and what has not yet been sold? That question in itself indicates a lack of understanding of this whole issue. I hope the hon. member is not speaking on behalf of the farmers of eastern Canada. Certainly if he is, he is doing a tremendous amount of harm to their cause.
In the first place no one in this house has asked that the grain producers generally be paid for all their production. The farmers themselves have not asked for that. They have asked for an advance of approximately half of what they expect normally to deliver, and that is a long way from what they have produced, as the figures are there to prove. The question indicates the hon. member does not understand the permit book. He does not understand the quota system. He does not understand that farmers are not asking, nor are the representatives of the farmers, that they be paid cash for all the grain they have produced, even though that is what is being done in the United States. We have heard time and again from the members on the other side that the farmers in Canada are being very well treated in comparison with the farmers in other countries. But if the government applied the same method that is being applied in the United States, then they would pay the farmer for all his production and in addition to that would pay him for storing the grain on his farm.
All the farmers are asking, and all we in this group are asking, is a long way from that. We are asking that they be given the opportunity to obtain an advance on a portion of
the quota that they are able to deliver under the present set-up. That is an entirely different thing from the interpretation the hon. member gave to it. But let us follow that a step further. If this parliament were to accept, heaven forbid, the philosophy that farmers should not be paid for what they have produced until it is sold, where does that leave our whole Agricultural Prices Support Act? Where does it leave the support price under butter and the support price under eggs? Where does it leave all these support prices which have been accepted as part and parcel of the agriculture policy? If the government, in a moment of weakness, were to give in to the advice of the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine it would mean the complete destruction of the Agricultural Prices Support Act. He is doing a distinct disservice to every dairy producer, every producer of eggs, not only in western Canada but in his own constituency. I think on reflection the hon. member would want to withdraw that statement and apologize for having made it.
He goes on to say that this bill is a privilege. He wonders why the farmers are dissatisfied with the present bill because it is a privilege. This privilege is an opportunity for the farmer to go further into debt, an opportunity to pay interest on money that is properly coming to him. I am not at liberty to refer to the clauses in the bill, but it is well known that one of the privileges in it is that if a farmer should happen to misunderstand one of the multifarious forms that have been drawn up, forms that were drawn up before this bill has passed, he can be fined $500. In addition to that penalty he would have to pay the amount of money still owing on his loan. I suppose that in default of paying his fine he could be imprisoned; that is the kind of privilege that is being offered under this bill.


Henry Alfred Hosking: We could discuss the clauses of the bill in committee.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I hear some chirping from the hon. member again, and perhaps if he would stand up and ask his question I could answer it.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I was just suggesting that we could discuss the clauses of the bill when we are in committee.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I was discussing the motion that is before the house, and if the hon. member had done the same thing when he was on his feet he would not be getting into difficulty. He made a few remarks, too. He said, "My farmers are objecting to the payment of interest on advances to grain producers". Now, there is an indication of the

Grain
kind of ideology that exists in the minds of some Liberal members. He refers to "my farmers". Is that not a return to the feudal system? He speaks of his farmers. He has become the great white father of his constituency. Out west we take a rather different attitude, regardless of party. We feel we are the representatives of the people, not the owners of the people in our constituency. Here this hon. member stands up and says "my farmers object".
If we may follow that one step further, I wonder if he is doing a service to the farmers of eastern Canada by taking that attitude or-


Henry Alfred Hosking: I am just stating what they think.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: -by proclaiming that his farmers are objecting to paying any interest that might be involved in this transaction if cash advances were being made. Let me remind him that we also represent farmers. 1 have no doubt I represent a good many more farmers than he does. The farmers in my constituency and in the prairie provinces have been helping to pay freight assistance on feed grain coming to his farmers and the farmers in other constituencies for a period of 12 years.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Are you suggesting that that be dropped?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: This has amounted to over $100 million. We are not objecting to it. We have been glad to give a helping hand.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Because you get the benefit, too.


Mr. Lesage:: It helps the western farmer, too.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I do not mind one at a time, but I think it gets confusing when we have more than that. We have never objected in this house to this freight assistance being paid because we felt it was part of the agriculture policy-


Henry Alfred Hosking: Because it helps yourself.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: -and because it is for the good of the nation as a whole. But there are those from eastern Canada who-


Jean Lesage: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Yes.


Jean Lesage: Does the hon. member think the freight subsidy on feed grain coming from the west to the east does not help the western farmer also?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: That is not the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: At no time have I or any member of this group claimed that it does not help the western farmer. If it is of any assistance in the selling of feed grain then, of course, to that extent it is of some assistance to agriculture generally. But the point is, it is a direct subsidy to those who feed that grain in eastern Canada. Yet there are hon. members from eastern Canada who rise in their places and-I have no doubt without consulting the farmers at all-they take the stand that they are their farmers and they speak for them without consulting their opinions at all. They say that their farmers are objecting to something that may be of advantage to the grain producers who are willing to pay their share of freight assistance to ship the feed grain to eastern Canada.
All we are asking is that the members from eastern Canada take a fair and reasonable stand on this question. I think if they would only stop to think they would realize that in many ways the people of western Canada have been instrumental ever since confederation in subsidizing to a very great extent the people of eastern Canada in the form of tariff duties, for example. Every day that goes by hundreds of thousands of dollars are paid out by the people of western Canada to help to protect industry in eastern Canada. If they would stop to think of that I am sure they would take a little more reasonable attitude than they are taking on this question.
However, the question that is before us is whether this bill should be read a second time. We have stated, I believe in clear and unmistakable terms, that we are not prepared to support the bill on second reading. The other opposition parties have also indicated now that they will not accept the bill on second reading. We are basing our stand not only on what is contained in the bill, bad as it is, but also on the opinions as they were expressed in convention by the major farm organizations in western Canada.
Regardless of what the hon. member for Rosthern may say, regardless of how he tries to twist around what happened at the Saskatoon conference, regardless of what other members of the Liberal party may try to say, if they were to go out to western Canada today and test public opinion on this question I am sure they would come back quite convinced that this bill is not the answer to the problem. What is more, they would come back convinced that they are making a major mistake by assuming that just because at one time or another one, two or three of the leaders of some of the farm organizations made certain statements which make it appear as though they are supporting the bank loans, they were in fact speaking for the farmers

of that organization, because subsequent events proved that that was not so.
If the government feel so stubborn about this question, if they feel so sure of their position, I for one am prepared to let them test public opinion on this issue. Let them call an election tomorrow and actually find out the feelings of western Canada on this question.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from the nature of the discussion taking place on this bill today that we are dealing with a very complex problem that has a very serious impact on the general economy of Canada, and more particularly on the whole economy of the prairies. I am taking advantage of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) to lend my support to the suggestion that this particular piece of legislation be given the six months' hoist. I do so because I have considered the matter quite seriously as it would affect my own area, and I can quite readily come to the conclusion that nothing would be lost, so far as assisting the critical cash shortage among the farm population of my particular constituency is concerned if this legislation is never passed.
The last time I contributed to the discussion I emphasized why the bill is not wanted by the farmers of my area, and why if passed it will do nothing to solve the basic problem. The hon. member for Rosthern has been recapitulating certain arguments that have been made in the house. I would like to suggest, in refutation, an up to date point of view representing a cross section of the prairie farm population, a point of view, as a matter of fact, which was expressed to the government no later than yesterday, February 16. The interprovineial farm union, council delegation appeared before the government at that time, as they have appeared before other groups in this house, and repeated in no uncertain terms, verbally as well as in their written statement, that they favour the cash advance principle rather than the legislation that we have before us today.
We have had contributions from members from other parts of the country as well as from western Canada. As I have listened to the contributions from members from eastern Canada, I have been amazed. Some of those contributions have been formal speeches; others have been interjections. I have been amazed, Mr. Speaker, at the lack of understanding of the difficulty with which the farm population, the wheat grower especially, is faced at the moment. I refer particularly to the interjection of the hon. member for the Iles-de-la-Madeleine and others
Grain
who interjected, who feel that the legislation before us is in the form of a subsidy to the grain growers on the prairies.
I endeavoured to point out the other day that at no time has the prairie farmer ever been subsidized by any part of the Canadian economy. There is the misunderstanding that the operations of the Canadian wheat board involve a form of subsidy. But, as I emphasized the other day-and 1 repeat it this afternoon because the point does not seem to have penetrated-the farmer has paid out of the returns received from the marketing operations of the wheat board for every penny that he received. He has never been subsidized by the federal treasury. And of course the bill we have before us places him in the same independent position.
The point we are making is that the principle enunciated in the bill does not begin to meet the situation in which the farmer finds himself at the moment. It would seem that not only is there failure on the part of members from other sections of Canada who have intervened in the debate to understand the nature of the problem, but it would appear that the administration itself, the ministers most concerned, also fail to appreciate fully the nature of the problem.
I am going to deal with only one phrase in the bill which tends to emphasize the point I have just made. The bill refers to the cash shortage problem as a temporary financial difficulty. One reason I have opposed the legislation is that I feel this is not a temporary situation. If it were a temporary and passing situation no doubt the piece of legislation we have before us today would suffice, but it becomes increasingly obvious with the passing of time that the farmer himself regards the bill as quite ineffective to meet the problem. Certainly the fact that the government have described the bill as meeting a temporary situation indicates that they are almost completely unaware of the real nature of the problem.
Actually there has always been a shortage of cash among the farmers of western Canada. Until 1930 the farmers there operated largely under a subsistence economy. They did not have much to do with the exchange of money in any shape or form. They were suspicious of banks and the whole monetary scheme of things. I think this fact is dramatically demonstrated in the new forms of political expression which have emerged in western Canada. All of them have had as a basic part of their ideology some emphasis on the suspicious attitude toward the existing financial system. Farmers had got themselves into a situation of debt during the thirties, and that only increased their anxiety.

Grain
More recently because of changing circumstances the farmer has been moving toward a cash economy. Whereas he had been able to get along reasonably successfully on a subsistence basis, living as far as possible from the production of his own farm, today he is dependent upon money whether he likes it or not. He must have ready cash in order to meet current operations of his farming business. This is not a new situation, it is merely something which has come to a head because of the rapidly changing circumstances since the war, particularly in the past three or four years. It seems obvious that the government has failed to appreciate the nature of this problem.
One reason the situation has become critical from the standpoint of the Canadian farmer is the changing agricultural situation in our neighbour to the south. If we fully appreciated the change in the production and marketing of wheat we would readily come to the conclusion that we are faced with more than a temporary financial situation. Statistics are available so that he who runs may read. For example, we see that today the United States is producing annually more than 1,000 million bushels of wheat, whereas before the war it produced on the average some 700 million bushels of wheat. We must appreciate the difficulty facing the Canadian wheat economy because of that changed situation.
The consumption of wheat remains pretty well static. It is a well known fact that the demand for wheat remains practically stationary regardless of the level of production. When there is an increased level of production the demand remains almost static. The total world demand for wheat has grown ?ery slightly in relation to the total increase in world population. Domestic consumption in the United States has remained fairly static; therefore they have had to turn to the export market. Ever since the Canadian west was settled the export market traditionally has been largely taken care of by the wheat producers of the Canadian prairies. During the 10-year period 1930-39 the United States producers exported 59-9 million bushels, whereas for the comparative 10-year period 1946-55 they exported 309-3 million bushels. Such an increase would tend to suggest that somebody is going to suffer in the markets of the world and unfortunately that somebody has been the western Canada wheat producer.
It is equally obvious that the United States is going to remain a sharp competitor of the prairie grain producer, so that the cash shortage referred to as a temporary financial shortage is not going to decrease within the

foreseeable future. Actually Canadian exports have decreased proportionately in the past three years. We maintained our position fairly well up until the end of the war in Korea, but since that time Canada has been occupying a declining position in the export markets of the world. That problem has been intensified by the fact that there has been no real positive action on the part of the government to improve our exports.


An hon. Member:: Time.


An hon. Member:: You made it.


Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members know, according to standing order 28 a member should address himself to the Chair. On reading the record it might appear that that expression was addressed to me, that I should make this announcement at this' time.


An hon. Member:: I withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: I am glad the hon. member does say that. That is why I interrupt hon. members who interject in the second person, whereas they should do so in the third person.



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Speaker:: There are several divorce bills. Shall I take them one by one?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes; would you call them one by one?



GEORGE FRANCIS ALFRED YULL

Mr. E. T. Applewhaite (Skeena, for Mr. Hunter) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 11, for the relief of George Francis Alfred Yuli.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, although this is the 29th day of the session, this is the first opportunity members have had to discuss the divorce bills which are before us, and I should like to say a few words on this particular case.
I would draw attention to the fact that we have only 60 minutes to discuss the 90 cases which are before us, and it would not be possible to give these bills the careful consideration Their Honours the senators did, but I have been interested in noting that several of the new senators have been working most carefully on these assignments, and on this one in particular. I notice that Senator Croll, in the first case that came before him, asked:
Q. Now at this stage you have said that three months after you were married your troubles started?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long did you know your wife before you were married?

There was a real attempt by His Honour the senator to try to find out what had gone wrong in this particular case. Another point I should like to mention is that we still find contradictions in the evidence given by these paid detectives. I would suggest to Their Honours in the other place, and to the committee that will be reviewing these cases, that careful consideration be given to the hired detectives who come here. One of these detectives reported that he and the other gentleman went to a particular place at a very unreasonable hour. One swore that the door was open without any question, and the other swore that before the door was opened the question was asked as to who was there and he replied that the clerk was there. I think it is significant that a detective giving evidence is prepared to admit-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not the Clerk of the house.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: No, not the Clerk of the house. It was the clerk of the hotel in question. It seems strange that a detective who admits having given false evidence is able to give evidence in connection with a case of this sort and it is accepted. Senator Croll, naturally, considering it was his first case, was not quite familiar with the procedure. At page 14 of the evidence he is recorded as saying, after hearing the detective:
All we have at the moment is that two people were found in the room.
Her Honour Senator Hodges came to his assistance by pointing out:
We usually have a description of the room.
That was placed on the record. Senator Croll inquired:
Q. What day of the week was the 17th March?
A. A Thursday, sir.
I do not know what that had to do with it, but that was the evidence. I do not think we should call for a recorded vote on this particular bill, but I did want to make those few comments.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



JOYCE ETHEL JAQUES HORGAN

Mr. W. G. Weir (Porlage-Neepawa. for Mr. Hunter) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 12, for the relief of Joyce Ethel Jaques Horgan.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: 
Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



JEAN THOMSON DUQUETTE

William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No. 13, for the relief of Jean Thomson Duquette.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a few words with respect to this bill. I draw attention in particular to the fact that the chairman of the committee, Senator Roebuck, found it necessary to express dissatisfaction on one or two points. In particular he expressed dissatisfaction with the investigator in this case, who is one whose name appears many times in these records of divorce proceedings. On page 10 of the record of this particular case the chairman, Senator Roebuck, said this:
It is not fair to a respondent. We have a lot of these cases like this today, and it is getting worse. There was a time when the pleadings did give some particulars, but now they are coming here with just practically none.
A little later in the handling of the same case, Senator Roebuck as chairman of the committee said this, as recorded on page 12:
As to whether the evidence is sufficient we will discuss that afterwards. I am not satisfied. This is a professional investigator-
His name is Ernest Gordon Etheridge.
-and he did not go as far as he could have gone in giving us the best evidence that was available on that occasion. I say this now because we have heard these cases, and this investigator comes before us frequently. He ought to have gone on and found out from that man

got admissions from him as to who this woman was, and in his presence should have asked the woman who she was.
If my memory serves me correctly, the senators have had occasion to reprimand this same investigator on previous occasions, and here he is again coming before Their Honours with pleadings and with evidence which Senator Roebuck says are not satisfactory. It seems to me that Their Honours deserve credit for trying to get these investigators to take more care with respect to these matters; but it also seems to me, after reading a case like like this, that we in this house simply are not competent to decide whether or not this particular divorce should be granted.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.

Private Bills-Divorce



ROSA STRAUB GEHLSEN

William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No. 14, for the relief of Rosa Straub Gehlsen.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I quite appreciate the points being made by my hon. friends. We have on former occasions, however, asked them to grant us their indulgence by indicating those bills on which they do not intend to speak. If they are prepared to do that' now, we can put them through in one motion and then call the ones on which they intend to speak. I ask that only in the interests of the normal dispatch of business in the house, and not by way of criticism of the action being taken.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I know some of the bills on which I intend to speak, but I do not know what bills my colleagues intend to speak on. I think we might go on and call them in the present way, one at a time.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



CECILE BEZEAU BARNABE

William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No.
15,	for the relief of Cecile Bezeau Barnabe.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



DORA GINA COSTELLO DASH

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. G. Weir (Portage-Neepawa, for Mr. Hunter) moyed the second reading of Bill No.
16,	for the relief of Dora Gina Costello Dash.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a brief word about this case. First of all, since we so often draw attention to the cases in which paid investigators or professional detectives are used as witnesses, I should be fair and point out that in 'this case no detectives or investigators were employed. The witnesses who appeared, on behalf of the plaintiff seemed to be people who had never appeared before in a case such as this. But after reading this case I am also impressed with the tragedy of the

situation. I note in particular that there are two children, one 8 years of age and one 3 years of age.
Having read this case, it does seem to me it is the type of case where some other recourse might have been had, where counselling of some kind might have been effective. Because of that I feel unhappy about parliament granting this divorce in the very easy manner in which it seems to go through, particularly through this House of Commons.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



FERNAND DESMARAIS

William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No.
17,	for the relief of Fernand Desmarais.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



ELSIE ABBOTT MARSDEN

William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No.
18,	for the relief of Elsie Abbott Marsden.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



FREDA ETHELWINNE HENDERS JACOBSON

William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No.
19,	for the relief of Freda Ethelwinne Henders Jacobson.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



HAZEL LORETTA NOSEWORTHY JOHNSTON

William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No. 20, for the relief of Hazel Loretta Noseworthy Johnston.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, this is a rather unusual bill. In the

Private Bills'-Divorce
petition it is stated that the petitioner resides in the town of North Sydney, but when the case came before the subcommittee on January 17 it appeared that the petitioner resided in Montreal. The evidence does not make it quite clear how it is that in the one place it is stated that she resides in North Sydney and in the other place in Montreal. My learned friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre informs me that while this couple, when they were married and after they were married, resided in North Sydney, because the husband deserted and returned to Montreal his wife automatically became domiciled in the province of Quebec. This unfortunate woman has a tragic story as told in the Senate, and is put to the expense of coming to Ottawa to present her case.
There is another unusual feature in this case. The co-respondent appeared and gave evidence. It is obvious that this family has been broken and of course the customary questions were asked and answered with respect to whether or not there was any collusion. I think this is the first case of this particular type which I happen to have noticed this year, where the co-respondent has come before the committee, admitted the charges and a divorce has been granted.
When this case comes before the house committee I think there should be some discussion with respect to the information given in the petition as to the residence of this woman and the information given in the minutes of the subcommittee of January 14 setting forth that the woman is domiciled in the province of Quebec. The question should be cleared up whether a woman who has always lived in Nova Scotia and is deserted by her husband who goes to the province of Quebec should be put to the expense of coming to Ottawa to seek a divorce.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



VERONICA IRIS COLLIER HORVATH

William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No. 21, for the relief of Veronica Iris Collier Horvath.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion agreed to?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



MARIA SOMANO BOVE

William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No. 22, for the relief of Maria Romano Bove.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion agreed to?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



NORA MARIAN TILLEY MCBAIN

William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No. 23, for the relief of Nora Marian Tilley McBain.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion agreed to?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



MARGUERITE TREMBLAY NATHAN

William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No. 24, for the relief of Marguerite Tremblay Nathan.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion agreed to?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



DOLORES MARION ZOLOV KARPMAN

William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No. 25, for the relief of Dolores Marion Zolov Karpman.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion agreed to?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



ROSALIE ROSETTI ACASON

William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No. 26, for the relief of Rosalie Rosetti Acason.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this is another bill where the principal witness is the co-respondent. Once again, as with some of the others to which I have referred today, having read the bill it seems to me we simply do not know whether or not this is a divorce that should be granted. The more I read bills of this kind, and there are a lot more like them before us today, the more I feel we
1326	HOUSE OF
Private Bills-Divorce simply are not competent'as a group of members, with all the other business we have, to be dealing with cases of this kind.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to hear you say "order", Mr. Speaker. I think the whole business is out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I fully agree with the hon. member. As a matter of fact, I have been looking up some of the authorities and want to submit some observations to him. The hon. member concluded his remarks a moment ago by saying that he does not think members are competent to deal with these matters. No doubt he was referring to a bill he introduced the other day which will eventually come before the house, namely his proposal to refer this whole business, as he calls it, to the exchequer court. That measure will come up and he will have ample opportunity at that time to put forward the suggestion contained in that bill. Therefore the suggestion should not be anticipated in the discussion of this bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With respect, I did not suggest it. You may be reading my mind, but I did not say it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member almost said it without referring to the bill. I have heard him make remarks before with respect to this whole business and he will perhaps permit me to keep in my mind some of the words he does say in the house from time to time.
I want to refer particularly to the procedure that has been followed since five o'clock. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) have spoken to the second reading of some of the divorce bills that have been before the house today. In each of the cases on which they have spoken they have referred to the evidence taken in the Senate. I think they have both referred to members of the Senate who are members of that committee and who acted on it. I have in mind, in looking over these proceedings, that if we are to refer to the actions taken or the opinions expressed by the members of the other house, perhaps we are alluding to proceedings in the other house. That is something which is not allowed in this house. I would refer hon. members to citation 243:
Allusion to debates in the other house are out of order, and there are few orders more important than this for the conduct of debate and for observing courtesy between houses.
There was nothing derogatory in what was said about the members of the other place. As a matter of fact I think it was complimentary. 

Nevertheless I do not believe that in this house we should summarize the work that is being done by one or two individual senators in whatever work they are called upon to perform in the other house. Today, in view of the fact that the comments have not been derogatory, one might say, "Let it go". But tomorrow they may be derogatory and then I would be obliged to stop hon. members from referring to our colleagues in the Senate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will Your Honour permit a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not rise to argue the point just now but would Your Honour regard what goes on in a committee or in a subcommittee of the other place as coming under the same ban that is stipulated in citation 243 which refers to the other house? The documents from which we have been reading are reports of proceedings in committees and subcommittees. They are not reports of what went on in the other house itself.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member could also have asked whether it relates to debates. The citation to which I have referred, namely citation 243, refers to debates whereas the evidence that has been commented upon constitutes the proceedings in a working committee of the Senate.
Citation 243, although it refers only to "allusion to debates" is only one citation that points out the courtesy which must exist between the two houses. Generally speaking, I think there can be found other citations which are to the effect that in our own house in debate we should refrain from referring to individual members of the other place and what they have done, in whatever capacity, as far as their parliamentary work is concerned.
But there is this further point that I should like to submit to hon. members, namely the very nature of a private bill. When the second reading of a private bill has been given, its principle is to be accepted only conditionally. It is accepted conditionally upon the facts being proven before our own committee to which the bill must be referred. By our own standing orders we provide that, with respect to any private bill, the principle of it is accepted upon condition that it will be referred-we have no choice in the matter-to a standing committee where the facts relating to that bill will be proven. If the preamble is not proven, the bill does not go any further. But if it is proven, it comes back here.
I think the discussion of the evidence taken in the Senate is a premature discussion.

Private Bills-Divorce
Furthermore, to expect that hon. members, in debating the second reading of these bills, will make up their minds only upon the evidence taken in the Senate I think is prejudging what their attitude may be after they have looked at that bill in their own committee.
We know what the practice is and what it has been, but I am now talking about the theory of the whole thing. I am not assuming that our committee, let us say, will not meet -to take an absurd case-to consider these things or, even if they did meet, that they would not pass on them quickly because, let us say, they have confidence in what has taken place on the Senate side. At this moment this bill is to be referred to one of our standing committees. If hon. members wish to do so, they can call all the witnesses -including detectives when there were any- take their own evidence and make up their own minds.
Then in committee of the whole they can review the proceedings that have been reported from our standing committee. But at this moment, in discussing the principle of this bill on second reading, to summarize for the benefit of hon. members who perhaps, like myself, have not read the evidence, while at times it is extremely interesting and entertaining, I think it is something that does not meet the conditions that our rules prescribe.
I am not making a ruling today. I just want to submit these points for the consideration of hon. members. There is no question that, according to citations 769, 770 and 771, on second reading the principle of a private bill is accepted only conditionally. I read now from citation 769:
. . . but the expediency of a private bill, being mainly founded upon allegations of fact, which have not yet been proved, the house, in agreeing to its second reading, affirms the principle of the bill, conditionally, and subject to the proof of such allegations before the committee.
The allegations of fact contained in this bill, as far as our own house is concerned, have not been proven. The allegations of fact in the petition have been proved to the satisfaction of the Senate before their committee, and they passed the bill and sent it to this house. But as far as we are concerned, we look at the second reading of this bill only conditionally, notwithstanding what the evidence might have been in the Senate. As far as we are concerned, the facts in connection with this bill have not been proven as far as our own committee is concerned.
Otherwise what would be the reason for sending these bills to our standing committee? You might as well have them dealt with
immediately-I am speaking of the bills to which hon. members have referred tonight- if they opposed them only on the basis of the Senate evidence but did not seek to do anything further in order to defeat them, such as provoking a division or anything like that. What is the purpose of sending them to our own standing committee? Why should they not go from here directly to the committee of the whole and be passed upon immediately? I consider that we are perhaps not adhering to procedure as strictly as we should in considering these private bills.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I say a word, Mr. Speaker, because I agree with Your Honour that perhaps the procedure we follow might be considered carefully. As a matter of fact, when I was thinking of what I would say if Your Honour gave me the floor for a moment, I was going to start off by agreeing with what you had said about second reading of a private bill being different from second reading of a public bill. In support of my agreement with Your Honour I intended to read the very sentence or two that you have just read from citation 769 of Beauchesne's third edition. Perhaps I might read the same sentence or two again:
A public bill being founded on reasons of state policy, the house, in agreeing to its second reading, accepts and affirms those reasons; but the expediency of a private bill, being mainly founded upon allegations of fact, which have not yet been proved, the house, in agreeing to its second reading, affirms the principle of the bill, conditionally, and subject to the proof of such allegations before the committee.
However, Mr. Speaker, as I think you will readily realize, it was my intention not to stop there, as did Your Honour. I intended to go on and read the next sentence or two, which are as follows:
Where, irrespective of such facts, the principle is objectionable, the house will not consent to the second reading; but otherwise, the expediency of the measure is usually left for the consideration of the committee.
This is the first occasion on which the bill is before the house otherwise than pro forma or in connection with the standing orders; and if the bill be opposed, upon its principle, it is the proper time for attempting its defeat.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I contend that if I, as one of the few members who may happen to have read some of these cases, feel that the principle of a particular bill, the principle of granting a particular divorce as between Mr. and Mrs. A., is objectionable and should not be agreed to, I am within my rights and within the rules of the house in speaking to that bill at second reading. Certainly I would be within my rights in attempting its defeat if I felt that such a bill should not be allowed to pass.	:

Private Bills-Divorce
I hope I was not mistaken if I detected in what Your Honour was saying-Your Honour was reading my mind so perhaps I can read Your Honour's-that Your Honour was almost challenging us to divide the house on some of these bills. Well, in the past we have tried and we have found, to our surprise, cases which we thought should be defeated, and knowing the views of many members in this house on divorce we thought would be defeated, which nevertheless were carried. Whether or not we seek to divide the house I suppose depends upon whether we think, having in mind the circumstances of a particular bill, we can win the majority of the members to our view that a particular bill should be defeated.
Nevertheless, because there are some divorces we think should not be granted, we believe we have the right to draw attention to the ones which in our view are slightly objectionable as we go along so that when we get to ones that are really objectionable we will be in a position to give the house an opportunity to divide on them.
As I say, I agree with Your Honour's contention that these bills are different from public bills. But there is a difference within the difference. As I have pointed out by referring to citation 769, where we think there are objections to a particular divorce, it seems to me that we have the right to discuss it on second reading. Nevertheless, I agree that the whole procedure might be reviewed. We would be glad to discuss it privately with Your Honour or in a committee. Indeed, as Your Honour knows, I would be glad to find some way whereby parliament might get rid of the whole business.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry if the hon. member detected in anything I have said a view that he could not discuss this bill on second reading. Of course if he feels the principle is objectionable, he will discuss it, and he should discuss it. Under the rules he will be quite in order. But in discussing the principle of this bill I consider that he does not necessarily have to refer to the evidence which has been taken on the Senate side. That is my point.
Suppose the bill were introduced in this house. When second reading was being considered in the Senate they would have no evidence whatever. They accept the principle conditional upon their committee proving the allegations of fact. We are in the same position here. I think if you take for granted that our objection to the bill should be based on the evidence taken in the other place, you do not attach very much importance to the ability of our own committee to prove the facts themselves.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I point out that in the case of a private bill coming before this house initially, other than a divorce bill, the same general rules apply. We expect the sponsor of such a bill to make an initial statement as to what is involved in that bill. I would be satisfied with the same practice in respect of these bills. If instead of our being given the evidence as a means of finding out something about them, the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Hunter) or the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir) who is sponsoring some of these bills on his behalf, would speak on second reading and tell us why he thinks we should submit this bill to the committee, as is done in the case of private bills, then I would say that would obviate the necessity of our looking at the evidence furnished to us.
I would be interested in what Your Honour has in mind when you say that a reference to the evidence is not necessarily desirable on second reading. I take it there is no question as to our right to refer to it if we wish. My point is that we are accepting this evidence as something that is given to us in lieu of a statement in support of the bill being made by the mover of second reading.


Tom Goode: I wonder if I might make a comment on this. I would support what you have said, Mr. Speaker. I just point out to you that if the evidence is going to be allowed on second reading, and if we consider every bill that has been offered to the house at this time, it would take every hon. member 26J hours to read the evidence. He must be in the same position as my hon. friend to be able to debate a particular bill, and I do not think any hon. member, on this side of the house at least, has 26J hours to spend reading evidence on divorce bills.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to draw to your attention the fact that during the last parliament when a divorce bill was brought before this house, a member on the government side objected to it being proceeded with because members had not received a copy of the evidence. Mr. Speaker upheld that objection at that time because members had not received a copy of the evidence and were therefore not in a position to proceed.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member have the precise date of that incident?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No, I have not, but I know I am speaking correctly.


Mr. Speaker:: I recall one, and in discussing this point with my predecessor he had doubts as to whether or not hon. members would

have the right to hold up a bill which comes up for second reading only on the ground that the evidence had not been received from the Senate. I think in this case one wants to accommodate all hon. members. I do not think I would, myself, care to have to render a judgment on that point, although I think if I were pressed I would do so. The Clerk informs me that the evidence is always received with the bill, so there is one copy of the evidence available. Copies are not always printed and distributed when the bill comes up for second reading.
In these instances today, all the evidence has been printed and distributed. When a bill is called, it is printed. According to our standing order all bills must be printed before second reading. They have been printed and they meet with our requirements; therefore I can put the question whenever they are called. Theoretically I do not believe hon. members may object on the ground that the evidence has not been printed and distributed. The evidence is not part of the bill.
As I say, I raised the point only as a matter of interest and perhaps as a diversion from the rather monotonous task I was performing of proposing one bill after another. Having done so, hon. members may consider what I have said. It is not a ruling, but I thought I would make these remarks in order to give hon. members an opportunity to think them over. Perhaps on some other occasion I may have to rule, but I want to go further into this myself.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am not clear as to whether or not you consider it is permissible to refer to the evidence in connection with these cases. May I say that last year there were four or five cases before us which this house refused to accept on the evidence as it came from the other place; we reversed the decision. If we had not been able to refer to this evidence I am sure we would not have managed to win a favourable vote in the house. We have no other information on which to reach a judgment as to whether second reading should be given or refused, except on the basis of the material which is supplied to all hon. members reviewing the work of the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to make a ruling on this point; I have doubts. If the hon. member wishes to continue quoting from the evidence I will not stop him on this occasion.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: May I ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre a question? I was about to ask him whether he would 67509-85
Private Bills-Divorce
permit me to do so before Your Honour began your observations. Has he, or any other member of his party, including the hon. member for Mackenzie, any other bills of this kind in which either of these hon. members has a particular interest?


Mr. Casileden:: Why?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will that not be found out as we proceed?


Claude Sartoris Richardson: I am only asking the question.


George Hugh Castleden: You have the answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion agreed to?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



EDMUND JOSEPH COCHRANE

William Gilbert Weir: the	second	reading	of
Bill No. 27, for the relief of Edmund Joseph Cochrane.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



EDNA HANNAH KEENE NEWBERG

William Gilbert Weir: the	second	reading	of
Bill No. 28, for the relief of Edna Hannah Keene Newberg.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



CHARLOTTE JEAN MCANDREW BOYD THOMPSON

William Gilbert Weir: the	second	reading	of
Bill No. 29, for the relief of Charlotte Jean McAndrew Boyd Thompson.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



WILMA JUNE KEAST NOEL

William Gilbert Weir: the	second	reading	of
Bill No. 30, for the relief of Wilma June Keast Noel.
1330	HOUSE OF
Private Bills-Divorce Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



PATRICIA O'NEILL PRIMIANI

William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No. 31, for the relief of Patricia O'Neill Primiani.	.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



EVELYN NELLIE KEEMER MEIN

William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No. 32, for the relief of Evelyn Nellie Keemer Mein.


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


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: At this point I should like to give you a rest for a few moments, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: An act for the relief of Mr. Speaker.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Again I would like to pay a compliment to Their Honours who handled this case. The chairman was Senator Ger-shaw and the other members were Senator Cameron and Senator Hawkins. In discussing this particular case the chairman, Senator Gershaw, intimated that he hoped he had the facilities available to try to find out what went wrong in this instance. Here they had a young couple with all the advantages that one could expect to find. There was no shortage of money; they had a good education. The chairman went to a great deal of trouble to find out what really was wrong and whether there would not be some possibility of reconciling the difficulty. Of course, in his capacity as the chairman of the committee he did not have any further responsibility than to recommend whether or not the divorce should be granted. I should like to commend particularly Senator Gershaw for the very sympathetic manner in which this particular case was handled.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



PIERRE ROGER VUILLE

William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No. 33, for the relief of Pierre Roger Vuille.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



MARIE GERTRUDE ANTOINETTE HOTTE OUELLETTE

William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No. 34, for the relief of Marie Gertrude Antoinette Hotte Ouellette.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



EUPHROSINA KOWALYK WHALLEY

Edward Turney Applewhaite: the second reading of Bill No. 35, for the relief of Euphrosina Kowalyk Whalley.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



MATILDA STONER ADAMS

Edward Turney Applewhaite: the second reading of the Bill No. 36, for the relief of Matilda Stoner Adams.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



GERTRUDE BAILISS GOODLIN

Edward Turney Applewhaite: the second reading of Bill No. 37, for the relief of Gertrude Bailiss Goodlin.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the hon. member for Skeena, who has been named as the mover of the motion for second reading of this bill, give any reasons why we should support it on second reading?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I am particularly pleased that an opportunity has been given to me to express the reason. The hon. member for

Winnipeg North Centre will, 1 think, follow my line of reasoning. If he agrees with me that under certain circumstances, regrettable circumstances, in Canada, it is expedient that people be divorced, then he thinks as I. He and I will both have the greatest respect for those who believe that under no circumstances should couples be divorced.
In this case I, as sponsor of the bill, have reason to believe it can be proved that those circumstances justifying the passing of the bill will be proven or can be proven in our committee. They cannot be proven under the rules, I submit, until such time as the bill reaches the committee which has the power to look into those statements of fact. In other words, sir, the principle of the bill which we are now called upon to approve or disapprove is that if certain facts can be proved, then it is expedient that a divorce be granted. The application of that principle to a particular set of facts cannot be discussed by this house at this time because those facts cannot be made available in final form in this house for the house to take action on them until such time as this house has referred a private bill to a committee.
That is the point on which I was greatly tempted to rise to my feet a few moments ago, because I do feel that that is the basic principle in passing private bills on second reading. I do not know the history, but there has grown up in this parliament the practice of considering this class of private bills differently from others.
It was my privilege at one time to be quite vitally concerned with a contested private bill of another nature which started in the Senate and came to this house. It was most noticeable at that time that no evidence given in the committee of the Senate came to this house. Then there were a number of pipe-line bills a few sessions back which originated in the Senate, and no evidence came to this house upon which it could base approval of the motion for second reading. It was only the basic principle; and whether there was sufficient evidence to make that principle applicable could, I submit, be made known to this house only through the miscellaneous private bills committee or some other appropriate committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the statement the hon. member for Skeena has made. The fact is that a number of us, including the hon. member, Your Honour and others, will no doubt have private discussions about this matter because it is quite important. It does seem to me, if I may add this word, that what the hon. member for Skeena has said suggests that second reading in the case of divorce bills means something quite 67509-85J
Private Bills-Divorce
different from the second reading of other private bills, let alone the second reading of public bills. That being the case, it seems to me that the whole question of our procedure on these bills, if we are going to continue to deal with them here, might be reviewed further.
As a member of Your Honour's committee which met for several sessions to deal with the rules and procedures of this house, if I may say so I am pleased with the job we did. Many of the changes we made have already proven to be very valuable and I think we cleared up many ambiguities with respect to the procedures of the house. I suppose this matter of divorce was a bit difficult for us to deal with effectively, but it seems to me that it is one piece of unfinished business, this question of how we should be handling these divorce bills.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



GASTON MAILLE

Edward Turney Applewhaite: the second reading of Bill No. 42, for the relief of Gaston Maille.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, on page 13 of the evidence in connection with this case will be found some questions and answers which are a bit vague. Apparently the petitioner went to the lawyer and asked for money, and suggested he be paid $5 a week to avoid divorce proceedings. I am sorry Their Honours did not follow that through, but apparently it was dropped at that point. I suggest that when our committee reaches this bill further consideration be given to the information on page 13 of the evidence.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



DIVORCE BILLS

Mr. Speaker:: Some hon. members have expressed the opinion that we should get rid of all the remaining bills at once in order to save printing costs. Can they be taken up in one motion and disposed of?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed to on division out of respect for Your Honour's voice.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the hon. member's kindness very much.
1332	HOUSE OF
Private Bills-Divorce



SECOND READINGS-SENATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 38, for the relief of Leokadja Laura Rozycka Haber.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 39, for the relief of Teofila Kurjata Marciniak.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 40, for the relief of Shirley Gelber Kaufman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 41, for the relief of Margaret Pounden Greenstien.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Mary Dufresne Cosco.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 44, for the relief of Julienne Mar-chesseault Jasmin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 45, for the relief of Helen Mary Farrell Hickey.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Hazel Mair Grant Mander.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Joseph Roland Gaston Charette.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Beulah Sybil Chapman Maus.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of John Elwood Way.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 50, for the relief of Thomas Charles Desmarais.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of John Caldwell Scriver.

Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 54, for the relief of Marie Therese Provost Lapointe.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 55, for the relief of Margeryann Williams Farrow Chesney.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 56, for the relief of Kathleen Birdie MacPhail Morgan.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Sylvia Colato Le Pottier.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Antonina Dieni Choumanchuk.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Rena Amelia Duncan Chenier.-Mr. Plunter.
Bill No. 60, for the relief of Stanley Edgar Barnes.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 61, for the relief of Molly Joyce LaPlante Baggott.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 62, for the relief of Jean Dorothy McLean Lewis.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 63, for the relief of John Walter Thoburn.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 64, for the relief of Panorea Dela-porta Alivizatos.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 65, for the relief of William James Stoddard Edington.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 67, for the relief of Audrey Hilda Voysey Beaudoin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 68, for the relief of Frederick Howard Blaikie.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 69, for the relief of Muriel Tetreau St. George.-Mr. Hunter.
[Stage Direction]

Bill No. 70, for the relief of Patricia Colleen Hewitt Nelson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Ruth Mildred Thompson McBain.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 72, for the relief of Joseph Theo-phile Lambert.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 73, for the relief of Lillian Baron Goodman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 74, for the relief of Madeleine Erna McArthur Blais.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 75, for the relief of Queenie Molly Wolfson Phillips.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 76, for the relief of Annie May Elizabeth Godson Brooks.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 77, for the relief of Ada June Mannard Wilmoth.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 78, for the relief of Rose Florczyk Greenwood.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Beryl Grace Leaper Shufelt.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 80, for the relief of Ralph Patrick Dowling.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 81, for the relief of Alice Guernon Peladeau.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 85, for the relief of Elizabeth Baird McDowall Whitlock.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 86, for the relief of Adrien Patrick Dicaire.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 87, for the relief of Jessie Altha MacBride Burnside.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 88, for the relief of Marianne Adorjan Balogh.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 89, for the relief of Helene Marguerite Peck Cooper.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 90, for the relief of Una Margaret Prower Douglas Heubach.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 91, for the relief of Hilary Hope-Hawkins Hardie Henders.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Marie Arthemise Marguerite Denise Laperriere Mercier.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 93, for the relief of Harry Hood.- Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Delima Chalifoux Prevost.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 95, for the relief of Frances Raven Sherman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 96, for the relief of Constance Louisa Kelly McKenna.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 97, for the relief of Jean Mailman Greenleaf.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 98, for the relief of Grace Elizabeth Davidson Alexander.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 99, for the relief of Frederick Arthur Waltho.-Mr. Hunter.

Bill No. 100, for the relief of Jean Decary. .-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 101, for the relief of Sylvia Barbara Murphy Simon.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 102, for the relief of Amy Elizabeth Torrance Fraser Walker.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 103, for the relief of Margery Cooper Mason.-Mr. Hunter.
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 104, for the relief of Caroline Scortaru Ungariano, otherwise known as Caroline Scortaru Ungar.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 105, for the relief of John Joseph Rahilly.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 106, for the relief of William Ross Gould.-Mr. Hunter.
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Questions

[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. Diefenbaker: 1.	Who are the members of the directorate of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation referred to by the minister in the House of Commons on February 7?
2.	How often does the said directorate meet?
3.	What are its duties?
Answer by: Mr. McCann:
On February 1, the hon. member for Eglin-ton asked if there is a directorate in the C.B.C. which concerns itself with whether a program will or will not go on the air. It was thought at the time that the reference was to one of the regular divisions or departments of the C.B.C. The reference and this inquiry is now understood to relate to some presumed special directorate or body that decides whether programs do or do not go on the air.
The C.B.C. advises that there is no such special body which considers and decides whether programs should or should not be
broadcast. The C.B.C. as a corporate entity has full and independent responsibility for all program decisions which are taken through the usual administrative process of chains of responsibility.


BALL POINT WRITING INSTRUMENTS
Miss Ailken: With reference to tender No. 24-20577, ball point writing instruments, (a) how many tenders were received; (b) what firms submitted tenders; (c) what price was quoted in each tender; (d) which tender was accepted?
Answer by: Mr. Pinard:
(a)	Four.
(b)	Scripto of Canada Ltd., 184 Bay St., Toronto, Ont.; Venus Pencil Co. Ltd., 1325 The Queensway, Toronto 14, Ont.; Northern Products Ltd., 1090 Laurier St., Montreal 23, P.Q.; Truform Industries Ltd., 50 Main St. South, Weston, Ont.
(c)	Scripto of Canada Ltd., $37,403.90; Venus Pencil Co. Ltd., $18,241.52 ($18,613.80 less 2 per cent-10 days); Northern Products Ltd., $18,200.16; Truform Industries Ltd., $17,869.25.
(d)	That of Venus Pencil Co. Ltd. (found best suited for purpose by independent laboratory tests).

Monday, February 20, 1956


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Stanley Howard Knowles: for leave to introduce Bill No. 121, to amend the Canada Elections Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to extend the privilege of voting at an advance poll to any qualified elector who finds that he will be absent from his constituency on election day. All the other clauses of the bill are consequential to that one change.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


TRANSPORT
George Carlyle Marler: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That It is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the continuation for a further period of two years of authority to make regulations for the control of transport of goods in hulk including, amongst other things, the appointment of one or more controllers and one or more deputy controllers to carry out the provisions of such regulations and the payment of their remuneration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) arising out of the feelings consequent upon the Coffin case and on what happened yesterday in Great Britain. Will the government give consideration to giving the house an opportunity by a free vote to reconsider the question of the maintenance of capital punishment?


Major James William Coldwell: May
I ask a supplementary question. I was going
to rise to ask a somewhat similar question, but this one is different. Will the government set up the committee on capital and corporal punishment and lotteries at an early date so that the house may have an opportunity of considering the report when it is made, and giving an opportunity also for a free vote?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Replying first to the question asked by the hon. leader of the C.C.F. party, may I say that on Votes and Proceedings for today there will be a notice of the setting up of that committee. When a committee is set up it will consider this question and report to the house. I think at that time it would be appropriate for the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) to ask the question which he has asked this morning.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask a question
supplementary to the supplementary question. Is it the government's intention to permit a free vote if the committee so suggests?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think I have anything to add to what I have just said, that after the committee has made its report to the house will be the appropriate time for the government to consider whether there should be a free vote.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister? In view of the fact that no committee can recommend how the members vote, will the Prime Minister indicate whether or not he is prepared to indicate to his own party that it will be a free vote when the committee makes its recommendations?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is a question I should answer at this time. When we have the recommendation of the committee, we shall give it serious consideration and we shall take such responsibility as we may feel it is our duty to take in respect of the recommendation.



INQUIRY AS TO PENDING DEATH SENTENCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ernest George Hansell: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question to clarify the urgency of a previous question. Are there any death penalties pending in Canada at the present time?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend means by "pending" whether there are any convictions for capital cases which have either come or have not yet come to the Department of Justice for consideration, I would not state it as a fact but I feel sure that there are. I would have to make inquiries, however, to find out how many.


Ernest George Hansell: There is urgency associated with the matter. Perhaps the minister might make a statement later.



REPORTED STATEMENT RESPECTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister comment on the statement made by his transport controller, as reported in the Montreal Gazette, that there is no shortage of box cars holding up prairie grain shipments?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I have read the statement very hastily, but from what I saw in the statement there was nothing, in my opinion, that seemed to require comment.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Does the comment by the transport controller now mean that the railway transportation bottleneck, to which the Minister of Trade and Commerce referred a week or ten days ago, has now been removed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, it is the duty of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to sell the wheat. It is the duty of the Minister of Transport to move it. I understand the Minister of Transport has given his answer.



REPORTED IMPROVEMENT IN RAIL TRANSPORTATION-EFFECT ON STORAGE CAPACITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the reported improvement in rail transportation resulted in any decrease in the 58 million bushels unused capacity for grain reported by the minister to the house on January 20?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I do not even

know what the unused capacity is. I will look into the situation. If there is any useful information that can be given the house I will be glad to give it.
lLater:l


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Transport. Will the Minister of Transport take appropriate steps to see that the cars are made available to deal with the situation since there are over 100 million bushels of available space for wheat in our elevators at this time?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, the figures I have seen recently with regard to the movement of wheat are, I think, most encouraging and show that the railroads are meeting their responsibilities with regard to the movement of wheat.


George Alexander Drew: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister of Transport question the fact that there are 100 million bushels of space available in our elevators at this time?


George Carlyle Marler: The amount of space in our elevators at the present time is not a matter that comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, can the Postmaster General inform the house whether his department is about to instal burglar alarms at a number of postal stations in Montreal?


Mr. Speaker:: Could that question be postponed until the estimates of the department are before the house?


William McLean Hamilton: Can the Postmaster General inform the house if his department has recently changed its policy regarding the installation of burglar alarms in major post offices in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Unless I am very much mistaken, that is the same question that the hon. member asked a moment ago. At that time I suggested that the question be postponed until the estimates of the department are in committee of supply.


Howard Charles Green: On that point, may I submit that the hon. member has asked whether there has recently been a change of policy. The estimates of the Postmaster General may not be under consideration for several months.

Surely we are entitled to ask a question of this type on the orders of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: When one considers the urgency and the national character of questions that are to be asked at this question time period, may I ask the hon. member if he feels that the time of the house should be spent at this time in investigating the question whether or not burglar alarms should be installed in post offices?


An hon. Member:: In view of the epidemic of robberies?


Howard Charles Green: I do not know why not, Mr. Speaker. Far less important subjects are being raised every day.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has never spoken truer words. If it is the wish of hon. members to have a question of that sort asked, I shall not object. But it would seem to me that the first question was somewhat different. The second one was somewhat rephrased because the word "policy" was introduced. I do not think it was in the first question put by the hon. member, but it means the same thing: Questions such as "Are there any doors to the post offices across the country?"-"Are there any fences around the grounds?"-"Are there any burglar alarms?"-are matters that may be important to the hon. member and to many others but do not appear to me to be the type of question that should be asked at this time. I may be wrong.


Howard Charles Green: As I heard it, the first question had to do with a burglar alarm system in Montreal. You said that the hon. member could not ask that question. Now he has asked a question having to do with policy right across the country. Surely that question should not be ruled out.


Mr. Speaker:: As I just said, I may be wrong. However, hon. members should realize that at this moment when questions are being asked, I must be careful to give to hon. members an opportunity to ask questions of the widest nature and the most urgent character and therefore to eliminate those questions which appear to me to be not of the type that should be asked at this time. I think hon. members will realize that every time I ask hon. members not to press a question, I may be completely wrong. I am not omniscient. When I ask hon. members not to press a question I would hope that my request might not provoke a discussion on a point of order, thus causing the house to lose the benefit of my intervention, which is for the purpose of saving time. As I say, I may be completely wrong on this score,
Inquiries of the Ministry but am I so wrong that we must spend several minutes in discussing a point of order?


Howard Charles Green: I submit, Your Honour, that where an hon. member asks whether there has just been a change in policy by one of the departments on some matter having to do with the whole of the country, it should not be ruled out. I would point out to Your Honour that hundreds of thousands of dollars have been lost in thefts from post offices. It seems to me that a question of that kind is quite properly asked by the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is not convincing me that whenever a question is asked on a matter of policy having to do with burglar alarms, just because of the fact that it is a matter of policy it is always a permissible question at this time. I am not of opinion that that question should be asked at this time.



BURNABY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Tom Goode: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Postmaster General. Is he aware that the post office sorting staff has been removed from Burnaby to Vancouver? If so, what are the reasons for the move?


Mr. Speaker:: I think this question also could be postponed until the estimates of the Post Office Department are before the committee of supply.


Tom Goode: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I must ask hon. members not to argue with the Speaker. The rules say that the rulings of the Speaker are not debatable. I have previously asked hon. members to observe that rule as much as possible.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY BRITISH COLUMBIA-REQUEST FOR SURVEY OF JUMBO PASS ROUTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Her ridge (Kootenay West): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct an inquiry to the Minister of Public Works, whom I am sure we are all glad to welcome back to the house-
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Fisheries, too.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -in such a healthy and suntanned condition. I should like to ask the



X284 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry minister this. How long does the minister intend to pigeonhole requests from chambers of commerce and other organizations in southeastern British Columbia for a thorough survey of the proposed Jumbo pass route as a section of the trans-Canada highway prior to a final decision being made concerning the route between Revelstoke and the Alberta border?
Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, whether or not a survey of any part of the route is to be made is a matter for the provincial government concerned.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport if any number of huts has recently been declared surplus at the Patricia Bay airport?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I shall answer the question of the hon. gentleman by saying that a number of buildings have been declared surplus. The list is much too long to be given on the orders of the day, but I shall be glad to give my hon. friend the particulars of them.



WELCOME TO MINISTER OF FISHERIES FOLLOWING ILLNESS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I hope I may be permitted at this point to make a comment.


Walter Edward Harris: No.


George Alexander Drew: If hon. members would wait, they would perhaps see how wise it is to wait for the finish of a sentence. I was going to say that I am sure all hon. members are very pleased to see the Minister of Fisheries back in his place. We had the opportunity to welcome him before but we know it was necessary for him to have a further holiday, and with the utmost sincerity I know that all the members of the opposition hope he is fully restored to health.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of

Public Works. Can he give the house a statement supplementary to that which was given yesterday with respect to the loss of the departmental vessel Hilunga on the west coast?


Robert Henry Winters: No, Mr. Speaker, I am unable to add to the information given the house yesterday. Although search and rescue have been active in trying to locate the vessel or signs of wreckage, they have been unable to do so. They have been joined in the search by the ships of the Department of Transport and the Department of Fisheries. I think I should say, however, that the report that the crew were seen leaving the ship and proceeding towards shore has not been confirmed.


Howard Charles Green: In connection with this question may I ask the Minister of Transport whether or not this vessel, which apparently was known as the Hilunga, was designed only for service in minor waters, class 1, whereas she foundered in minor waters, class 2?


George Carlyle Marler: I am afraid I will have to take the hon. gentleman's question as notice and make some inquiry in order to be able to reply to him.


Howard Charles Green: Is this not one more case in which the United States coastguard was called in for help?	'


George Carlyle Marler: I am afraid I cannot answer that question either, Mr. Speaker.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: May I
ask the Prime Minister if, in view of action taken at Washington during the last 24 hours to impose an embargo on the shipment of arms to the Middle East, the government will reconsider its position in that respect and consider taking parallel action?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter which the government always has under consideration. The information that has already been given to the house is that we keep in close contact with our allies and try to keep our policy such as will occasion no greater anxiety about the Middle East than that which exists at the present time.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY PROTECTION OF CANADIAN PROPERTY AGAINST CHANGE IN WATER LEVELS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to ask a question that may perhaps concern both the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Transport. 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 government to see that Canadian land on the lakes is being properly protected against change of water levels?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Offhand, I cannot give a reply to that question, but I shall look into the matter and see if such negotiations are being conducted.


INQUIRY FOR RETURN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he is now in a position to table the return that was passed on February 6 dealing with the representations made by western farm bodies in reference to advances on farm-stored wheat.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the return went to the Secretary of State a day or so ago and I presume it will be brought down shortly.


Roch Pinard: may say the return will probably be brought down today. There is only one department which has not supplied its answer.


John George Diefenbaker: We should have it for this debate.


PROVISION FOR GUARANTEE OF BANK LOANS TO PRODUCERS IN PRAIRIE PROVINCES, ETC.
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, February 16, 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.
Grain
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I have read carefully, Mr. Speaker, your remarks at the conclusion of my address last night and I want to say that, as usual, you are absolutely fair and correct. Your assistants found it necessary to call me to order when you were absent from the chamber and they, too, were quite correct and fair. But in my defence I should like to say that members supporting the government had been so far from this subject that I felt without some reference to some of the remarks made it would have been interpreted that we accepted those views. I have discussed the remarks I propose to make this morning with my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and I will try to be absolutely on the beam all the way.
We are discussing Bill 82, which is an act to provide for short-term credit to grain producers in the prairie provinces to meet financial difficulties arising from inability to deliver all their grain. I am against that all the way. We do not want credit. We have had too much credit. We want to get fair consideration, nothing more and nothing less. This -is not a temporary situation. While the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) has not taken any part in this debate I want to call him as my witness in saying that this is not a temporary situation. The Minister of Finance, speaking in New York, quite correctly said that this situation has been caused by policies in other countries. He also said that his government, the government of Canada, is concerned about the fact that wheat production is the principal source of cash income to the great majority of western farmers and his government was bound to be greatly influenced by anything so vital to them and to the whole national economy.
I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). The Prime Minister has established, and has earned, the respect of a great many Canadians. I feel it is not fair for him to be in a position where the two senior members of his cabinet are so irresponsible in discussing this national problem. The Prime Minister is still the chief, and with all due respect to the contribution the Minister of Trade and Commerce has made in the past

and I am among the first to give him credit for the outstanding job he did during the war-if he were to approach this problem as he did his problems during the war, he would be saying the same sort of thing that the Minister of Finance is saying, that this is not a problem which has resulted from beneficent nature. It is a problem which results from policies which are not formed outside of Canada.

Grain
If we had had as minister of agriculture during the war a man who approached this problem as did the minister of munitions and supply at that time, our present Minister of Trade and Commerce, our farmers would not be in the position where they are so bitter as they are now. Therefore, I suggest to the Prime Minister that he deal with this problem in two stages; that he persuade his two senior members to take a holiday right now and go to Florida and have the Minister of Finance pilot this bill through the house, because I am sure the Minister of Finance would say that this is not a temporary problem. He would admit that it is a problem, and I am sure the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters), whom we are glad to see back in the house this morning, would do as he did last summer, namely, take over agriculture during the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, and he would certainly do a much better job than the Minister of Agriculture in getting this piece of legislation discussed. I am sure that with the two senior members out of the country the cabinet would be prepared to accept the analysis made by the Minister of Finance in New York.
The farmers do not want too much. They merely want recognition of the facts as they exist and an indication that the government is prepared to do something about them. After having taken that step, the logical step that would follow would be for both ministers to see that parliament got on well without them and they would tender their resignations, and we would be able to proceed from there on.
I suggest to the Prime Minister that over the weekend he should take a look at what his colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, said during this debate. I wish to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no bitterness on my part as a result of the interjections of the Minister of Trade and Commerce last night. While I was speaking and giving him credit for supplying me with certain information, the Minister of Trade and Commerce interrupted by saying, as reported at page 1275 of Hansard:
The Minister of Trade and Commerce has supplied you with nothing.
I accepted that and made my apologies, and later on at page 1276 of Hansard the minister said:
I would not furnish you with a postage stamp. That is all right. I suggest the Prime Minister have a look at the editorial in this morning's Globe and Mail having reference to the remarks made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I am not going to read the editorial, Mr. Speaker. I merely ask the Prime Minister to read it and decide whether or

not it is in the interests of good government in Canada to have his minister suggesting while one of his colleagues, the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), was speaking that this should not be degenerating to a debate. I think the Prime Minister would agree that the statements made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce are subjects for debate and that members of the opposition in all parties should not be muzzled. Either this bill is worth debating and contains certain principles, or it is not. The Prime Minister should look at it.
It is also suggested that he review the performance of the second senior minister, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). I am indebted to Judith Robinson for her analysis of the barter proposals of the Minister of Agriculture. While the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) says that there is no marketing problem, that there is no problem facing the farmers of Canada, at that very moment his colleague is negotiating a barter deal with Great Britain to exchange wheat for British immigrants. I am sure that everyone who has come to Canada in the last 50 years from any country will resent very much the proposal that we should now consider bartering human beings in order to get rid of a surplus of wheat which the Minister of Trade and Commerce says does not exist.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member still
speaking along the lines suggested to him by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and I are almost 100 per cent in agreement on most points, but if the hon. member is considering continuing along the line upon which he has now embarked I do not think he would be relevant to this bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does not the proposal made by the Minister of Agriculture suggest that there is a real problem, and is not the fact that there is a problem so far as the marketing of wheat is concerned relevant to the bill now before us?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) has indicated the views of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in his opening remarks this morning, Which are to the effect that in his opening statement on the second reading of the bill apparently the minister referred to the fact that the condition of farmers was not as bad as perhaps might have been pictured by other people, or that it is good. Ever since this debate was initiated hon. members have tried to refute that part of the minister's statement. They spend most of their time on that and then at the end of their remarks

they come back to the bill and say, "We are going to be for or against this measure which has to do with loans."
In a 40-minute speech an hon. member, in order to maintain the relevancy of his remarks may refer incidentally to what may appear to be irrelevant and then apportion most of his remarks directly to the principle of the bill before the house. I am just picking a percentage out of the air, but as a rule we do not hear anything about short-term credit to grain producers until about 35 minutes of an hon. member's time has been spent in trying to prove that the position of the farmers out west is much worse than is imagined by some hon. members.
My point is that all kinds of arguments may be presented to prove just what is the position of the farmers out west. Indeed last night the hon. member was travelling all across Canada to show that the position of the farmers was not as good as some people had pictured. Then the hon. member should have returned to a discussion which was relevant to the bill.
I will be at a loss in directing the discussion on a bill of this kind if the position of farmers over the years or at the present time in the economy of Canada is to be relevant to the discussion. As I said the other night, we may as well look at the international picture to see how Canada stands and how it affects various classes in Canada and then come to the farmers. By that time an hon. member's speech would be over and we would not have heard about the bill before the house. That is my point.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I merely wanted to point up the fact that one cabinet minister says one thing, that there is no problem, while another minister says that there is. That is all I want to say. I submit it is relevant because the Minister of Agriculture has endeavoured to indicate that. I suggest to the Prime Minister that he take time over the weekend to read Judith Robinson's article in last night's Toronto Telegram entitled "Gardiner's Barter Bargain".
Representatives of farm unions from five provinces are in Ottawa and I understand are trying to see as many members as they can to discuss a variety of problems. Yesterday they presented a brief to the government. One of the delegates, the vice-president of the farmers' union of Saskatchewan, saw me last night. I am sure that hon. members who do not want to accept our views on this problem would be well advised to see some of these delegates while they are in the city and get their opinions.
Grain *
The failure of the government to do something other than arrange for credit is actually going to cost the taxpayers a great deal of money directly. May I illustrate what I have in mind. Mr. Turnbull, vice-president of the farmers' union of Saskatchewan, has outlined what he is being forced to do with
10,000	bushels of wheat which he has on the ground. He is going to be obliged to go into hog production because there is a floor price under hogs, or so we are told.
One of his neighbours is putting up buildings in which to feed 500 hogs. That man has 15,000 bushels of barley on hand. As a result of our failure to recognize this problem there is going to be a tremendous increase in hog production and the taxpayers of Canada are going to have to subsidize pork production.
Mr. Turnbull mentioned that another farmer is acting on the advice of the Minister of Agriculture and is going to market his wheat through livestock. He is putting up pole shelters at a very low cost to house 200 head of cattle. No farmer in Ontario or Quebec can hope to compete with the sort of competition which is sure to develop.
The vice-president of the farmers' union is going to seed 200 acres with rapeseed this year because there is a guaranteed price. He knows that that will have an effect on butter producers. My colleague, the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Bryson), acting last year on the suggestion of the Minister of Agriculture seeded 400 acres to rapeseed and had a production of 400,000 pounds. A process developed in Germany indicates that rapeseed will make a very palatable butter substitute.
I submit that it is most important that this bill to provide short-term credit to grain producers should not be read a second time. I think the Prime Minister should have an opportunity over the week end to consider the suggestions that I have made that these two members be given a chance to have a holiday. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the word "now" be left out, and the words "this day six months hence" be added at the end of the question.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that I wish to refer to some remarks made by the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Murphy). He is not in his seat at the moment; so if the whip can bring him in he will be able to hear what I say.

Grain
There are a few things I wish to discuss on this second reading of Bill 82, an act to provide for assistance to farmers. The title of the bill is:
An act to provide for short-term credit to grain producers in the prairie provinces to meet temporary financial difficulties arising from inability to deliver all their grain.
First of all I find that some of the subjects mentioned in the bill are a little difficult for me to follow. In the first place, I am of the opinion that the difficulty has not arisen particularly because of the farmer's inability to sell all of his grain. Certainly the difficulty has arisen because of the government's inability to sell the wheat of western Canada. It is not the farmer's job at all to sell this wheat. The government's policy should be so designed as to take care of the wheat of western Canada. The government has been solely responsible for the sale of wheat in this country. Therefore it is the government's responsibility now to see to it that the farmers are given assistance towards obtaining some cash in this time of emergency.
It is not my intention to establish need at this time, because I have already done that on another occasion during this debate and many members in the House of Commons have brought forth that very point. It has been well established by all soundthinking members that the western farmer is in need of assistance. I said that I thought the fact had been established by all soundthinking members in this house, but there are some members apparently who disagree with that point of view.
The thing that amazes me is that, despite the fact that almost every member, particularly from western Canada, has brought this to your attention, no Liberal members from Alberta have got up and spoken on Bill 82 which deals with this question. Why are they so profoundly silent? Certainly on other occasions they have made themselves heard. In view of the fact that the Liberal leader in the province of Alberta has come out and condemned this bill, I think it is about time some of the Liberal members from Alberta got up and made themselves known in this respect. Are they afraid of the whip that will be cracked over their heads if they get up and assert themselves on the side of the farmer? The people in Alberta who sent them down here expect them to get up and make a statement on this bill. It is vital to the welfare of the western agriculturists. The only one who has styled, himself as an expert is the lawyer from Westmorland. Let me tell you what he said. I am sure the western farmers of Alberta are not going to appreciate the attitude taken by the Liberal members in this House of

Commons as expressed by the hon. member for Westmorland. This is what he says, as reported on page 970 of Hansard:
I of course am not a wheat expert.
I think we would all agree with that. Then he says:
As an eastern barrister I therefore feel I have a right to speak on this question.
What impudence that he, as an eastern lawyer, has the right to get up and speak on behalf of the western agriculturists of this country.


An hon. Member:: What about the hon. member for Eglinton yesterday?


Charles Edward Johnston: Who does he think he is? Not one of the Liberal members from Alberta has got up and contradicted these statements. He said:
It is a debatable point as to what is for the benefit of the wheat growers of Canada, but I believe this resolution is and that is why I am supporting it.
The Liberal members from Alberta, having him as their spokesman, are saying that the position in which agriculture finds itself is a very debatable one.


Elmore Philpott: You voted for the resolution.


Charles Edward Johnston: I shall tell you in a moment why I voted for the resolution, but you let the Liberal members from Alberta do the speaking-


Mr. Speaker:: I am quite prepared to let the hon. members from Alberta do whatever speaking they wish to do within the rules. The hon. member has just told me to let the members from Alberta do their speaking. I say I am quite prepared to do that.


Charles Edward Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that I had to remind members in the opposition that they should not be asking questions-I mean members on the government side.


An hon. Member:: They are in opposition to good legislation.


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes, I agree with the remark that they are in opposition to what is of benefit to western agriculture. Then he goes on, and this is the way he believes the western farmers should be treated. This lawyer expert on agricultural problems says:
... we know that the judgment of the majority of the western wheat growers does not seem to be too good.
I am sure the people of western Canada who supported the Liberal members and sent them down here to carry on their affairs*are not going to appreciate that type of inference. It is not an inference; he states it as a fact.

In other words, the western farmers of Alberta have not enough sense to know what they want. Not a Liberal in this house from Alberta has got up and contradicted that statement.
Who are these members from Alberta who say that the people from western Canada should send down no one except Liberals who will get up and support their cause? It was stated by the Liberal leader Mr. Prowse from Alberta over television the other day that there were five Liberal members in this house. Of course, that is not so, but we do not mind his exaggerating the truth. He always does that. There are, in fact, four members. There is the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore), who has not said a word on this resolution. There is the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Hanna), who has not said a word on this resolution. There is the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Dechene), who was here a while ago but is not now, and who has not said a word about this resolution. There is the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Prudham), who has not said a word on this resolution. So they must be taking the side of the hon. member for Westmorland. Then this great sage who no doubt has taken his advice from the two cabinet ministers, from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) who has said during this debate that farmers in general in western Canada are not too hard up-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said no such thing. If my hon. friend is going to quote me will he please read from Hansard. He will distort anything that comes his way but I object to his distorting my remarks.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the minister is always being misquoted. He is one of those who are always misquoted, but I recall quite vividly that the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that Bill No. 82 was being introduced to accommodate the very few who were in need of assistance. He based it on the 1951 legislation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said nothing of the kind. I have asked my hon. friend to quote from Hansard if he wishes to quote me. I hope Mr. Speaker will support me in that. I do not know that a man can get up in this House of Commons and put words in my mouth.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to quote the words of the minister in a few minutes because I have never tried to misrepresent anyone on any occasion. I am paraphrasing, and I think correctly, what the minister said.
Crain


Clarence Decatur Howe: You will do it with reluctance.


Charles Edward Johnston: If the minister did not say that these loans were being made available to accommodate only the few who would need them, I will take back everything I have said about him, but I know that he said it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The last time you said "very few".


Charles Edward Johnston: Very few, yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I said that I will-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You will what?


Charles Edward Johnston: Oh well, we are not going to quibble over a word or two. The general meaning is clear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Edward Johnston: The general meaning is clear and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) backed him up in that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Charles Edward Johnston: Then this allwise barrister from New Brunswick concluded with these words:
We in this party are doing what is best for the western wheat producer.
My, oh my! The people of western Canada have not got enough intelligence to know what they want, but a few of these so-called barrister experts down here tell them what is good for them and what is not good for them. Of course we have the minister of the department doing that very thing too. When the hon. member says that the people of western Canada do not know what is good for them, let me remind him once again, as I did the other day, about the Saskatoon conference which sent a submission to the government of Canada on October 11, 1955, respecting the urgent need for cash advances on farm-stored grain in western Canada. For the benefit of some of those people who do not know who sent the submission, let me read the names again. I put them on Hansard a couple of weeks ago in discussing this question, but some of you people over there who are so all-wise and who are going to endeavour to speak for western agriculture had better listen to the names of the organizations that sent the submission to the minister and see what they ask for. Then they will be able to speak intelligently on the subject.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has placed me in the same position in which I was a few days ago. He actually admits he is going to put the same material

Grain
on Hansard for the second time, which is pure repetition and should not be allowed under our rules.


Charles Edward Johnston: No, Mr. Speaker, this is not repetition because I am going to read the names so they will know who they are. The submission was presented by the Alberta department of agriculture, the Manitoba department of agriculture-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, they have been read into the record at least three times.
1 Mr. Johnston (Bow River): -by the-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The minister is rising on a point of order.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My point of order is that the list of names has been read at least three times, I think twice by the hon. member who is now speaking.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, of course the minister's memory is not-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. That is the point I raised a few minutes ago. The hon. member said quite distinctly that he intended to put this record on Hansard again. That is a straight admission of repetition, and I feel I am on quite sound ground when the hon. member himself admits that it is repetition. Many times remarks are phrased a little differently and it is very difficult for the chair to decide that a statement is repetitious, but in this case I feel I can rely on the words of the hon. member himself and say that this is repetition and it cannot be allowed to proceed.


Charles Edward Johnston: Let me put it
this way, Mr. Speaker. The departments of agriculture of the three western provinces were among those who made this submission to the government together with all the farm organizations and chambers of commerce. Despite the fact that the submission was made by all these people who are directly and intimately concerned with western agriculture, the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr' Murphy) says that the people of western Canada do not know what they want and therefore some of the eastern Liberal members are going to tell them what is good for them. I say some of the eastern Liberal members because the Liberal members from Alberta have not had gumption enough so far to get up and express themselves. We do of course have the views of Mr. Prowse, expressed on a television program, who said that he was strongly opposed to such legislation. Why is that so? Because he is right out in western Canada where he has to answer to the people. When these members go back

to western Canada they too will have to answer to the agriculturists of western Canada.
Therefore when these people say that the farmers do not know what they want they certainly do not know what they are talking about. This organization asked very clearly for advances to farmers on grain in store on the farms. Can anybody say that they do not know what they are talking about? In their submission they differentiate between advances and loans from the bank. In the one case they stated that there should be no interest and then they go on to say there are other methods that could be used, including bank loans. In that regard they say that if bank loans are to be used in any event there should be a very low rate of interest, and they state emphatically that the current rate of interest on bank loans is too high. Certainly no one can say that the western farmers do not know what they are talking about. If anybody does not know what they are talking about it is members on the opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Yes, yes.


Charles Edward Johnston: I mean on the other side of the house. When I speak of opposition-


An hon. Member:: A good admission.


Charles Edward Johnston: -I mean those who are opposed to the interests of western agriculture. Make no mistake about that.


An hon. Member:: Now you are changing.


Charles Edward Johnston: Let me tell you what was said here the other day when the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) was speaking.


An hon. Member:: We heard it the other day.


Charles Edward Johnston: I interjected in his speech and asked him if he was differentiating-


An hon. Member:: That gives us the right to interject too.


Charles Edward Johnston: -between loans and advances. I want to say right here that whether or not I agree with the hon. member for Rosthern is not the point at issue. The point at issue is that he did have courage enough to stand on his feet and express his own thoughts. He expressed his thoughts in strong terms when he said that he did not even have to agree with the Minister of Trade and Commerce. There are not many on the other side of the house who would dare to get up and make such an assertion.


An hon. Member:: Oh, rubbish.


Charles Edward Johnston: Let me read what the hon. member said as found at page 629 of Hansard of January 27. He was speaking and I interrupted and said:
Are you differentiating between advances and loans?
The hon. member for Rosthern replied:
Advances are exactly the same as loans.
Let me interject there to say that the Minister of Trade and Commerce does not agree with that. At that time I said:
The minister does not agree with that. He says everybody who asks for advances is a sabateur of the wheat board.
I suppose the minister will deny that too but that is a fact. The hon. member for Rosthern went on to say this:
I am dealing with the question as I see it. The minister makes his own speeches. If my hon. friend thinks I have always got to agree with the minister, he is mistaken.
At least the hon. member for Rosthern had the courage to stand up and say there were times that he did not agree with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe).


Henry Alfred Hosking: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit me to ask a question?


Charles Edward Johnston: Surely; go
ahead.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Does he suggest that the farmers from the eastern part of Canada should pay the interest on advances so that these farmers in the west can take the money on those advances and invest it in government bonds and draw interest on those bonds and that our farmers should pay the interest on them? Is that what he is suggesting?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member forgot to include the old crack about trips to California.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is really amusing, Mr. Speaker. I did not suggest anything at all of that nature but through you,
I would like to ask the hon. member this question. Does he think that western Canada is going to derive any material benefit in reduction of freight rates by the deepening of the St. Lawrence river that is costing us over $300 million of which western Canada is paying its share? Surely we were in favour of it. We were in favour of helping eastern Canada. We have helped eastern Canada so much down through the ages that they do not know how to get along without us.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I remind hon. members on both sides of the house in 67509-82i
Grain
the vicinity of the hon. member who has the floor that the microphones are open and it is extremely difficult at this end of the house to hear the hon. member who has the floor when the various members are trying to speak at the same time.


Charles Edward Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, once again for that interjection.
Let me refer again to the remarks made by the hon. member for Westmorland, and may I say that I am sorry he still is not in his seat, although I gave notice that I was going to refer to him. It was during that same speech-and this is one of the reasons that prompted me to say these few words- that the hon. member had this to say as reported at page 970 of Hansard:
For a while in this debate the hon. member for Bow River criticized the action taken by the government in guaranteeing these loans, and then he said that he would support it.
I want to stop there for just a moment. The reason why the members of this party supported the resolution was that there was a faint hope that some assistance would be given to agriculture in western Canada. Quite contrary to some of the opinions expressed on the other side of the house, we knew that agriculture was in need of assistance. We were in hopes that when the bill was brought down there would be provision for some material assistance in this respect.
The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), who was speaking the other day, went still further and suggested to the government that we would support this second reading of the bill if they would assure us that this bill would be referred to the agriculture committee of this house so that western agricultural organizations would be able to come down here and present their case. The minister decided that matter in one word, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) spoke for him or on his behalf and said no, it would not be referred to the committee on agriculture and colonization. Why should the government be so greatly frightened to have this bill referred to a committee of the house? Why should they be so greatly disturbed lest these agricultural organizations in western Canada-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I point out to the hon. member that this particular phase of the question was decided by a vote of the house last evening. I think he is now precluded from reviving that debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order and suggest that what was decided by a vote of the house was whether or not the subject matter of the bill be referred to a committee. The question which was asked, and which the Minister of Finance

Grain
answered, was that an assurance be given that the bill, after second reading, would be referred to a committee. Those are two different things. Your Honour is correct in saying that what we voted on last night should not be revived. But surely it is still permissible for members on this side of the house to ask that the bill itself be referred to a committee after it gets second reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There may be some
accuracy in what the hon. member has just said. I now have the resolution before me and I see that it states:
.	.	. but that the suhject matter thereof be
referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.
That would appear to resolve the matter. However, I would ask the hon. member to refrain from reviving any debate on the resolution which has already been decided as of last evening.


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will abide by your ruling there, as I always do. But I found it was necessary to make that reference because of the untrue statements which appear in Hansard in the speech of the hon. member for Westmorland. I thought it was necessary to make that correction.
Let me say also that we agreed to support the second reading of the bill provided it was sent to the agriculture committee. We have never been obstructionists. We have always tried to do that which was best for the interests of Canada as a whole, whether those subjects referred to eastern Canada or to western Canada. We could see no logical reason why the government should not refer this matter to the committee on agriculture and colonization. Certainly any other important question which arises in this house is almost always referred to a committee of this house. Yet on this occasion the government has definitely refused to send this matter to a committee. Without any explanation their answer has been no.
The hon. member for Westmorland went on to say this:
I know that in Alberta the farmers would prefer to have loans guaranteed at the chartered banks because they would sooner have real money than funny money.
That is the learned lawyer from Westmorland who styles himself an expert and who also has the courage to get to his feet and express his opinions about western Canada on behalf of the Liberal members from western Canada while they sit mutely in their chairs.


Ernest George Hansell: He is a funny lawyer.


Charles Edward Johnston: Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker,-and I am sure you personally

know it-that there is no funny money involved as far as this party is concerned. This hon. member refers to the fact that the farmers of western Canada would rather have credit issued through the banks. This stuff that I have here in, my hand is Bank of Canada bills. These so-called wisecrackers the other day said this is sound money. This is a $10 bill and it is signed by Coyne and Towers. This one I am holding is only a $1 bill and it is signed by Beattie and Coyne. These so-called lawyer experts say this is sound money. As a matter of fact, this is the funny stuff because it can be stretched ten to one.


Victor Quelch: It is starting to shrink again.


Charles Edward Johnston: As my friend the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) just said, it is starting to shrink again. It expands and contracts. If there is anything funnier than that, I should like to know what it is. The banks who issue this stuff- of course the banks did not issue this; that is done by the Bank of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Throw it away. I will pick it up.


Charles Edward Johnston: This is issued by the Bank of Canada. But the chartered banks, when they get this stuff, can expand their credit ten to one. What have they as a guarantee? Nothing but the whole of the Dominion of Canada. They did not pay anything for that expansion. On the other hand, let me tell the house that the provincial government of Alberta wrote to this government and asked them for permission to issue these loans having the same guarantee as the chartered banks are getting under this legislation. The other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated that the government could not permit that under this legislation. When this money is issued by the chartered banks, the farmers are required to pay 5 per cent, and with a 100 per cent guarantee. This is a greater guarantee by far than the government gave the lending institutions under the National Housing Act. Then the government only guaranteed 25 per cent of the loss, but here the government guarantees 100 per cent and the farmer is charged 5 per cent on that money.


William McLean Hamilton: On
a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is customary when an hon. member refers to a document and quotes from it, as the hon. member has just done, that the document is tabled. Would the hon. member be good enough to table this document?


Charles Edward Johnston: The hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace (Mr. Hamilton)

Grain
is speaking of ordinary letters or documents which are referred to in this house. This is a sacred document, so I think the hon. member is out of order when he suggests that I be obliged to table it. I shall put it in my pocket so hon. members will not bother me any more about it.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Give a reasonable facsimile.


Charles Edward Johnston: The government of Alberta asked permission of this government to have the same guarantee, not more but the same guarantee, as was given to the banks. They were going to loan this stuff that I just showed you with Coyne's name on it and Beattie's name on it. Every time the treasury branch makes a loan they have it backed 100 per cent by this stuff, and that is more than the banks do. Let us hear the self-styled Liberal lawyer expert expound that theory a little bit.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the farmers of Alberta would have greatly appreciated the opportunity of borrowing money from the treasury branch if the federal government had given the treasury branch the same guarantee as they are giving the chartered banks. Never within my knowledge has the treasury branch lent money to a farm organization or a municipality at a rate as high as 5 per cent. I am quite confident that if the same guarantee of 100 per cent had been given the farmers of Alberta would have obtained their loan at greatly reduced rate.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask my
hon. friend a question? I am sure that the treasury branch of the Alberta government is making loans on grain. Can he assure me that they are made at less than 5 per cent?


Charles Edward Johnston: These are guaranteed loans we are talking about, guaranteed by the federal treasury.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The treasury loans are guaranteed by the province of Alberta. Is one guarantee any better than the other? Is that security not as good as a guarantee by the federal government? In other words, is one government able to guarantee and the other not?


Charles Edward Johnston: Of course the minister knows that is just ridiculous because the provincial government has not got the same means of raising money as this federal government has. Hon. members in this house always like to point to Alberta and say, now since you have had a Social Credit government you are considered per capita
the most wealthy province in all Canada. Of course we are, but that only happened in the last 20 years. We have got our wealth through the development of our resources and proper management, as has been indicated. Neither the federal government nor the chartered banks have to obtain their money in the same way. The chartered banks can expand their credit as high as twenty to one, but of course they only do it about ten to one.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think I am entitled to an answer as to what rate the government of Alberta does charge on grain loans?


Charles Edward Johnston: What obligation has the province of Alberta to lend money to the farmers of Alberta when they, the farmers, are in dire circumstances as a direct result of the inefficient policies of this government. This government is responsible for the condition in which the agriculturists find themselves in Alberta. Wherever the province of Alberta has had to deal with these matters internally, we find prosperity. Wherever the federal government sticks in its hands, we find distress and need.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I want to apologize for asking the hon. member such an embarrassing question. I know he would answer it if it were not so.


Charles Edward Johnston: The minister is not asking me any embarrassing question.


An hon. Member:: Why not answer it?


Charles Edward Johnston: I want to say to him right here,-


An hon. Member:: What is the interest rate?


Charles Edward Johnston: -will he deny the fact that no one can export wheat except through the wheat board, which is under the jurisdiction of this federal government? If he can say that, let him answer it. He knows that what he is asking now is just nonsense. He is the one who controls the export of wheat, and that is why the farmers in western Canada find themselves in the dire circumstances in which they are now. The minister tries to get up and drag one of those red herrings across the road, but it just does not work. He had better consult this lawyer expert on western affairs who lives in New Brunswick, and get some advice from him, because it appears he is the one who is expressing the views of Liberal members from Alberta.


Irvin William Studer: What is the interest rate?


Charles Edward Johnston: We should support this bill were it not for the fact that it

Grain
is not a farm bill at all. It is a banker's bill. I do not know of any other legislation that has ever been introduced in this house that gave an industry that has a monopoly of a product a 100 per cent guarantee on its loans, as has been done in this case.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister off to Florida?


Charles Edward Johnston: The bank just could not lose under this measure. Show me another place where the banks can lend their money as safely as this one? It just does not exist.
When we find a bill like this, which is loaded against the farmer, we just cannot support it. Perhaps Liberal members from western Canada will support a bill which is so loaded against the farmer. We will see when the time comes. But certainly, we would not be in that position. Here is a bill that proposes to lend the farmer $1,500. Of course, that is misleading; it does not propose any such thing. Of course, hon. members on the other side have not read the bill, nor, I suppose, has the hon. member for Westmorland.
If I understand the bill correctly, and the minister who is not now in the house will correct me if I am wrong, if a farmer has sold wheat to the extent of $1,400, the amount he can get would only be $100. The farmer cannot receive more than $1,500 in total from the disposal of his crops. If he gets that $100 loan and makes one little slip, oversteps the regulation, he is subject to a fine of $500 plus a penalty which is the remaining balance to be paid. Could you say, Mr. Speaker, that that is not loaded against agriculture? Can you understand why the leader of the Liberal party in Alberta condemns it? Can you understand why some Liberal members in this house can be silenced by, and have as their spokesman, the all-wise hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Murphy), who styles himself as a lawyer expert?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I am obliged to advise that his time has expired. Is the house ready for the question?


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Mr. Speaker, it is most understandable that I should be wholeheartedly in support of the amendment moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson), since I on a previous occasion introduced an amendment which did not appear to meet with the approval of the government. It is obvious that the government members are becoming quite fed up with the debate on wheat. We are fed up with the legislation which the government is trying to introduce.

The members of the government had an opportunity to rid the house of the discussion on a previous occasion when I moved my amendment and if adopted the pros and cons could have been argued and debated before the agriculture committee. Had they followed that procedure they would have had an opportunity to consider the opinions of the farm organizations in western Canada, and the private members of the government from other areas of Canada would have been in a position to appreciate the problems which are confronting western farmers.
On previous occasions I have referred to the protest meetings which took place in Saskatchewan with respect to the introduction of this legislation and the manner in which it was introduced by the government. It was apparent at the time this legislation was mooted that the government gave no thought to getting the advice of western farm organizations, since their decision was already reached before the conference was held in Saskatoon and before the organizations had an opportunity to present a brief to the government. I might say that the brief that the organizations at that meeting presented to the government was watered down at the insistence of certain organizations which are entirely sympathetic to the government.
Some of those protest meetings took place in my constituency. On the last occasion I spoke on this measure I did not have the time to point out the fact that many of those organizations held their meetings spontaneously, at the insistence of various leaders within the community, who felt that a rank injustice was being perpetrated, and they did not want the whole procedure to go unnoticed and not be granted an opportunity to express an opinion. The Saskatchewan farmers' union played a very significant part in giving as much advice and assistance to these meetings as they could so that the farmers could be advised of the circumstances surrounding trade, circumstances that are resulting in the point directly related to the bill, namely, the financial difficulties of farmers. One of these meetings was held in my own community of Kindersley, where they had the good fortune of having the services of professor K. A. H. Buckley, of the University of Saskatchewan. After following such a procedure, after having information on a non-political basis, the farmers at that meeting, which was attended by over 100, passed a resolution to the effect that the emergency bank loans policy is inadequate for many producers. They requested interest-free cash advances on the basis of 6 bushels per specified acre. Similar

meetings were held at Swift Current, Mr. Speaker, and I understand the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Studer) was in attendance at one of those meetings. I would suggest that in this debate he take the opportunity to outline the resolution which was passed at that grain marketing conference, since it is the people whom he represents who made the decision at that meeting. An obligation rests squarely on his shoulders to present their views before this house.
Meetings were also held at Kerrobert, Unity and Wilkie in my constituency. I may say that the resolutions from each meeting were very similar indeed. This can only mean one thing. It means that the farmers of western Canada have a unanimity of thought on this matter which perhaps they have not had on any other matter except on the insistence on the orderly principle of marketing through the Canadian wheat board.
We will find, Mr. Speaker, that the situation which originated at the time that the problem developed immediately after the harvest of 1955, is growing continuously worse. These protest meetings are still taking place in an effort to bring to the attention of the government the true situation which exists in western Canada, and which is confronting the people of that area. I am informed that even today farmers are making an effort to plow out their roads to town so they can meet together and discuss their problems relative to their financial position and their inability to market any grain at all.
As hon. members may know, we have had one of the worst winters in the west that we have had for many years. The snow and cold conditions are creating serious hardships among the farmers because of the added expense they must go to in an effort to keep their lines of communication open to get to town to buy their normal groceries, to have fuel delivered to their houses and to maintain the other aspects of daily living. The storm of December 12 was very significant. Along with a fairly heavy snowfall, the snow drifted around the farmsteads and buildings, and hon. members from other parts of Canada must appreciate what a great problem it must be to have to spend $100, $200, and much more than that in many instances, to keep the roads open so that one can carry on his normal day-to-day living, if not in comfort, at least in the position where he can get to market and get supplies periodically.
With that background information it is significant to note that farmers are today plowing their roads so that they will be in a position to discuss the very problem that
Grain
we are discussing here today. They are very disturbed, as they plow their roads to town, to pass by the piles of wheat which are left on the ground. It is particularly disturbing to them, Mr. Speaker, because they realized at the time they piled this wheat on the ground it was unsafe, it was unsatisfactory, but they had no finances to build any storage. Their credit was limited. Anyone from any part of Canada who has done any building realizes that the amount of money which is required to build any kind of a structure to house grain is quite large. Because of the backlog of debts which the farmers had already incurred it was impossible for them to incur additional expenses in building farm storage. It is therefore most heartbreaking for them to drive by these piles of wheat which are being consistently cast asunder by the winds, because a pile of wheat is a conglomeration of small kernels which can be readily lifted and blown away to be lost forever, and the farmer sees the return from his year's labour gradually shrinking before his eyes. In addition to that he will find that in the spring as the snow melts it settles around the pile of wheat which he has not had an opportunity of moving and his loss becomes greater.
Then as he goes by those piles of wheat on his way to town he realizes that there are 58 million bushels of storage space available in the terminal elevators. He recalls on December 7 the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) stated at Edmonton that there were 100 million bushels of space available in the terminals. His exasperation then reaches the breaking point. He sees his wheat being drifted about and destroyed by the wind and he knows that there are 58 million bushels of storage space available. He knows that if the administration of this government had been efficient in all its aspects much of that wheat would be safe in the terminals rather than wasting away on the ground.
In view of the position of leadership which this government likes to take in terms of international affairs, it is a tragic contribution which they are making toward the support of underdeveloped and starving countries of the world when they let this wheat, which we know we will need in the future, be spoiled and rotted on the farms of western Canada when there is space available in the terminals.
The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) referred to the speech made by the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Murphy). I agree that the hon. member for Westmorland was ill advised to start off with the line of debate he did when dealing with a subject with which he was so unfamiliar.

Grain
1 must say that I do give credit to some of the government backbenchers who have come to me personally and asked for my views on the situation of the farmers in western Canada. Those hon. members have an appreciation of the problems which exist in western Canada.
We cannot for one minute assume that farm conditions in other areas are similar to Saskatchewan. There are many factors which must be considered and a comparison of similar circumstances is most difficult. I suggest to members of the government that they would indeed be well advised to invite the western farm organizations-I am thinking of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, the interprovincial farm union council and other prairie pools-to send representations down here to discuss the problems with them so that they may become acquainted with those problems.
The attitude of Saskatchewan Liberals is most unreliable and it is because of that unreliability that many Ontario and maritime members have spoken to me. I appreciate that fact and I appreciate the attitude they have adopted after I have discussed the problem with them. Many times they have said to me that they did not realize that things were that bad, that a farmer might have been able to sell only 300 bushels of grain when he had 5000 bushels in store on his farm.
I would point out that one of the inequalities which exists is in the distribution of box cars among the marketing points in western Canada. It is pointed out in the wheat review that there are many marketing points in Saskatchewan which are still on the initial unit basis. That means that the farmers at those points are allowed to deliver only 300 bushels of wheat. At the same time it is significant to note that a number of points are on the 3-bushel quota.
This indicates to me that the transport controller has not been paying close attention to the problem. There is a dispatch in today's Montreal Gazette which indicates that the transport controller has stated that the grain will be moved before the Canadian wheat board has made an estimate as to how much grain it will want moved. According to this article the controller stated that there is no shortage of box cars holding up prairie grain shipments.
If there is no shortage of box cars holding up prairie grain shipments then the Minister of Trade and Commerce should be severely criticized for allowing a situation to arise whereby there are 58 million bushels of storage space available in the terminals. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) has

denied any responsibility for filling up the terminals, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce has stated that the moving of the wheat was not his responsibility. Those two ministers would be well advised to get a little closer together and give some thought to the position of the farmers of western Canada who are supposedly being served by the transport controller.
It is fairly obvious that members on the government side who are not conversant with this problem are creating a serious break in relations between western and eastern Canada. Their determination to prevent the introduction of any legislation which would prove to be of material assistance to western farmers is doing much to undermine the co-operation which must exist between all farmers of Canada if we are to achieve our fair share of the national income.
I do not think you will find many farmers on the western plains who will begrudge the freight rate assistance being provided for Ontario farmers, who will begrudge the assistance given to the maple sugar producers to purchase aluminum equipment, or who will begrudge other forms of direct and indirect assistance which have been given to the farmers in this area. I think also that eastern farmers generally have a great deal of sympathy for the western farmer.
I am making the statement now that if the government members continue to try to make a breach between the farmers of Canada, if they continue to be ignorant of the conditions which exist in western Canada, there can be only one answer or only one solution. I have heard this discussed many times during the last few months in Saskatchewan.
The people of western Canada are becoming fed up with the attitude of the government in denying them the South Saskatchewan dam and other things which would improve conditions in western Canada, so much so that they are considering marching on Ottawa. I must say that some of them are thinking in terms of secession.
I submit it is a pretty tragic indictment of the government of Canada when one section of the country realizes that it has been ignored, that it can no longer expect to get consideration from the government. It may be that if this Liberal government continues in power for too many years the only alternative will be for the western provinces to devise their own form of legislation so that they can be treated as they wish to be.
The challenge is out. I do not think any hon. member of this house will agree that the work done many years ago to bring about a national Canada should be so easily wrecked

by the failure of Liberal members from the prairies to present to their colleagues the conditions which exist in western Canada, present them with insistence in their party caucus and before this parliament of Canada. The challenge rests with them and I hope we will not be disappointed.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it has been a rather disappointing experience to the government, and particularly to the Minister of Finance, to And that, in spite of revisions in the rules of procedure, legislation such as we have before us today is only inviting lengthy discussion.
We are discussing this at length for the very simple reason that the government has failed to appreciate and understand the problem that is involved. Certainly it will be as lengthy a discussion as it is possible for us to make it.
I rose primarily to deal with one or two of the questions posed by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but before I deal with them I should like for a moment to say something about the very ill-considered remarks made a few moments ago by the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hosking). The hon. member for Wellington South proved beyond question something that has been cropping up in this debate ever since it began-that the eastern Liberal members have been led to believe that this problem is not as acute as we would like to make out it is. They have been misinformed to the point which prompted the hon. member for Wellington South to make a most irresponsible statement in this house this morning. He asked the question, "Do the farmers of western Canada expect the taxpayers of eastern Canada to subsidize the western farmer in connection with cash advances?" I should like to point out to him and to all other members from eastern Canada-


Claude Sartoris Richardson: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Yes.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: Thank you very much. How many members of the C.C.F. party are presently in the house?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Only two. That shows their real interest in this matter.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: There are as many farmers in the C.C.F. party present as there are Liberal farmer members present.


John Horace Dickey: His speech has driven his own supporters out of the house.


An hon. Member:: Where is the minister?
Grain


Paul Joseph James Martin: Where is the leader of the C.C.F. group?


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I want to deal for a moment with the question posed by the hon. member for Wellington South. This is not a local problem. It is a national problem. I think it is high time the Liberal members from eastern Canada faced up to the fact that it is a national problem. This morning the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) proved in his remarks that this is a national problem. It is time hon. members appreciated that fact. Here is what is going to happen, as pointed out by the hon. member for Mackenzie. We in western Canada have tremendous supplies not only of feed wheat but of feed grain of every other description. What are we going to do with it? The farmers are going to produce livestock in such a way that no farmer in eastern Canada will be able to compete with them.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Why have they not done so before?


Hugh Alexander Bryson: We were getting rid of some grain before.


Henry Alfred Hosking: 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.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I remind hon. members that the hon. member who has the floor may not be interrupted without his consent? May I also remind the hon. member who has the floor that possibly he would not invite so many interruptions if he adhered more closely to the principle of the bill?


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I do not mind interruptions of the type I am getting, because they only prove my point that this government has completely misrepresented the problem with which we are dealing.


Henry Alfred Hosking: May I ask another question?


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Yes.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Would you suggest to me what our eastern farmers think of the government of Saskatchewan for not being willing to spend $15,000 for butter instead of margarine?


Charles Edward Johnston: The same thing as they-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That question will, of course, not be answered. We are dealing with Bill 82, and I would like hon. members to adhere to the principle of this bill.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I am very serious about this. I am not saying this just for something to say. I am telling the members of eastern

Grain
Canada that the situation is serious. I realize it is physically impossible for the farmers in eastern Canada to compete in the livestock business with the people in western Canada, and there is a very simple reason why they cannot. We have tremendous stocks of grain. That is the chief reason. We are going to go into livestock production. I am not acquainted with what has been going on in the last two or three months as far as the people in my neighbourhood are concerned on this question.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I am concerned about the farmers in my area.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I very reluctantly bring this case up as an example. I can tell you that according to the last letter I had from my farm at Tisdale, they are going to breed 100 sows this winter. That gives you one indication. It is useless for a farmer to go into the livestock business and merely raise a few dozen head if he has 15,000 or 20,000 bushels of feed grain he wishes to get rid of. He has to go into the livestock business on a much bigger scale. This should be a sinister warning to the farmers of eastern Canada that, if this government is not going to accept this responsibility to the western farmer, the whole Canadian agricultural economy is going to collapse because of that fact.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Your farmer will certainly do some work for a change.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: That is another irresponsible statement.


Henry Alfred Hosking: You will find out, and so will he.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention now the reason why I rose primarily to answer the question. I should like to say, before I leave this matter of the eastern farmer, if the representatives of the Liberal party who are representing farmers from farm constituencies in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec would get up in this house and make the same kind of fight for them as the members from the west have made.


Henry Alfred Hosking: We would get as little done as you over there.


An hon. Member:: What are you doing?


Hugh Alexander Bryson: You have done nothing. You just think you have. I rose to answer the question that was posed yesterday by the parliamentary assistant. He said that this bill was being accepted by reputable farm organizations right across western Canada. He quoted two or three very dubious organizations. He mentioned the Alberta federation of agriculture, I believe, and he mentioned Mr. Brownlee's organization, which I again

say is very dubious, but he did not mention the six or ten organizations which came out with forthright statements in favour of cash advances through the wheat board. I wonder how many members across the way have received letters of condemnation and have received signed petitions from farmers-I am speaking, of course, of the Liberal members from the west-condemning this piece of legislation. I have several in my file, and I would like to put on the record a typical one from a farmer in Saskatchewan in connection with this piece of legislation, because I think it typifies the fundamental thinking of western farmers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has indicated he intends to place on the record an opinion with regard to this legislation. I think the hon. member will agree that Mr. Speaker has consistently indicated that such a procedure is not in order.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Well, I accept your decision.


Hazen Robert Argue: Just refer to it.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: He says that the legislation is worse than useless. I do not know what else he could say about it. We have heard a lot of statements during the course of the debate that cash advances are absolutely not feasible in any shape or form. I should like to point out that the wheat board has already established a principle very close to cash advances in that they are now accepting delivery of grain without' any hope of an immediate market for it. They say that they will accept grain when there is room in the elevator. It is placed in the elevator and there it stays. Why can they not go to the farmer and say: We will pay you and you keep it in your elevator. What would be the result? We would save millions and millions of dollars in storage charges. I am not critical of the action but the people of Canada are going to be asked to pay a minimum of $30 million in storage charges. That would have been unnecessary if the government had put forward the proposition of cash advances, paid the farmer for the grain and left it in the farmer's granary. Such action would have saved the taxpayers of the country some $32 million a year.


Irvin William Studer: Interest free.


John Horne Blackmore: Why not?


Hugh Alexander Bryson: In the face of what I have just said I think that to argue that cash advances are not feasible is rather ridiculous.


Irvin William Studer: Interest free.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Studer) is trying to prove he is just as stupid today as he was yesterday.


Irvin William Studer: I am not stupid. You cannot teach me anything.


An hon. Member:: Just a vacuum.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: The government is relying on scarcity to relieve them of the burden with which they are confronted today. They are saying the only way the situation is going to be remedied is by a series of crop failures. Once again that is a very false premise upon which to establish any kind of realistic agricultural policy. A policy of scarcity is a criminal policy. It is an immoral policy. Of course, as has been said before, and it is worth repeating, the most potent arguments against acceptance of the legislation have been the arguments made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). I should like to quote one or two things he has said to show exactly what I mean. As found at page 127 of Hansard the minister had this to say.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have occasion to remember that page from yesterday. That is a page in Hansard in another debate, the debate on the address, and I do not think the hon. member should refer to another debate of the same session.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I can refer to it without reading it. In this part I have in my hand-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member misunderstood me. I do not have the rule before me but my recollection of the wording is that a member must not refer to another debate of the same session on the same subject.


Henry Alfred Hosking: You have been out of order so often you do not know when you are in order.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I will refer generally to the remarks that were made. First of all he said that there was no need to have the wheat board handle the matter because we have so much wheat that the farmers do not know what to do with it. Then the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) made the statement that there are many other reasons involved in the question besides the one mentioned by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In any case we are dealing with a bill which is of no consequence whatsoever. If the government had wanted to do something worthwhile they would have done some hard thinking about the matter, but the cabinet has given out misinformation to the private members of the Liberal party and they are now prepared to support the decision of the cabinet. The members of the cabinet are tired. They are so bankrupt of ideas that the best they can do is to go out to the old Liberal boneyard behind the buildings where they bury things 67509-83J
Grain
they do not like and which are of no use to them, things they would like to forget like the Liberal promises at election time. The unsuspecting new members of the Liberal party go with them and they dig up this old carcass of a bill which they buried in 1951 after it died from pernicious anaemia in the same year. After it is exhumed and they take a look at it it does not look very good so they sprinkle it with a little bit of tinsel by reducing the interest rate by one-half of one per cent and making the bank guarantee larger. Then they present it but they have not fooled anybody because regardless of all the efforts they made to dress it up it is the same old decrepit carcass it was in 1951. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue to reject this legislation. May I call it one o'clock?


Charles Edward Johnston: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, when I was speaking a while ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce interrupted me to say that my paraphrase of remarks made by him some time ago was incorrect. I stated at that time that it was always my intention to be able to back up everything I say and that if I had inadvertently misquoted the Minister of Trade and Commerce I would withdraw my remarks immediately.
I have looked up the references now and I should like to put them on the record. First of all I said that the Minister of Trade and Commerce had said on other occasions that there were very few farmers who would take advantage of this legislation. He objected to that statement. I think the words he objected to most strenuously were the words "very few". I claimed then that I was right and I want to put the references on the record for the minister's guidance. I am sorry he is not here.


An hon. Member:: Page, please.


Charles Edward Johnston: At page 129 of Hansard of January 16 he said:
A certain number of producers have found themselves in difficulty this past season, and the purpose of the guaranteed loan was to relieve those smaller producers.
I contend, Mr. Speaker, that when the minister said that a certain number of producers have found themselves in difficulty it meant that there were very few who had found themselves in difficulty.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Edward Johnston: Just one minute.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is quite in order if he wishes to refer to the page and read the remarks, but in my opinion he is now introducing a matter which

Grain
is purely debatable. I think he has sufficiently made any question of privilege which is proper under the circumstances. Do I understand that the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort has concluded his remarks?


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, that is only one instance and that is the weakest. I want to put more on the record which are irrefutable so far as I am concerned. He also had something else to say at page 129. There are three references I want to give.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is not a true question of privilege and I must rule accordingly. May I also point out to the hon. member that it is one o'clock and that I am leaving the chair.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that I will be able to carry on this question of privilege after one o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am unable to see that there is any proper question of privilege raised in the hon. gentleman's remarks to date. During the lunch hour I shall be glad to read the blues of Hansard and, if I come to a different conclusion, I shall be glad to inform him accordingly.


Charles Edward Johnston: Otherwise, I shall be obliged to speak again after the house resumes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do I understand that the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort (Mr. Bryson) has resumed his seat or did he wish to call it one o'clock?


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I wish to call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Charles Edward Johnston: On the point
of privilege that I asked to raise just before the lunch hour, Mr. Speaker, have you given it further consideration? May I go on?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: During the lunch
hour I obtained the blues from Hansard. The hon. member for Bow River rose on a question of privilege which resulted from an interchange between himself and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. During the course of the remarks of the hon. member for Bow River, he was citing what he considered the minister had said on previous occasions. I recall that the minister rose

and requested the hon. member for Bow River not to paraphrase but to quote from the Hansard record.
On the question of privilege which the hon. member raised before one o'clock, he made the following remarks: "First of all I said that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has said on other occasions that there were very few farmers who would take advantage of this legislation. He objected to that statement." The hon. member's question of privilege was then to read the remarks of the minister from page 129 of Hansard of January 16, 1956, as follows:
A certain number of producers have found themselves in difficulty this past season and the purpose of the guaranteed loan was to relieve those smaller producers.
The hon. member for Bow River then went on to say: "I contend, Mr. Speaker, that when the minister said that a number of producers had found themselves in difficulty it meant that there were very few who found themselves in difficulty."
At this time I interjected and indicated that the hon. member was then embarking on what I considered a debatable matter and not a true question of privilege. The hon. member rose and said that this was only one instance and was the weakest. He wanted to put more on the record which were irrefutable so far as he was concerned. I presume this is the same type of reference and I must rule that this is not a true question of privilege but rather a matter for debate.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Just before we rose at one
o'clock, I said something about the storage bill which is on the order paper following the one with which we are dealing. I mentioned this as a piece of progressive legislation for which the government is very glad to take credit.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is my hon.
friend talking about another bill on the order paper? Surely he should confine his remarks to the bill under discussion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As a matter of fact,
I have not been able to hear what the hon. member was saying. Perhaps it is the fault of the amplifying equipment or perhaps the hon. member might speak a little louder.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I mentioned that the storage
bill is a piece of progressive legislation. The government is very happy to take credit for it. But they are very careful not to take credit or accept responsibility for the lowest farm income this country has ever experienced. They are very careful also to take no credit whatever for policies which have resulted in the highest cost of living we have ever had in this country.

Grain
The farm union delegation is now in the city and what they have to say concerning the value of this piece of legislation with which we are dealing only confirms the convictions that have been held by a great many of us. It is a very sad commentary on conditions when a man has a piece of land which only two years ago was sold for $38,000. The man who bought it placed improvements on it to the value of $5,000, and is now offering it for $20,000 yet no one will take his offer. When he tried to get a mortgage on it for any amount, he was refused everywhere. I think that is a fairly common thing. I know areas in the west where 80 per cent of the farmers are now engaged in some other occupation in order to maintain a miserable standard of living.
When we have conditions such as these and at the same time find the granaries full of wheat, I think it is a very serious situation. Certainly when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), as he has done on every occasion, maintains that inventories of grain represent a farmer's net worth, that too is a faulty premise on which to establish any sound foundation for this legislation. I venture to say that possibly 50 per cent of this grain will never be placed in an elevator because of spoilage. In conclusion, may I say once again on behalf of the farmers of my constituency who have sent me down here with express instructions to resist this legislation at every opportunity, I once again take this opportunity of doing just that.


John George Diefenbaker: Having received the return which was tabled today by the Department of Trade and Commerce-


Clarence Decatur Howe: By the Secretary of State.


John George Diefenbaker: -by the Secretary of State on behalf of the Department of Trade and Commerce-


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, on his own
behalf.


John George Diefenbaker: I wish to refer now to a matter to which general reference has been made heretofore, and that is the general demand in the prairie provinces for cash advances on farm-stored wheat. The question that was passed as an order for return was as follows:
For a copy of all resolutions supporting the demand for cash advances on farm-stored wheat which have been received from western farm organizations and other public bodies, by the Prime Minister and any of the ministers of the government, or officials of the government, since the 15th day of August, 1955.
I have this return before me which tells the story. It indicates that more than 500
western farm organizations, municipalities and the like, have petitioned this government on behalf of what they demand, namely cash advances on farm-stored wheat.
One of the resolutions here is from Prince Albert and it is dated October 6, 1955, and signed by W. C. Bliss, Junior, subdistrict director of the Saskatchewan farmers' union, and represents the viewpoint of farmers generally in western Canada. After giving a general summary of the situation and the financial position in which the farmer finds himself, the resolution reads:
The most pressing problem is the shortage of cash, and we strongly urge the government to make cash advances on farm-stored grain in an amount not less than 85 per cent of the present initial payment.
It deals also with other matters and other demands of western farmers and ends up this way:
We urge that parliament be reconvened to take action . . . prompt and courageous action.
Now, this file has not shown all the returns because many of the resolutions were identical one with the other, but passed by more than 500 organizations throughout western Canada. It is for that reason I find it so difficult to understand why western Liberal members are adopting the attitude they are in this house on this matter. I have a tremendous regard for the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Studer). He has a scintillating wit and the power to make parliament really understand problems. I think he spoke with such power this morning when, in an interjection with an hon. member, he said in effect, in reply to the remark that he was stupid: "I am stupid because you cannot teach me anything". Well, in that statement I think the hon. gentleman seemed to be speaking generally, in reference to this particular matter, for those members of the Liberal party who represent constituencies in western Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know why those hon. gentlemen take the stand that they do.


George James McIlraith: The hon. gentleman-


John George Diefenbaker: I am speaking to those from western Canada, not the wheat farmers from Ottawa.


George James McIlraith: No, you are addressing the house.


John George Diefenbaker: I am dealing with the situation in the west and with income of agriculture generally.


George James McIlraith: You accused the Liberal members of certain characteristics. Maybe

Grain
you are the one who suffers from that characteristic, and not the ones you accused.


John George Diefenbaker: I simply say to my hon. friend I do not know what he is saying. I know it has nothing to do with the problem with which I am dealing, and as the cuckoo is in June, he is heard but not regarded.
I say to my hon. friend, in the last couple of days the farmers' union has made a submission and has set out in very careful detail the position of the gross and net farm income for all of Canada between 1951 and 1955, and also the gross and net income in the last several years. These statistics indicate the serious cash situation in which the farmer finds himself.
As far as Canada in general is concerned, starting with 1951, the gross and net income among farmers is set out as follows: In 1951 it went down by 10-72 per cent; in 1953, by 21-1 per cent; in 1954, by 48-2 per cent. The figures for 1955 will indicate a further reduction in net income. Net income, of course, is based on a relative comparison between gross income and the cost that the farmer has to incur in order to operate his farm. These costs are rising.
I now come to the gross and net farm income for the prairie provinces for the same period. In 1952 the net income was down by 3-13 per cent; in 1953, by 21-6 per cent; in 1954, by 66-64 per cent. The final 1955 figures are not yet available, but they will indicate a further decrease. A 66 per cent decrease in net farm income in a matter of three or four years is one which explains as clearly as possible the need of cash. If these figures were based upon the purchasing power of the dollar the condition of affairs would be even more serious than is apparent from the simple percentage statistics that I have placed before you, Mr. Speaker.
Farmers generally-and I say this cannot be contradicted; the return tells its story- want cash advances, and everything has been done to prevent their getting them. The minister has threatened; he has endeavoured to intimidate, all with a view to securing the passage of this bill, regardless of the demands of the western farmers. In one instance he has used a stick. I referred yesterday to a speech he made recently in which he enunciated that new principle of parliamentary freedom. On the occasion of the 20th anniversary celebration in honour of himself and of the Minister of Agriculture the stick was used, the toe-the-line philosophy. On the other hand, the carrot is held out as well, the promise to the farmers of western Canada that if this legislation is passed, then and then only will the government give consideration to making further advances or a distribution of moneys on account of 1954-55 pool.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, may I point out to my hon. friend that either today or yesterday a distribution was made to the farmers of western Canada. Perhaps he will withdraw that statement.


John George Diefenbaker: I am just mentioning
what the minister said the other day; that is all.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Again I am misquoted. If I said something the other day perhaps my hon. friend will read it from Hansard. Hon. members think they can rise in their places and say: "The Minister of Trade and Commerce said so and so" whether he did or not. My hon. friend knows that he is not quoting accurately.


John George Diefenbaker: I am quoting accurately -I am not quoting; I am paraphrasing what the minister said.


John Horace Dickey: Misrepresenting.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Misrepresenting.


John George Diefenbaker: If the minister says what I say is not correct all he has to do is to follow me and indicate that it is not. What I am saying is the fact. He held out a threat, a whip, a stick, accompanied by a carrot.


Mr, Howe (Port Arthur):: May I ask, am I not permitted to say whether I did say it or not? I know what I said. My hon. friend is quite capable of quoting accurately. If he will take the trouble to do so, let him turn up Hansard.


John George Diefenbaker: All right, I will turn to Hansard just as soon as I sit down, and indicate the page, because the minister so often forgets what he said.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Distorted.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Weasel words.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, my hon. friends interrupt. If we had the kind of domination the minister would like in this house, hon. members would be merely puppets in a puppet show. That is his attitude toward it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have the best puppet show right now.


George Alexander Drew: You certainly have.


John George Diefenbaker: I agree so heartily with that interruption.	[DOT]


John Horace Dickey: In other words, the shoe fits.


John George Diefenbaker: Turning members of parliament into pantomime puppets, whereby they are threatened with what will happen,

an election will take place, threatening parliament, trying to steamroller this thing through when farmers on the prairies say: "We do not want this type of legislation; we do not want to be placed in the position of having to pay interest on what we have already earned". What about the legislation? Well, as the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, it is the counterpart of the legislation of 1951.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Read where a man has to go to jail.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, now-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Read from the legislation where a man has to go to jail.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman must have had somebody else draft it because he does not know the bill. I will read the section.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John Horace Dickey: Wait until we get into committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I remind the hon. gentleman that he may not read the section.


John Horace Dickey: He did yesterday.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, you saved him that time. I will whisper to him "section 9". I come back to 1951 when the legislation was known as the Prairie Grain Producers' Interim Financing Act. That act was very similar, almost a counterpart except that the present legislation goes further and actually in effect places a yoke about the necks of western farmers. I quote from the 1951 legislation:
Where a person is convicted of an offence under this section there shall be imposed on him, in addition to any fine, a penalty equal to such amount of any guaranteed loan made to him in respect of which the offence was committed as has not been repaid by him, with interest thereon to the date of the conviction, and the penalty shall be paid to the bank-
If the farmer is proceeded against and fails to pay his fine, the alternative is jail. In addition to the fine there is also a penalty of the amount of the loan. I say that that type of thing is disgraceful legislation. It is actually providing for imprisonment for debt and it is adding to all the security of the Bank Act and the further security that is provided in that a farmer may not sell except when he makes payment and to the degree provided for the making of payment. If he commits an offence he immediately finds himself in the position of being subject, first to a penalty up to $500 and then in addition to be ordered to pay as a penalty the amount that he owes.
Grain
If he has made a misleading statement, if he does not get cash and is unable to pay the amount of the penalty, the amount of the loan, there is only one alternative open to him, prison. That is provided by the section in question.


Irvin William Studer: They have that in Saskatchewan if you do not pay.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not going to disagree with my hon. friend. It just shows the degree to which this government is imitating the socialists in Saskatchewan with legislation such as this.


Major James William Coldwell: That was on the statute books before the C.C.F. were elected.


John George Diefenbaker: This is a private argument between the C.C.F. and my hon. friend and I am simply an onlooker. I pass on to this legislation of 1951. In 1951 conditions were such that legislation similar to the present act was placed upon the statute books. We said that insufficient had been voted-$20 million was the amount-and ever since the right hon. gentleman has pointed out to us that the legislation was not used. He asked me to quote, and I shall quote what he had to say on November 18, 1953, as reported on page 128 of Hansard. At that time he was giving the reasons why advances on the farm, as be called them, were not necessary. I quote:
It will be understood, then, why the government considers that the need for farm advances has not been proven.
The government also had before it the results of the legislation approved by parliament In 1951 for advances to producers of grain on farms. Hon. members will recall the circumstances of that year. A very large crop had been grown but a great deal of it was tough and damp and a very large area was under snow and could not then be harvested. Faced with this situation, which was certainly very much grimmer than now prevails, the government introduced a bill to provide shortterm advances to farmers. The banks were to be guaranteed against losses on loan advances up to $20 million on both grain in storage and grain in the fields.
After a few pleasantries directed at myself-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Better read it all, do not skip anything.


John George Diefenbaker: The right hon. gentleman had this to say:
I regret to say, however, that even though advances under this 1951 legislation were very limited and one might have thought that the risk was negligible, over $40,000 is still outstanding and the Department of Finance has paid losses to the banks in excess of $11,000. These results must cause anyone to pause who advocates that the wheat board or the treasury should become involved in a widespread system of advances on farm-held grain.

Grain
He said the legislation did not work, that it was worthless, and then in order to show how worthless it was he duplicates it in 1956 and asks the farmers to accept that which he said was not successful in 1951. Is it any wonder that in 1951 the farmers did not accept that kind of legislation? They were not looking for passports to jail, they were looking for advances which would make available to them the necessary money to pay their current expenses.
What happened-I say this with great respect-to the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) a few days ago simply summarized the attitude of western farmers everywhere. As a matter of fact, if I might be allowed to paraphrase-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Something more.


John George Diefenbaker: My right hon. friend will understand this because he was an American until recent years. Paraphrasing Emerson I would say: Here once the embattled farmers stood and fired their shots heard around the west. That represents the attitude of western farmers everywhere. They are demanding that cash advances be provided. The record before us indicates the extent of that demand.
If the legislation did not work in 1951 why embalm it in another piece of legislation which is almost a photographic copy except for the amount which the banks may lend and also the extension of the penalties provided in 1951. The reason given by the minister in 1953 was that this kind of thing could not be done because the farmers were dishonest, because they were evading it, and because we have suffered loss. Ever since 1951 whenever any member of the opposition has suggested that something should be done to assist the farmers by cash advances on farm-stored grain the minister has bravely stood his ground and pointed out that the 1951 experiment was unsuccessful, that it did not work, that only a very small percentage of the total amount guaranteed was taken over by the farmers.
That is the reason for the small amount. What is the percentage? I understand it is about 4 per cent of the farmers. Four per cent have taken advantage of this, and that is all. They have been forced into that position against their own wishes and desires, against the resolutions which they themselves joined in having passed.
That is the reason why we take the stand that we do, and it has been a consistent stand. Last September when the matter was first mentioned, with the approval and consent of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) I said that we believed in cash advances and that parliament should be called

together. When the Leader of the Opposition was in western Canada in October and November and saw the situation he reiterated over and over again the need for action along this line being taken. But parliament was not called. If parliament had been called, the whole matter could have been discussed. Instead of that, the back-door method of cabinet decree was used and we are asked in parliament to rubber-stamp what the government did when it acted in derogation to everything the western farmer has demanded.
I was surprised this morning to hear the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hosking) make a statement which in some ways seems to epitomize the viewpoint of some of my hon. friends opposite. Referring to the western farmers, he said this: "Your farmer will certainly do some work for a change."
That was a statement that ought not to have been made. I would like to see some of the Liberal members from Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta stand up and repudiate that-unless my hon. friend has indeed become the voice of the members of the province of Ontario supporting the government. That was a very serious statement. We are not asking for any handouts. The government is the only market, through the wheat board. The farmer is entitled to what he has earned. Being in that position, he resents having to pay interest on the work he has done. We took that stand first in September, then when our leader visited western Canada, then again in the initial speech made in this House of Commons this session by the hon. gentleman, and also during the month of December when we said, as far as the resolution stage was concerned, "We shall accept this, because apparently something is going to be done."
I say, with all respect to the Department of National Revenue, which seems to have a monopoly of this sort of thing, that what is produced is almost a photostatic copy of a bill that did not work then. We were defeated when we asked that it be submitted to the agriculture committee. What we are trying to do is to secure through parliament by parliamentary means what the western farmer is asking for and what he has demanded over and over again. It may be that in the stand we take, because of the overwhelming government majority, this legislation will be pushed through. If it is, my answer to those who push it through is that if the 1951 legislation does not work, this legislation cannot work either. The experience of the past few months and the degree to which it has not been made use of indicates that it does not meet the situation.

indeed, this problem is one that recurs from year to year. Not every year, but from time to time, it has recurred since 1952. In November 1953 the Leader of the Opposition, then speaking as I say he was speaking, for those in western Canada who had been asking for this kind of thing, demanded that legislation providing for cash advances should indeed be brought into effect. When finally the bill came up for second reading, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) showed the attitude of this party in the amendment he tried to move, but it was ruled out of order. That amendment-and I am now paraphrasing-provided that the bill be not now read the second time but that there be substituted therefor legislation to provide for cash payments on farm-stored grain. In other words, cash advances are what we in this party have demanded over and over again. The support we have given to them is indicated by what I mentioned a moment ago-our support of similar legislation in 1953 and since.
Apparently even among members of the government there was not very much certainty as to what they were going to do. You will remember when Mr. McDonald, the leader of the Liberal party in Saskatchewan, came here-I think it was in October-and said something had to be done. He said, "I can't tell you what it is." It is like the old Indian medicine, Kickapoo juice; it would cure anything, but they never told you the contents. He returned and said, "I have found it; I have got it." Then it was rumoured that the plan was indeed guaranteed bank loans. On October 24, 1955, the Minister of Agriculture, speaking in Winnipeg, said that while there were complaints, including a complaint from the Manitoba government, these complaints were based on a belief that the federal government had chosen bank loans rather than advances. He said, in effect, "Don't believe it." There was the criticism of the Manitoba government and its representative. There has been the criticism of the leader of the Liberal party in Alberta, who knows what the people think.


George Prudham: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
question of privilege. It is bad enough to misquote a member of this house, but I think to misquote someone outside the house, who is not here to defend himself, is not right.


John George Diefenbaker: That is his privilege, is it?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am afraid what the minister has raised is not a true question of privilege in the House of Commons.


John George Diefenbaker: If my hon. friend does no better at interpreting the feelings of the western farmers than he does at interpreting
Grain
what Mr. Prowse said the other day on television, then I am very sorry for the people of Alberta. Everywhere throughout the western provinces the farmers are asking that we take action in this parliament to meet the situation.
I make this last appeal, that the government reconsider the matter now. I know that in recent weeks of this session, this government has scintillated in confusion, but I hope that out of the confusion of jarring statements made by various ministers since October last will come at last a realization that what the western farmer wants is cash advances. If even now they will withdraw this legislation and bring in what the farmer wants, it would be assured of immediate passage in this house.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I have not had a great deal to say on this matter in the past week or so, because I have felt that there were many others who wished to speak and that they should be accorded every opportunity of doing so. In this group we are fortunate in having with us most of the practising farmers on this side of the house, and I have been very happy indeed that, while I represent a constituency that is primarily interested in this problem, we have men who are actually engaged in production-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Major James William Coldwell: I should correct that and say "western farmers". I have risen this afternoon to make one or two observations I have wanted to make for some time. I want to say to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that the position in which western farmers have been placed by this situation is deeply resented by them. I informed the minister of a constituent of mine who for two reasons, one because he needed the storage space and the other because he needed cash, was actually selling 1954 feed wheat to the stockyards in Saskatoon for a cent a pound and paying 20 cents a bushel for hauling it. In other words, he was getting a net of 40 cents a bushel at Rosetown, Saskatchewan, for that wheat. When you examine the value of the dollar today compared with what it was in the 1930's, about which we have so often talked in this house, that means that in pre-war currency he was getting about 19 cents a bushel or about the lowest price that farmers in that area got for their wheat at the elevator in the very depths of the depression.
I am not going very fully into the legislation before us this afternoon because it has been gone into by so many. It is unsatisfactory legislation. It is legislation which we

Grain
saw introduced in 1951 and which we opposed at that time by an amendment to the resolution urging the government at that time to adopt a policy of cash advances. That has been our plea in the house ever since 1951. I am going to say to the minister that I am not in agreement with those who say that because we have a surplus of wheat at the moment on the western prairies our farmers should be told to cut down their production of wheat next year. I am not sure when that wheat will be needed in view of the reports coming to us from Europe at the present time that hundreds of thousands, yes, millions of acres of winter wheat have been destroyed by the great frost in Europe. Next year, or the year after this, wheat may be a very valuable asset to Canada and to the world.
I am never one of those who believe in restricting production to meet a situation of this sort, but I am saying that this valuable reserve, this valuable asset to Canada and to the world should not be carried by the farmers who produced it but that the people who should carry the burden are the people of this dominion. Of course it can be done in two ways, by making cash advances repayable when the wheat is marketed on a quota basis and then the surplus stored and storage paid to the farmers who have their wheat properly stored to meet the future needs of people here and across the world.
As was said this morning, because of the inability of the farmer to market his grain and his inability to get cash advances which would enable him to build more adequate and safe storage space, there has been a serious deterioration of wheat on the western prairies which we as a nation and the world may regret in the days to come. I have never had very much faith in the government's protestations about the wheat board. I am very glad that recently in the debate we have not heard it said that those of us on this side of the house are weakening or undermining the wheat board. That can be demonstrated to be quite untrue. As a matter of fact the records clearly prove on which side of the house the people sit who through the years have been supporters of the orderly system of marketing.
I regret that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is not in his seat this afternoon. Last night he accused me again of having misrepresented him on many occasions over recent years. I have no recollection of having done so except in so far as I said a few days ago that I had been misinformed and that I had misquoted the Minister of Agriculture. I admitted that and put the record straight. But the Minister of

Agriculture is constantly saying that he has been misrepresented either in the press or in this house. He said it last night when it so happened that I had the Hansard on my desk from which I am going to quote in a moment.
The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) was referring to a statement made in the house by the Minister of Agriculture on April 5, 1939, and the minister disputed the accuracy of the statement of the hon. member for Mackenzie. I happened to have the Hansard with the verbatim report of what the Minister of Agriculture said. It is true that speaking from memory the hon. member for Mackenzie left out the reference to 20 bushels to the acre, but otherwise the statement was correct in every particular.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Was not the 20
bushels to the acre the essential part of the statement?


Major James William Coldwell: I would not say that was the essential part of the statement. If the minister thinks so I will not argue that point, but in any event the matter was cleared up immediately. The accurate statement was placed on the record last night from Hansard of that date. Last night the hon. member for Mackenzie said, as found at page 1276 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, when the matter comes up again I will have the reference in Hansard and I will be very glad to place it on the record.
Then I said, "Here you are." Then the Minister of Agriculture said:
The hon. gentleman who has misrepresented it for all these years is now handing it to you.
I have not misrepresented it. I have not referred to it for some years now but whenever I did I used to carry with me a copy of the Hansard for April 5, 1939, and read what the minister had said from the record.
I went further and read more than what was read last night although I do not think it made a material difference to the argument in question that, if we raised 20 bushels or more to the acre, wheat could be produced at 30 to 40 cents a bushel in western Canada. But the other day I was speaking in the house and I said this in this same debate-I am not quoting from a previous debate but the same debate-as found at page 843 of Hansard of February 3:
... I remember perfectly well the Minister of Agriculture rising on occasion after occasion in the house and defending the grain exchange method of marketing.
The minister said, "Oh, no." Then I said:
Hon. members who were in the house at the time, and I am sorry to say there are only a very few of us left, can remember it as vividly as I can.

Then the minister said:
... My hon. friend should not quote unless he has Hansard here to prove it.
One reason I am speaking this afternoon is that I have Hansard here to prove it. In the same debate the minister said that he had not supported the competitive system of marketing, which is the grain exchange method of marketing, since he had been in the house. Well, here is the record. Speaking in the debate on April 5, 1939, he referred to a speech of the late Hon. J. L. Ralston, to which I had referred, and said, as found at page 2612 of Hansard of that date:
Hon. J. L. Ralston, speaking in 1935 for the Liberal party, then the official opposition, on the grain bill of that year, which later became the wheat bill, and replying to Mr. Bennett, said, as reported at page 3581 of Hansard:
"I do not believe that the people of the Dominion of Canada are favourable to a compulsory wheat board, to a board the constitution of which will mean that every wheat grower, every elevator man and everybody engaged in the wheat business must deal with the government agency and no one else. This matter of policy has been discussed before not only in this house but throughout the country. The government has carried on with a voluntary system for five years as Mr. McFarland and the Canadian Co-Operative Wheat Producers Limited have been nothing more or less than a board conducting voluntary market operations. A man was entitled to sell or not sell to Mr. McFarland as he saw fit. I submit that so far as the western wheat grower is concerned that the voluntary system should be continued until there has been more opportunity to consider the matter. I do not believe the compulsory feature of this bill will meet with approval, either in the west, in the east or in this house."
That is the end of the quotation. Then the minister added these words:
There you have the issue clearly drawn between the two parties at that time-
I will refer to those words in a moment. -in the house: One was for compulsion: the other-
The Liberal party.
-was for a continuance of the voluntary system.
Those were the words of the minister in this house on April 5, 1939. Then he went on to discuss the undertakings that Mr. Bennett had given at the time the wheat board was under discussion and he said this:
When these undertakings were given, indicating that the legislation was to deal with a temporary condition, that it was not a permanent policy, and that even while it was in force it was subject to the control of the government of the day, it passed the house unanimously.
I place this record on Hansard in order that the position may be quite clear in any discussion which may take place in regard to the actions of the government from that day to this, whether under the previous prime minister or the present Prime Minister.
Then my hon. friend the minister went [DOT]on to describe some of the operations of
Grain
the wheat board under Mr. McFarland and subsequently, at page 2615 of Hansard of 1939, having clearly outlined all this, he summarises what we took to be his own opinion in the matter. He says:
I have come to the conclusion that to ignore the so-called law of supply and demand, as Mr. Bennett said his government intended to do when they brought in the first bill in 1935, will eventually wreck any system that can be devised, by loading the system with an enormous surplus or by giving it an enormous deficit.
There we have the record indicating quite clearly that the statement which I made- and which the minister denied-was perfectly correct in every particular. I had, of course, quoted a former minister of agriculture, the late Hon. W. R. Motherwell, to the effect that he had been deceived, that when he wished to market his grain through his own local elevator through the wheat board, he was unable to do so in 1938.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You win the argument by default.


Major James William Coldwell: How?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The minister is absent.


Major James William Coldwell: I am sorry the minister is absent, but what I have done is to quote the record. I cannot understand how the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) could say that I win by default when I have quoted the record; and I have tried to quote it accurately.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You quoted it in the absence of the minister.


Major James William Coldwell: I am sorry the minister is absent.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Whose fault is that?


Major James William Coldwell: As a matter of fact, I thought he would be here.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps the hon. member picks his days.


Major James William Coldwell: No; I do not pick days. If the minister really wants to know the truth, I may tell him that I did not speak yesterday because I was not well. That was the only reason. Perhaps I should not be speaking this afternoon. But I want to say that what I have tried to do is correct a statement which the minister made in reply to a statement that I had made that afternoon.
I hear from a good many of the wheat producers in western Canada. My constituency is wholly a wheat-producing constituency. I was over the whole of it last autumn from one end to the other. My constituents at various points-and all of them are wheat farmers-expressed deep resentment at the

Grain
proposal once again to introduce this bank loan plan which-as the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said in the speech he has just made-was proved to be a failure in 1953. We knew that it would be not only unpopular but mainly useless in 1951 when we moved the amendment to which I have referred calling for advances. We are therefore opposing this legislation because we disbelieve in it, because we think it is inadequate and because we think it is resented by the people who sent us here, and we are saying so. Not only are we saying so but at every opportunity we are going to vote against it.
I know we were the only party in the house which voted against it at the resolution stage. We voted against it then because we hoped that if the house showed its disapproval of this legislation at the resolution stage, a bill such as the one we have before us might not be introduced but rather that the government might reconsider its proposals and introduce another bill designed to meet the needs of the western wheat growers. I think that is what they hoped for as well. The government have not seen fit to do so. They have adopted this policy and they are going to put it through, I have no doubt. But they will put it through over our opposition.
Let it not be said that the opposition that has been indicated in this house to this measure is in any way fomented by those who are opposed to the wheat board. That was said on occasion but I am glad to say it has not been said just lately. Let that not be said. The Winnipeg Free Press, the newspaper which has been said to be opposed to the board, was opposed to the board, I know, when the board was originally set up and for some years afterwards. But as I read the Free Press today, even it accepts the situation as an accomplished fact, realizing that the producers want such a method of marketing and realizing perhaps that with an international wheat agreement-which I may say I hope will be consummated-this is the only way in which wheat can be marketed successfully under agreements and on the markets of the world. Hence today I believe there is unanimity in Canada-except for a minority who would like to restore the entire grain business to the grain exchange-in support of the wheat board method of marketing. We therefore do not need to argue that point.
I am going to say this to my hon. friends of the Liberal party. While I have said-and it is my belief-that they were opposed to this method of marketing for a long time, and that they wanted to do all they could to keep the
[Mr. Coldwell.l
voluntary system or, as they call it, the competitive system, because of the experience of the government during the war years and subsequently I believe they, like the rest of us, now believe that the wheat board is here to stay and that it is the best method of marketing.
But that does not mean that, under circumstances such as those which now exist, our farmers are able to market enough grain to pay their expenses and their taxes; and those taxes are an extremely serious consideration in all the three western provinces where wheat is grown in large quantities. The municipalities in Manitoba, in Saskatchewan and in Alberta are all finding it difficult to maintain their essential services and their school systems. These bank loans will not suffice. If a man can get a bank loan under this legislation, he can get a bank loan anyway. If he is marketing some of his wheat, the bank loan he will get is so small that it will make little difference to him and it will not enable him to pay his taxes or to prepare his machinery for seeding in the springtime. So it is that we are opposing this legislation because we should like to have seen something different. Today, of course, I suppose it does not matter, from the point of view of the western farmers, whether or not this legislation is supported by the opposition members. Loans have been made and the guarantee was given by the Minister of Defence Production-


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris).


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, the guarantee was given by the Minister of Finance to the banks, and I have no doubt that guarantee will be carried out. I want to say this to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), who is also not in his seat: When this was contemplated the proper thing to have done was to have called parliament together to have this legislation, if this was to be the legislation, passed by the house.
I think the pledging of money on behalf of Canada is not a matter that can be done by order in council. If there is one traditional right we have in this House of Commons, it is the control over expenditure. It may be a very shadowy thing in a house where the government has the huge majority it has in this parliament, but the real function of this house it not to initiate legislation, which is the business of the government, but to control expenditures. This might have been a very heavy expenditure. I do not know what amounts are out at the moment but I imagine they are relatively small and yet, in many

people's eyes, probably quite substantial. This has been done without the consent of this parliament.
Parliament should have been called together when the situation was realized last September, and provision made, not for bank loans or loans upon which the farmers would have to pay 5 per cent interest on what has been described in this house as their own earnings. At the same time we were told that a powerful company, controlled in almost every particular in the United States, would have very great advances, not in the form of actual cash but in the form of a great national project which I think should not be alienated, at 3-5 per cent interest. The contrast is striking, Mr. Speaker. So I am rising this afternoon to support the amendment we have moved, just as I rose to support the other amendment we moved, to give this the six months' hoist.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: We have listened to this debate for some time, Mr. Speaker, and I was going to say mostly but I will say nearly all the speeches from the opposition were irrelevant or repe-titous. I think, therefore, we on this side of the house have good reason for not intervening in the debate to prolong it uselessly. But having just listened to the speech by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) and the speech by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) I think that one or two remarks would be in order at this time.
In my opinion the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar put his finger on the crux of the problem when he said he is of the opinion that the surplus wheat we have in the west at this time is a great national asset. In saying that, he is repeating what the Minister of Trade and Commerce has already said, that it is no calamity to have a great wheat surplus because at this time they have bad weather conditions in Europe which may lead to a bad crop and we will undoubtedly sell our wheat crop eventually.


Major James William Coldwell: May I say-


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: What impressed me most in what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said, if the hon. member will allow me to continue, was that he thought the people of Canada should pay for the carrying of this surplus wheat; that is the crux of the problem. We on this side think that money should be advanced to the farmers but that they should pay interest on it. The people on the other side think that money should be advanced to the farmers without interest. Who is going to pay the interest? Evidently it is the people of Canada. Is it fair that the people of
Grain
Canada should be called upon to pay interest for the farmers in the west? Why should I not say, as the member for the Madeleine islands, that the people of Canada should pay interest to the fishermen on their fish products that have been canned but not sold or that have been frozen and not sold. There are many other instances. You could go to the coal mines or anything that is produced in the country.
You could say, why should the people of Canada not make advances on all of these things that are produced? Why should they pay interest on such money? I think what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has stated illustrates how weak is the position of the opposition and how strong is the position of the government. He has put his finger right on it. 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?
Now, I want to mention what the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said. I am sorry he has left the house. He has a reputation, which I am sure is well deserved, of being a distinguished lawyer. He has made a statement that I think is a legal heresy. His statement was more or less along the same line as that of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. He says the farmers have produced this wheat, and therefore they should be paid for it and they should not have to pay interest on the money they get for it, whether or not the wheat is sold. There again, you cannot support a statement like that if you have a legal brain and if you know what the law is all about. Why should a person be paid for something he has produced before that thing has been sold? Why should he get that money without having to pay interest on it? I think perhaps all the western farmers can expect us to do for them is just what we are doing, to facilitate their getting bank loans on which they pay interest. It is only the normal thing. Why should they get money on their products, without paying interest, without having sold their products?
I think we are doing the right thing for the farmers. I am sure the farmers in the west are just as good citizens as any of us are. I am sure they are pleased with the legislation we are passing for them, which is privileged legislation, but I do not begrudge it. I am sure they realize they are getting a privilege through this legislation. I am sure the members of the opposition, and particularly the members of the C.C.F. group who have carried on a filibuster against this legislation, have not gained one vote but on the contrary have lost votes in the western part of the country.

Grain


Victor Quelch: I wish to say a few words on Bill No. 82, Mr. Speaker. A number of us in this group at the resolution stage criticized the government's proposal at some length. On the other hand, it was a resolution to introduce a bill and we did not vote against the resolution because we wanted to see just what was going to be in the bill. We wanted to be in a position to accept or reject the bill on its merits. After we read the bill, there was no doubt in our minds that the bill should be rejected. Therefore, when the C.C.F. moved an amendment to report the subject matter of this bill to the committee on agriculture, we supported it.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) suggested that such action would kill the bill. However, I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) showed quite clearly that that would not necessarily be the result, but that the subject matter could be sent to the committee on agriculture, and if the committee saw fit it could recommend to the house that the bill be again presented. Then, the bill could be put through the house if the house saw fit. Therefore the argument of the minister was not a very sound one.
However, I did present an alternative to the government. I suggested that after second reading the bill itself should be sent to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization. There was nothing unique about the proposal. We do it every year. At the time I was somewhat disappointed, but I will not say surprised, that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) rejected the suggestion and said the government was not prepared to send the bill to the committee. I think it is a pity. It is quite an important measure. I should like to see a bill of this kind given far more consideration than it is going to get, and perhaps be extended into something of a permanent character, useful in the future instead of just for the moment. If this bill had been sent to the agriculture committee and we had called representatives from various farm organizations, then they could have given their views on the bill itself.
I do not know whether the government actually consulted any of the officials of the main farm organizations on the drafting of this bill. I doubt very much whether they did because I was speaking to one of the officials of one of the main farm organizations just two days ago, and I asked him what he thought of the bill. He said: "I have never seen it". He has not the slightest idea what is in the bill. He could not say whether he was in favour of it or not until he had seen it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask my hon. friend a question? Is it customary to issue copies of bills before they are introduced in the house?


Victor Quelch: No; but in a matter of this kind, in view of the fact that the minister had been out west and as a result of that visit came to the conclusion that loans should be made, it would have been a wise act on his part to call representatives of the unions down to Ottawa and discuss with them just what they thought should be in the legislation. In so far as agriculture is concerned- I may be wrong in this-I have a very strong feeling that the government acted differently in regard to the banks. I am not suggesting that the government issued the bill to the banks before it was introduced, although that may be possible, but I am pretty sure they consulted closely with the banks relative to various sections of the bill. If banks are to be consulted in that way regarding matters in the bill relating to them, surely it would have been a matter of courtesy, if nothing else, to give the same privilege to farm organizations. The minister could have very well discussed those sections that he intended to put into the bill relating to farmers because there are some features in the bill that I am satisfied the farmers will bitterly resent when they learn about them. At the present time they do not know about them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can assure my hon. friend that responsible farm leaders well known to my hon. friend suggested that we use the form of legislation of 1951.


Victor Quelch: Well, the situation in 1951 was very different from this one. What did you have then? You had your wheat unthreshed under the snow on the prairies. There was quite a question whether or not that wheat would ever be harvested at all. Undoubtedly, a great deal of risk was involved. What is the situation today? The grain is in the bins and the loans have been made on only a percentage of the grain, on only 50 per cent, I would imagine.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, for a small farmer it could be 100 per cent.


Victor Quelch: Well


Clarence Decatur Howe: This bill is meant to help the small farmer.


Victor Quelch: Only half of each delivery is to be paid to the banks. Therefore, it must be 50 per cent. Otherwise, what has happened to the other 50 per cent? It is not 100 per cent; it is 50 per cent. Therefore, I say it is only a percentage of the wheat against which the loans are to be made; just

Grain
half the wheat. If a farmer should have
10.000	bushels and loans are made against only 5,000 bushels, the most he could get would be $5,000, but actually the maximum loan is only $1,500, therefore a man would need at least 3,000 bushels of wheat to get a $1,500 loan.
As I say, there are a number of features of this legislation which are of a very questionable character. When the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) spoke the other night-I am going to use his own words, especially since he is not in his seat- he said this, as reported at page 1218 of Hansard:
By suggesting that this bill should be sent to the committee on agriculture and colonization they are in tact saying that the western farmers are in no hurry for cash advances of any kind and can afford to wait for months and months.
By "they" he meant the members of the opposition.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Is that not right?


Victor Quelch: That is where you are absolutely wrong. They do not have to wait for months. Loans are already being made. Over
8.000	farmers have had loans up to the end of December, according to the figures given by the minister. I think $7 million has already been lent.


Henry Alfred Hosking: You are learning something.


Victor Quelch: The average loan is around $800. There is no question of the farmers having to wait. It makes very little difference whether this legislation goes through today or a month hence. Loans have been made in a large number of cases and I suppose they will continue to be made.


Irvin William Studer: The hon. member said they were not getting them.


Victor Quelch: If the hon. member would just listen he would not make an unwise statement like that. Let me finish what I have to say on this point. Loans have been made, 8,000 of them. I will guarantee that the majority of those loans would have been made whether this legislation had gone through or not. If this legislation were withdrawn tomorrow the banks would continue to lend in the same way as they have lent in the past. Why have the farmers hung back? For the simple reason that they do not like going into debt when they have wheat in the bin and they want to sell it. They want to sell wheat, not borrow money on it. Why should they borrow money on that wheat in order to pay bills? That is what most are doing.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: Will the hon. member permit a question? Why should farmers get cash
advances on their wheat without paying interest on it any more than any other primary producer in Canada?


Hazen Robert Argue: Do you pay interest on the butter floor price?


Victor Quelch: Let me finish this other point. The point I was making is that the farmers are getting the loans, and will continue to get the loans even though this legislation is not passed.


Charles-Arthur Dumoulin Cannon: They are paying interest.


Victor Quelch: Yes, of course. That is the reason. The reason they have not asked for loans is that they do not want to pay interest. They are hoping to be able to sell the wheat. That is the reply to the hon. member who just rose to his feet. The reason the farmers should not have to pay interest is this. The government is in control of the marketing of wheat and of transportation. Last year sales broke down. They could not get orders. This year they could get orders but they could not get box cars. It is transportation that has broken down. The government is in full charge of that policy. The farmers have a right to expect the government to at least pay them the price of the normal delivery for wheat on the farm. That is all they are asking for, the normal delivery of wheat. Why should they pay interest on that?


Henry Alfred Hosking: They have already sold more than an average crop.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is not true.


Victor Quelch: That shows just how little the hon. member knows. The minister himself said that some points have a one-bushel quota. Is that a normal crop? Some points have a 2-bushel quota, and some have a 3-bushel quota. Does the hon. member call that an average crop? It might be in his part of the country, but if so, he must live on a stone pile. That is certainly not the situation in western Canada where the average yield even in an average year was around 17 bushels. In the past five years the average yield has been considerably in excess of that amount.
While I say there is a 1-bushel quota at some points, there are many farmers at those points who have not been able to deliver one bushel on the 1-bushel quota. Most points have been able to deliver the initial amount of 300 bushels, but there are many farmers who have not been able to deliver one bushel on the 1-bushel quota. It is not very pleasant for those farmers when they see a point 30 miles away where the farmers can sell three bushels to the acre and they are unable to sell one. As a result of that situation they

Grain
have bills in town at the different stores unpaid. They would like to pay them. They are not paying any interest on those bills. Can you blame them for not going to borrow money and pay interest on it in order to pay another bill upon which they are not paying any interest? It would not be very good business; it might be good ethics. That is why many farmers are taking loans today to pay bills on which they do not have to pay any interest. They are doing that because they like to pay their debts. They would rather pay interest on the debt to the hanks than continue to allow the bill to run in the store, because they realize it is a hardship on the storekeeper. I would say that is true of 95 per cent of the cases. It just goes to prove that the farmers of the west, as a rule, are honest men and like to pay their debts. But they think there should be a limit to the extent to which they should be plunged steadily further and further into debt. They have the right to expect that they should be able to deliver a normal delivery. All that the farmers in the constituency that I represent ask for is for the government to make an advance up to 50 per cent of the normal delivery. By advance in that case they meant payment on the wheat and not a loan. They rejected the idea of a loan. They suggested that the normal delivery should be on the basis of 8 bushels to the acre because they were afraid that if it stated merely the normal delivery the government might take only 2 or 3 bushels to the acre. That is the stand they have taken to date. I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that if they read this bill they will reject it.
The farmers did not tell me that. As a matter of fact when matters of this kind come before a convention in my constituency and I try to get the farmers to give me a directive as to whether I should vote for or against something, they have always insisted that I use my best judgment. They say, "You are on the spot; you know the facts; therefore we are going to leave it to your discretion to decide whether you vote for or against the measure." I am using my discretion at the present time in rejecting this bill. The title of the bill reads:
An act to provide for short-term credit to grain producers in the prairie provinces to meet temporary financial difficulties arising from inability to deliver all their grain.
I suppose that could be said to be the purpose of the bill. I would appreciate the minister correcting me if I am wrong, but I gathered from what he said that the purpose of the bill is to make loans available to the weaker farmer, the small farmer, the new farmer or the farmer who is financially embarrassed. I take it that is the main purpose

of the bill, that is the class he has in view. I think he will agree that this is a fair interpretation of his attitude. I do not wish to misinterpret him and it would take too long to find his actual statement by going through all the pages of Hansard. I take it that this is the general purpose.
Therefore the minister will agree that if that is the purpose it is most important that this bill should carry out that purpose. I claim that the bill does not carry out that purpose. As a matter of fact, I claim that many farmers who might borrow under this bill will be worse off than farmers who borrow from other sources. I will give the reason why I say I think it will actually worsen their position. My contention is that the contents of this bill violate the purposes of the bill. We have heard it said that some members are dirt farmers, that some have had no farming experience. Speaking personally, I think I am in as good a position as anyone to speak on this bill.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You do not need the bill then.


Victor Quelch: No, I do not need the bill. I am not supporting or rejecting this bill on the basis of what I need, I am supporting or rejecting it on the basis of what I feel the people in the area I represent need. I have farmed for some 40 years. Let me state frankly that 75 per cent of that time I was short of capital. I have had lots of experience in borrowing from banks, so I know something about this situation. It is true that for the last 25 per cent of the time I probably did not need to, but for the first 75 per cent I did.
I homesteaded in the west in 1909. I did not have any capital, I did not have any money at all. I used to work in railway construction camps for a few months in the summer in order to get enough money to run my farm.


Henry Alfred Hosking: You have done pretty well in this country under the Liberals.


Victor Quelch: I have done fairly well in spite of the Liberals, you might say.


Henry Alfred Hosking: There are a lot of people in the same boat from the sound of it.


Victor Quelch: By 1914 I had just started to get on my feet, and then I was overseas for five years. When I came back I had to start all over again. Everything I had was worn out, my machinery was all worn out and the price of everything was sky high. I settled under the Soldier Settlement Act which was a pretty tough act, quite different from the present Veterans' Land Act. Within a few

years the value of my chattels had fallen to about half their original value. It was about 1929 before I again started to get on my feet.
In 1929 I was still farming with horses. I realized then, as did most farmers, that if I was going to make any real progress I would have to have a mechanized farm. I went to the bank and asked for a loan in order to buy a tractor. I was quite interested in the attitude taken by the bank manager. He had my financial statement and he told me I was in excellent shape, that in a short time I would be sitting on top of the world, but he then went on to give me some sound advice. He told me not to borrow any money with which to buy a tractor because within a short period of time we would be going into a depression.
That was in 1929. I have always wondered why a bank manager was able to tell me in 1929-it was not being publicized in the press -that we were going into a depression when credit would be restricted and therefore it would be unwise for me to buy a tractor. I continued along with my horses. Just two years later I went to the bank again, but I could not borrow a cent although my physical assets were exactly the same or a little bit better than in 1929. In 1929 I could have borrowed enough on my personal note to buy a tractor, but in 1931 I could not borrow a cent.
I might mention that they had changed the bank manager in the meantime. Any time they bring in a new policy of restricting loans they seem to change their managers, because it might embarrass a bank manager to refuse a loan to an old friend. I thought it very strange that with no change in physical assets I could not borrow any money.
We all remember the depression, and I am not going to deal with it. We got through it. I did not go under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act because I did not like it, just as I do not like this bill. There were too many restrictions in it. However, we farmers got through the depression and then came some good times. I admit quite frankly that we have had some good times.
There are many farmers who realized that in order to produce efficiently they had to have an efficient unit. Professor Hope has defined an efficient unit as two sections of moderate land or one section of heavy land. The area which I represent is a good one, and many farmers thought it advisable to expand their land holdings and borrowed money with which to buy land. They borrowed money to buy farm machinery under the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
Those are the farmers who are in so much difficulty today. They are not new farmers,
Grain
they are not young farmers, they are not small farmers; they are fairly large farmers. They have been farming quite a long time and have lots of experience. But they have incurred heavy liabilities which normally would be met from their sales of wheat. These are the farmers who are facing a great deal of difficulty.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Do you think our eastern farmers should supply the money for the loans?


An hon. Member:: Get up and make your own speech.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I am. It is short and to the point, and I am not delaying the debate.


Victor Quelch: You want to know whether I think the eastern farmer should be prepared to pay income tax for the purpose of helping to pay interest or to make loans available without interest? There need not be any interest involved, because the government could make advances to the farmers and get the money from its own institution, the Bank of Canada, without borrowing from the chartered banks. But it goes far beyond that. Even if it was costing some money I say that the western farmers are entitled to it because during the latter part of the war they subsidized the consumers of Canada to the tune of around $136 million. The same thing applies to other products of the farm.
Therefore a suggestion like that does not embarrass me at all. The hon. member talks about income tax. Let me remind him that the majority of the income taxes paid by farmers is paid by farmers in the west and not by farmers in the east. I suggest it would be a good idea if the Minister of National Revenue sent as many inspectors into that part of the country as to the west; then they would collect a little more money. The only reason they collect more income tax in the west is the fact that wheat is one of the main products and it is very easy for the Department of National Revenue to check on the farmers' incomes. In the east, where the farmers peddle their products in the local markets, there is no check at all, and I think many of them get away with murder.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Is that the only reason your farmers are honest?


An hon. Member:: Sell your gas.


Victor Quelch: I am sorry the minister went away, though the parliamentary assistant is here, because I do not like to say anything specifically referring to the minister when he is out. I was just going to say that I have been puzzled at times' during this debate over the fact that the minister seems to display

Grain
quite an ignorance of the true situation in regard to agriculture. However, that is perhaps only natural, because he is not a farmer and the problems are quite complex.
I believe he thinks he is stating the facts when he makes certain statements, but when I spoke the last time he made two or three interjections, and I was somewhat amazed at the questions he asked. I should have thought he must have known at that time that his questions did not really make sense, as for instance when he suggested that no large farmer had trouble getting money from the banks.
I have just explained why so many farmers are having trouble. It is because many of the big farmers have borrowed to expand their capital in the form of machinery, and have borrowed to expand their land holdings. They are large farmers, but they are heavily in debt. They may have 20,000 or 30,000 bushels of wheat on the farm but cannot sell it. If they could sell their wheat they would be able to meet their obligations. They cannot borrow money from the bank because they have gone as far as they can go in that direction. They are not interested in legislation like this. They are interested in being able to sell their wheat.
Right through this debate the minister has shown that he does not understand the situation as between the smaller farmer and the larger farmer. He jumped to the conclusion that the large farmer must be considerably better off than a small farmer. I agree that the size of the farm is a great factor, but there is another factor even greater, and that is the quality of the soil. You could have a three-section unit of marginal land which would not be nearly as good as a one-section unit in, for instance, gumbo land.
The constituency I represent is remarkable for the different types of soil it contains. On the western side of the constituency we have the gumbo plain, probably the best wheat country in Canada. I resided on the edge of that area. This legislation will be of little if any value to the farmers in that area. Whatever money they want to borrow, they can borrow from the banks. But they do not want to borrow today because, as I say, they do not like paying interest. They are already paying enough interest on their land holdings, machinery and so on. As they have the wheat, they feel they should be able to sell it and so pay off their obligations. If they want to borrow from the banks, they can borrow without this legislation.
Then we have the northern area of my constituency, around Stettler on the C.P.R. line. That is not such good land, but there is a greater rainfall there. I think the same
fMr. Quelch.l
thing applies to that area as to the western part of the constituency; it is a mixed farming area. Then you have an entirely different situation on the eastern side of the constituency. From Hanna east is what used to be known as the drought area of Alberta. This is where irrigation would be put in if the Red Deer diversion scheme were proceeded with. The government has been talking about that and making surveys for it since 1922, but the only time there is any real activity is just before an election, and I suppose next June there will be a great deal of activity there again. The farmers are still hopeful, however, that some day that program will be put into effect.
That is a dry area. Back in the years around 1919 or 1920 most of that land was sold for tax arrears. Most of the farmers got hopelessly into debt and the land was put up for sale. The mortgage companies did not consider the land worth sufficient to pay the reserve bid and so the land reverted to the provincial government. The provincial government realized that no farmer could make a living in that area on a half-section unit. Most of the land was taken back, and then any farmer who had a quarter or half section in that area was allowed to lease from the government about 2,000 acres. The units in that area are about 2,000 acres per farmer. They had to own one-quarter sections.
Just because a farm is large it does not mean that the farmer is in a position where he can borrow all the money he needs. As a matter of fact, the farmers in that area-all those big farmers-until recently, at least, were never able to go to the banks and borrow much money. Indeed, that area was blacklisted, and the farm loan board refused to make loans in that area. I have received many protests and have taken them up with the farm loan board, which has insisted it has not blacklisted the area but has judged each application on its merits and found the situation does not warrant making loans in that area.
However, in the past four or five years we have had heavy rains in that area and, generally speaking, there have been good crops for the past five years and these farmers are getting on their feet. Four or five years ago the average yield in that area was only six or seven bushels to the acre. During the last few years it has been about 16 or 17 bushels to the acre.
I want to relate that situation to this bill, because there you have large farms with fair yields of wheat, about 16 bushels to the acre. Take a farmer in that area getting a loan under this proposal. I do not say he would

not get a loan. He might get a loan of $1,500. What is the situation in which he finds himself if he takes a loan under this bill? We shall say, for example, that a two-bushel quota is put into effect and that the farmer has six or seven hundred acres of cultivated land, which would be a very moderate holding in that area. Many of the units are 2,000 acres, because it is considered necessary for a farmer to have that amount of land to make a living. At one time a farmer there was allowed to carry only three head of livestock on a quarter section, but that has been changed a little owing to the rains in recent years.
When a two-bushel quota is put into effect, that farmer takes a load of wheat to the elevator agent and asks what grade he can get. Probably there will be a dispute between him and the elevator agent, and the agent may say it is 4 while the farmer will say, "It is a good 3, and I am not going to take 4." What can the farmer do in a case like that, unless he is prepared to sell it for what the agent says he will pay? He will have to put that wheat into storage and a sample will be sent to the head office. Then the grade is sent back, and he is paid on that grade.
However, under this act he is not allowed to put that wheat into storage. Therefore, any farmer who has borrowed under this legislation, and who in order to get a fair grade tries to put his wheat into storage until such time as a grade has been arranged, puts the elevator agent in the position where he can be prosecuted if he allows the grain to be stored.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say, if I may, that the department has taken cognizance of that fact and an amendment will be offered if and when we get the bill into committee which will make it possible to put grain in storage. In the 1951 legislation there was a reason for that provision but in this legislation there is no similar reason and that restriction will be removed.


Victor Quelch: I am certainly glad to hear that, because that was one of my very strong objections to the bill. Then there is another objection. The minister will probably say this one is not quite so well founded. He will probably say the provision is necessary, but I can tell the minister that it is going to be bitterly resented.
Take two farmers who are living side by side. I am speaking from experience in this case; it is something that has happened many times. Two farmers are living side by side and one is hailed out 100 per cent. What happens in a case like that? If his neighbour
Grain
has a good crop the practice in the past has often been for the farmer with the good crop to lend his neighbour who has been hailed out maybe a thousand bushels of oats, barley or wheat. I have done it myself, and I have had grain lent me.
The farmer who gets the grain and has no money can deliver the wheat on his own quota and sell it. Sometimes he makes a dicker with the farmer from whom he got the wheat and pays some of the money to him. If any farmer does that under this legislation he can be fined $500 and, if the hon. member for Prince Albert is right, he can land in jail. If the farmers find that out they will be hopping mad, because it is very often the only way they can help themselves.
I think the minister will agree that is a fine co-operative spirit, and nothing in this legislation should allow that fine co-operative spirit to be destroyed. The farmers help themselves.
I do not believe that anywhere in Canada you will find a better co-operative spirit that you will find amongst the farmers of the west. If one gets in bad shape his neighbours help him out if they can.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask a
question? What would happen if that cooperative spirit extended to the transferring of all the grain from one farmer to the other?


Victor Quelch: Well, the minister sees one ship and he talks about a fleet. I am not suggesting that at all. Remember that the farmer can only get a loan of up to 50 per cent of the amount of wheat. The minister knows that in many cases the farmer will have far more than the amount of wheat needed to cover the loan. Therefore it should be possible in a case like that for the farmer to transfer some of that wheat to a neighbour if he so desires.
Under the legislation he pledges so much of that wheat. He tells the bank manager how much wheat he can deliver and the price he expects to get, but so long as he states a certain amount of wheat and a price and the bank manager agrees to that, then any wheat the farmer holds in excess of that amount should be his property to do what he likes with. If he wants to lend a thousand bushels to his neighbour who has been hailed out there should not be any danger of that man being prosecuted or thrown in jail. At least the legislation should be wide enough to allow a certain amount of discretion so that the farmer can discuss the matter with the bank or with the wheat board and get permission for that transaction.
The minister knows that the situation today is difficult. We will not talk about who is to blame for the situation, but we are faced with

Grain
a situation today and it is a difficult one. Therefore anything the farmers can do among themselves to try to relieve the situation, to try to relieve the pressure, is something the minister should be glad to help them to do. I hope the minister can say the same thing about that provision as he said about the other one, that an amendment will be moved to modify its operation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I say that if my hon. friend will draw up the amendment the government will consider it.


Victor Quelch: I hope I have said enough to the minister to make him realize there are certain features of the bill that the farm organizations should be allowed to discuss. Therefore I again ask the minister to reconsider his decision not to allow the bill to go before the standing committee on agriculture. Let the bill go before the committee and call representatives from the farm organization. If they are able to make worth-while suggestions to the government and the government is prepared to accept those recommendations we may then have a bill that we will be able to support in the house. If the minister will pledge himself to send the bill to the agriculture committee after second reading, even now we will support second reading and vote against the amendment; but if the minister is going to stand by the statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) that the bill will not be sent to that committee, then we will be obliged to support the motion of the C.C.F. for the six months' hoist.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to detain the house very long. The only reason I am speaking is that something was said last night by the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Ellis) to which I wish to refer. As found at page 1268 of Hansard he said:
While we are on this point, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. I just wonder what organizations at the Saskatoon conference had wanted to take bank loans. I wonder whether the hon. member for Rosthern could inform hon. members of the house what organizations at that conference asked for bank loans. Was it the wheat pool? Was it the Saskatchewan farmers' union? The hon. member for Rosthern is not able to name one Saskatchewan farm organization which at that conference came out for bank loans.
I had said that organizations at that conference had suggested bank loans and that legislation like that of 1951 was the solution to this temporary difficulty. Apparently that was not believed by some hon. members opposite. Therefore I obtained the record of that meeting as kept by the secretary, and I looked over the record. I have thereby refreshed my memory on the matter, and I am going to give

the stand taken by some of the people representing organizations at that conference. Anyone who wants to check this can see the record in the hands of Mrs. Norman because as the conference went on she kept notes of what everybody said.
When this matter came before the conference on the afternoon of September 27, 1955, one of the first speakers was Mr. Wesson, who first of all dealt with the statistical position and gave various statistics. This is Mrs. Norman's record of what he said:
The shortage of cash was the problem. Wheat pool opposes advances of wheat board through elevators. Propose we ask federal government through parliament pass the same act as in 1951, advance through banks and guaranteed by federal government. Bank advance loans on the basis of the security of grain stored on the farm. Don't believe it should be interest free but some arrangement made by government through Bank of Canada making available to farmers at between 2J per cent and 3 per cent. This he felt would help to solve the immediate situation of farmers to help pay for urgent pressing financial bills.
At that point the conference recessed. I wonder what those members have to say who sneered and jeered and said that nobody had suggested bank loans, that everybody there was in favour of advance payments by the wheat board. Then I come to Mr. Schulz, the chairman of the interprovincial farmers' union and his attitude to the suggestion of Mr. Wesson, the president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool. This again is Mrs. Norman's record:
Mr. Schulz continued debate on Mr. Wesson's proposal. He stated he was in favour of Mr. Wesson's proposal but suggested that the government should absorb all interest.
Mr. Forsythe of Alberta chamber of commerce observed that about 20 per cent of Alberta machinery was sold through finance companies. His organization was proposing farm loans of long term and interest no higher than bank loans to their provincial government.
Mr. Barber of the Winnipeg labour council stated his council had passed a motion requesting that farm loans be advanced to farmers interest free.
Then my friends across the way stated that there was never any suggestion of farm loans.
Mr. Forrest of retail merchants association expressed the opinion that this was a recurring problem in recent years. Suggested that advances of half the value of the grain be advanced so that banks are repaid on a bushel basis as deliveries are made rather than in a lump sum. Felt there should be a concession in the interest rate as well.
Mr. Hansen submitted a table outlining the average purchasing power of wheat over a series of years. He felt also that other alternatives should be explored. Any plan considered should also be considered in light of practicability in future years.
Mr. Appleby-

Grain
He used to be president of the farmers' union.
__felt there must be supervision on when bank
loans are repayable which he felt should not be left to the discretion of the banker.
Mr. McFarlane of United Grain Growers outlined a plan of cash advances designed to be handled on the quota books through banks up to 50 per cent of grain he has on hand at a rate of 4 per cent interest.
The Manitoba government through their minister of agriculture indicated as follows:
Both plans suggested by Mr. Wesson and Mr. McFarlane would meet their approval . . . Interest rates he believed should be lower than in past.
Mr. Douglas of the Saskatchewan teachers association felt that bank loans might prove unpopular. He suggested advances to farmers through elevators. He thought there should be an interest rate of 3 or 4 per cent to discourage borrowing by farmers who weren't really in need.
There is there a reference to loans repayable with interest. Yet we were told that loans were never suggested.


Irvin William Studer: Socialist political acrobats.


Walter Adam Tucker: Then here is something which was said by Mr. Nollet, the provincial minister of agriculture in Saskatchewan:
If the Bank of Canada was able to loan money to banks to loan to farmers, it should also be able to loan money to the Canadian wheat board for loan to farmers.
We were told by the C.C.F. there never was any thought at the conference of loaning money to farmers.


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


Alfred Claude Ellis: Do it through the wheat board, not through the banks?


Walter Adam Tucker: I suggest that I be permitted to make my statement. Then the hon. member can ask questions afterwards if he wishes to do so. I continue:
Mr. Brownlee . . . expressed the opinion that other problems in grain marketing must be considered. Looking upon the problem as an emergency, supplemental to bank loans municipalities must be engaged on a basis whereby they can advance money to farmers on the backing of government loans. This would spare the small farmer from being left without recourse if bank loans were refused and would be convenient to those farmers who live great distances from banks.
In other words, he said that it is quite all right to pass the legislation but this further provision should be passed supplemental to it.
Later:
. . . Mr. Brownlee stressed the need that advances must be placed on a business basis and not as a charity.
Later:
Mr. Hogg suggested that the resolutions committee consider the following resolution:
"Move we request advances on grain up to 50 per cent stored on farms and loaned through banks guaranteed by the dominion government at low rates of interest."
This was a resolution put before that conference.


Alfred Claude Ellis: It was not passed.


Walter Adam Tucker: A resolutions committee was set up to bring in a resolution. They brought in a resolution. There was an amendment moved to it. According to the notes the motion was as follows:
(In favour of principle of advances being made and made immediately)
Wesson-50 per cent of wheat.
Appleby-75 per cent of initial payment.
That is, Mr. Wesson thought it should be 50 per cent of the wheat and Mr. Appleby thought it should be 75 per cent of the initial payment. Mr. Brownlee thought it should be a flat maximum rather than "up to half".


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Speaker, may I ask what was the motion, just for information.


Walter Adam Tucker: I will give it to you in a minute. Then on the question of the dominion-provincial conference:
That this be presented to three prairie governments at once and they take it to Ottawa.
The question was whether it would be through the banks, through the wheat board or have the government set up a fund and administering it through a body, perhaps the municipalities. That is from Mr. Brownlee's remarks. An amendment to the amendment was moved by Mr. Schulz, seconded by Mr. Waldbauer:
Advance payments without interest when this is an emergency.
The amendment was that they delete:
-at a normal rate of interest not to exceed 3 per cent-
This was to the resolution as brought in by the resolutions committee. That rather sounds as though they were talking about loans. As this resolution committee brought in the recommendation for the resolution it contained these words:
At a normal rate of interest not to exceed 3 per cent.
The amendment was moved that these words be struck out and the amendment to the amendment was that the words "interest free" be substituted. That amendment to the amendment was defeated, that it was to be interest free. Then the amendment was carried that they strike out the reference to interest. Then the resolution which was brought in and has been cited in the house was passed. I just wanted to lay that before

Grain
the house so the house can judge who was telling the truth about that Saskatoon conference.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I wonder whether the hon. member for Rosthern, before he takes his seat, would answer the question I was going to ask and which he did not allow me to ask when he was speaking. The question I wanted to ask is this. Is what he has referred to a stenographic record of what went on at that conference or is it signed by the chairman of the conference?


Walter Adam Tucker: At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I said that I had a vivid recollection of what took place at that conference.


An hon. Member:: So have I.


Walter Adam Tucker: That resolution was questioned; some hon. members here said they were there and that they knew what took place, that there was no question of loans, nobody had said anything about loans and so on. I therefore asked the secretary appointed by that conference, and who I saw was making notes of what was said, if she would make those notes available to me. What I have given to the house are excerpts from those notes which she made as people spoke.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, it had not been my intention to speak on this occasion, but the two speeches that have been made from the opposite corner of the house

I refer to the one we have just heard and the previous one by the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Cannon)-make it necessary for me to say a few words. First of all, referring to the document from which the hon. member for Rosthern has just quoted, may I say that it is quite obvious that what he is quoting from is a set of notes made by one person at the conference. It is not a stenographic record. I asked him whether it was signed by the chairman of the conference. He did not answer that question, so I assume it was not signed by the chairman. We can therefore accept it only as being the opinion of the person who made those notes as to what transpired there.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I suggest that the hon. member certainly cannot rest his case on a set of notes drawn up by someone who is expressing from memory what transpired at this conference.


Walter Adam Tucker: Just to correct my hon. friend, may I say this. This person whose notes I cited was duly elected secretary of that conference and made the notes at the time of the conference.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am not disputing for a moment that the person referred to was elected as secretary for that conference. I am pointing out, however, that this is not a stenographic record of what took place. My friend the hon. member for Rosthern is in the legal profession, and he knows that if he attempted to present evidence which was contained in a set of notes which he could not identify and which he could not prove as being correct, he would not get very far.


John Horace Dickey: He has identified them.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: He has identified the person who made the notes. But everyone knows that if he is going to use a document and assert it to be a correct record of what took place, that document should be signed by the chairman of the conference. That has not been done. It is therefore not a document which represents what went on at the conference.


John Horace Dickey: He was present.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I was present also.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Many others were present also.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I would accept his notes if he would read the rest of them.


Irvin William Studer: May I ask the hon. member a question? Where are the records signed by the secretary and chairman of this meeting, as stipulated by themselves for the last week?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I am very glad to have that question-


John Horace Dickey: He cannot face the facts.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: -particularly from the hon. member who is so voluble. The only resolutions I placed on the record in this debate were taken directly from the records of the conventions at which those resolutions were passed. They were authentic records signed by the secretary of the organization, which is altogether different from what the hon. member for Rosthern put forward.


Walter Adam Tucker: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the resolutions which have been used in regard to that conference are signed by Mrs. Bernice Norman, secretary of the interprovincial farm union council, and were not signed by the president.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: It is quite characteristic-


Murdo William Martin: This will stop the filibuster.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: It is quite characteristic of the hon. member for Rosthern to begin talking about something different. I was talking about the notes he used and he is trying to bring in the resolutions; that was not the

Grain
subject under discussion. The subject was these notes he used which are not signed by the chairman of the conference and are not a stenographic record of the conference; that is all I am saying. So far as the resolutions are concerned, no one is disputing the resolutions or the wording of them. I say he should rest his case, if he has one at all, on the resolutions themselves and not on what one person at the conference set down in her notes as her interpretation of what she heard.


John Horace Dickey: Pretty weak.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: If these hon. gentlemen want to chip in every few minutes with interruptions while I am speaking, I may tell them there is still plenty of time left for them to speak.
As I said at the outset, I rose to comment particularly on the contribution that the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine made to this debate. During his speech he made a couple of rather astounding statements. He asked the question, and he repeated it later when he interrupted the hon. member for Acadia, why should the farmers be paid for what they have produced and what has not yet been sold? That question in itself indicates a lack of understanding of this whole issue. I hope the hon. member is not speaking on behalf of the farmers of eastern Canada. Certainly if he is, he is doing a tremendous amount of harm to their cause.
In the first place no one in this house has asked that the grain producers generally be paid for all their production. The farmers themselves have not asked for that. They have asked for an advance of approximately half of what they expect normally to deliver, and that is a long way from what they have produced, as the figures are there to prove. The question indicates the hon. member does not understand the permit book. He does not understand the quota system. He does not understand that farmers are not asking, nor are the representatives of the farmers, that they be paid cash for all the grain they have produced, even though that is what is being done in the United States. We have heard time and again from the members on the other side that the farmers in Canada are being very well treated in comparison with the farmers in other countries. But if the government applied the same method that is being applied in the United States, then they would pay the farmer for all his production and in addition to that would pay him for storing the grain on his farm.
All the farmers are asking, and all we in this group are asking, is a long way from that. We are asking that they be given the opportunity to obtain an advance on a portion of
the quota that they are able to deliver under the present set-up. That is an entirely different thing from the interpretation the hon. member gave to it. But let us follow that a step further. If this parliament were to accept, heaven forbid, the philosophy that farmers should not be paid for what they have produced until it is sold, where does that leave our whole Agricultural Prices Support Act? Where does it leave the support price under butter and the support price under eggs? Where does it leave all these support prices which have been accepted as part and parcel of the agriculture policy? If the government, in a moment of weakness, were to give in to the advice of the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine it would mean the complete destruction of the Agricultural Prices Support Act. He is doing a distinct disservice to every dairy producer, every producer of eggs, not only in western Canada but in his own constituency. I think on reflection the hon. member would want to withdraw that statement and apologize for having made it.
He goes on to say that this bill is a privilege. He wonders why the farmers are dissatisfied with the present bill because it is a privilege. This privilege is an opportunity for the farmer to go further into debt, an opportunity to pay interest on money that is properly coming to him. I am not at liberty to refer to the clauses in the bill, but it is well known that one of the privileges in it is that if a farmer should happen to misunderstand one of the multifarious forms that have been drawn up, forms that were drawn up before this bill has passed, he can be fined $500. In addition to that penalty he would have to pay the amount of money still owing on his loan. I suppose that in default of paying his fine he could be imprisoned; that is the kind of privilege that is being offered under this bill.


Henry Alfred Hosking: We could discuss the clauses of the bill in committee.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I hear some chirping from the hon. member again, and perhaps if he would stand up and ask his question I could answer it.


Henry Alfred Hosking: I was just suggesting that we could discuss the clauses of the bill when we are in committee.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I was discussing the motion that is before the house, and if the hon. member had done the same thing when he was on his feet he would not be getting into difficulty. He made a few remarks, too. He said, "My farmers are objecting to the payment of interest on advances to grain producers". Now, there is an indication of the

Grain
kind of ideology that exists in the minds of some Liberal members. He refers to "my farmers". Is that not a return to the feudal system? He speaks of his farmers. He has become the great white father of his constituency. Out west we take a rather different attitude, regardless of party. We feel we are the representatives of the people, not the owners of the people in our constituency. Here this hon. member stands up and says "my farmers object".
If we may follow that one step further, I wonder if he is doing a service to the farmers of eastern Canada by taking that attitude or-


Henry Alfred Hosking: I am just stating what they think.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: -by proclaiming that his farmers are objecting to paying any interest that might be involved in this transaction if cash advances were being made. Let me remind him that we also represent farmers. 1 have no doubt I represent a good many more farmers than he does. The farmers in my constituency and in the prairie provinces have been helping to pay freight assistance on feed grain coming to his farmers and the farmers in other constituencies for a period of 12 years.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Are you suggesting that that be dropped?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: This has amounted to over $100 million. We are not objecting to it. We have been glad to give a helping hand.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Because you get the benefit, too.


Jean Lesage: It helps the western farmer, too.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I do not mind one at a time, but I think it gets confusing when we have more than that. We have never objected in this house to this freight assistance being paid because we felt it was part of the agriculture policy-


Henry Alfred Hosking: Because it helps yourself.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: -and because it is for the good of the nation as a whole. But there are those from eastern Canada who-


Jean Lesage: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Yes.


Jean Lesage: Does the hon. member think the freight subsidy on feed grain coming from the west to the east does not help the western farmer also?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: That is not the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: At no time have I or any member of this group claimed that it does not help the western farmer. If it is of any assistance in the selling of feed grain then, of course, to that extent it is of some assistance to agriculture generally. But the point is, it is a direct subsidy to those who feed that grain in eastern Canada. Yet there are hon. members from eastern Canada who rise in their places and-I have no doubt without consulting the farmers at all-they take the stand that they are their farmers and they speak for them without consulting their opinions at all. They say that their farmers are objecting to something that may be of advantage to the grain producers who are willing to pay their share of freight assistance to ship the feed grain to eastern Canada.
All we are asking is that the members from eastern Canada take a fair and reasonable stand on this question. I think if they would only stop to think they would realize that in many ways the people of western Canada have been instrumental ever since confederation in subsidizing to a very great extent the people of eastern Canada in the form of tariff duties, for example. Every day that goes by hundreds of thousands of dollars are paid out by the people of western Canada to help to protect industry in eastern Canada. If they would stop to think of that I am sure they would take a little more reasonable attitude than they are taking on this question.
However, the question that is before us is whether this bill should be read a second time. We have stated, I believe in clear and unmistakable terms, that we are not prepared to support the bill on second reading. The other opposition parties have also indicated now that they will not accept the bill on second reading. We are basing our stand not only on what is contained in the bill, bad as it is, but also on the opinions as they were expressed in convention by the major farm organizations in western Canada.
Regardless of what the hon. member for Rosthern may say, regardless of how he tries to twist around what happened at the Saskatoon conference, regardless of what other members of the Liberal party may try to say, if they were to go out to western Canada today and test public opinion on this question I am sure they would come back quite convinced that this bill is not the answer to the problem. What is more, they would come back convinced that they are making a major mistake by assuming that just because at one time or another one, two or three of the leaders of some of the farm organizations made certain statements which make it appear as though they are supporting the bank loans, they were in fact speaking for the farmers

of that organization, because subsequent events proved that that was not so.
If the government feel so stubborn about this question, if they feel so sure of their position, I for one am prepared to let them test public opinion on this issue. Let them call an election tomorrow and actually find out the feelings of western Canada on this question.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from the nature of the discussion taking place on this bill today that we are dealing with a very complex problem that has a very serious impact on the general economy of Canada, and more particularly on the whole economy of the prairies. I am taking advantage of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) to lend my support to the suggestion that this particular piece of legislation be given the six months' hoist. I do so because I have considered the matter quite seriously as it would affect my own area, and I can quite readily come to the conclusion that nothing would be lost, so far as assisting the critical cash shortage among the farm population of my particular constituency is concerned if this legislation is never passed.
The last time I contributed to the discussion I emphasized why the bill is not wanted by the farmers of my area, and why if passed it will do nothing to solve the basic problem. The hon. member for Rosthern has been recapitulating certain arguments that have been made in the house. I would like to suggest, in refutation, an up to date point of view representing a cross section of the prairie farm population, a point of view, as a matter of fact, which was expressed to the government no later than yesterday, February 16. The interprovineial farm union, council delegation appeared before the government at that time, as they have appeared before other groups in this house, and repeated in no uncertain terms, verbally as well as in their written statement, that they favour the cash advance principle rather than the legislation that we have before us today.
We have had contributions from members from other parts of the country as well as from western Canada. As I have listened to the contributions from members from eastern Canada, I have been amazed. Some of those contributions have been formal speeches; others have been interjections. I have been amazed, Mr. Speaker, at the lack of understanding of the difficulty with which the farm population, the wheat grower especially, is faced at the moment. I refer particularly to the interjection of the hon. member for the Iles-de-la-Madeleine and others
Grain
who interjected, who feel that the legislation before us is in the form of a subsidy to the grain growers on the prairies.
I endeavoured to point out the other day that at no time has the prairie farmer ever been subsidized by any part of the Canadian economy. There is the misunderstanding that the operations of the Canadian wheat board involve a form of subsidy. But, as I emphasized the other day-and 1 repeat it this afternoon because the point does not seem to have penetrated-the farmer has paid out of the returns received from the marketing operations of the wheat board for every penny that he received. He has never been subsidized by the federal treasury. And of course the bill we have before us places him in the same independent position.
The point we are making is that the principle enunciated in the bill does not begin to meet the situation in which the farmer finds himself at the moment. It would seem that not only is there failure on the part of members from other sections of Canada who have intervened in the debate to understand the nature of the problem, but it would appear that the administration itself, the ministers most concerned, also fail to appreciate fully the nature of the problem.
I am going to deal with only one phrase in the bill which tends to emphasize the point I have just made. The bill refers to the cash shortage problem as a temporary financial difficulty. One reason I have opposed the legislation is that I feel this is not a temporary situation. If it were a temporary and passing situation no doubt the piece of legislation we have before us today would suffice, but it becomes increasingly obvious with the passing of time that the farmer himself regards the bill as quite ineffective to meet the problem. Certainly the fact that the government have described the bill as meeting a temporary situation indicates that they are almost completely unaware of the real nature of the problem.
Actually there has always been a shortage of cash among the farmers of western Canada. Until 1930 the farmers there operated largely under a subsistence economy. They did not have much to do with the exchange of money in any shape or form. They were suspicious of banks and the whole monetary scheme of things. I think this fact is dramatically demonstrated in the new forms of political expression which have emerged in western Canada. All of them have had as a basic part of their ideology some emphasis on the suspicious attitude toward the existing financial system. Farmers had got themselves into a situation of debt during the thirties, and that only increased their anxiety.

Grain
More recently because of changing circumstances the farmer has been moving toward a cash economy. Whereas he had been able to get along reasonably successfully on a subsistence basis, living as far as possible from the production of his own farm, today he is dependent upon money whether he likes it or not. He must have ready cash in order to meet current operations of his farming business. This is not a new situation, it is merely something which has come to a head because of the rapidly changing circumstances since the war, particularly in the past three or four years. It seems obvious that the government has failed to appreciate the nature of this problem.
One reason the situation has become critical from the standpoint of the Canadian farmer is the changing agricultural situation in our neighbour to the south. If we fully appreciated the change in the production and marketing of wheat we would readily come to the conclusion that we are faced with more than a temporary financial situation. Statistics are available so that he who runs may read. For example, we see that today the United States is producing annually more than 1,000 million bushels of wheat, whereas before the war it produced on the average some 700 million bushels of wheat. We must appreciate the difficulty facing the Canadian wheat economy because of that changed situation.
The consumption of wheat remains pretty well static. It is a well known fact that the demand for wheat remains practically stationary regardless of the level of production. When there is an increased level of production the demand remains almost static. The total world demand for wheat has grown ?ery slightly in relation to the total increase in world population. Domestic consumption in the United States has remained fairly static; therefore they have had to turn to the export market. Ever since the Canadian west was settled the export market traditionally has been largely taken care of by the wheat producers of the Canadian prairies. During the 10-year period 1930-39 the United States producers exported 59-9 million bushels, whereas for the comparative 10-year period 1946-55 they exported 309-3 million bushels. Such an increase would tend to suggest that somebody is going to suffer in the markets of the world and unfortunately that somebody has been the western Canada wheat producer.
It is equally obvious that the United States is going to remain a sharp competitor of the prairie grain producer, so that the cash shortage referred to as a temporary financial shortage is not going to decrease within the

foreseeable future. Actually Canadian exports have decreased proportionately in the past three years. We maintained our position fairly well up until the end of the war in Korea, but since that time Canada has been occupying a declining position in the export markets of the world. That problem has been intensified by the fact that there has been no real positive action on the part of the government to improve our exports.


An hon. Member:: Time.


An hon. Member:: You made it.


Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members know, according to standing order 28 a member should address himself to the Chair. On reading the record it might appear that that expression was addressed to me, that I should make this announcement at this' time.


An hon. Member:: I withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: I am glad the hon. member does say that. That is why I interrupt hon. members who interject in the second person, whereas they should do so in the third person.


PRIVATE BILLS
Mr. Speaker:: There are several divorce bills. Shall I take them one by one?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes; would you call them one by one?


GEORGE FRANCIS ALFRED YULL
Edward Turney Applewhaite: the second reading of Bill No. 11, for the relief of George Francis Alfred Yuli.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, although this is the 29th day of the session, this is the first opportunity members have had to discuss the divorce bills which are before us, and I should like to say a few words on this particular case.
I would draw attention to the fact that we have only 60 minutes to discuss the 90 cases which are before us, and it would not be possible to give these bills the careful consideration Their Honours the senators did, but I have been interested in noting that several of the new senators have been working most carefully on these assignments, and on this one in particular. I notice that Senator Croll, in the first case that came before him, asked:
Q. Now at this stage you have said that three months after you were married your troubles started?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long did you know your wife before you were married?

There was a real attempt by His Honour the senator to try to find out what had gone wrong in this particular case. Another point I should like to mention is that we still find contradictions in the evidence given by these paid detectives. I would suggest to Their Honours in the other place, and to the committee that will be reviewing these cases, that careful consideration be given to the hired detectives who come here. One of these detectives reported that he and the other gentleman went to a particular place at a very unreasonable hour. One swore that the door was open without any question, and the other swore that before the door was opened the question was asked as to who was there and he replied that the clerk was there. I think it is significant that a detective giving evidence is prepared to admit-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not the Clerk of the house.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: No, not the Clerk of the house. It was the clerk of the hotel in question. It seems strange that a detective who admits having given false evidence is able to give evidence in connection with a case of this sort and it is accepted. Senator Croll, naturally, considering it was his first case, was not quite familiar with the procedure. At page 14 of the evidence he is recorded as saying, after hearing the detective:
All we have at the moment is that two people were found in the room.
Her Honour Senator Hodges came to his assistance by pointing out:
We usually have a description of the room.
That was placed on the record. Senator Croll inquired:
Q. What day of the week was the 17th March?
A. A Thursday, sir.
I do not know what that had to do with it, but that was the evidence. I do not think we should call for a recorded vote on this particular bill, but I did want to make those few comments.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.


JOYCE ETHEL JAQUES HORGAN
William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No. 12, for the relief of Joyce Ethel Jaques Horgan.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: 
Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.


JEAN THOMSON DUQUETTE
William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No. 13, for the relief of Jean Thomson Duquette.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a few words with respect to this bill. I draw attention in particular to the fact that the chairman of the committee, Senator Roebuck, found it necessary to express dissatisfaction on one or two points. In particular he expressed dissatisfaction with the investigator in this case, who is one whose name appears many times in these records of divorce proceedings. On page 10 of the record of this particular case the chairman, Senator Roebuck, said this:
It is not fair to a respondent. We have a lot of these cases like this today, and it is getting worse. There was a time when the pleadings did give some particulars, but now they are coming here with just practically none.
A little later in the handling of the same case, Senator Roebuck as chairman of the committee said this, as recorded on page 12:
As to whether the evidence is sufficient we will discuss that afterwards. I am not satisfied. This is a professional investigator-
His name is Ernest Gordon Etheridge.
-and he did not go as far as he could have gone in giving us the best evidence that was available on that occasion. I say this now because we have heard these cases, and this investigator comes before us frequently. He ought to have gone on and found out from that man

got admissions from him as to who this woman was, and in his presence should have asked the woman who she was.
If my memory serves me correctly, the senators have had occasion to reprimand this same investigator on previous occasions, and here he is again coming before Their Honours with pleadings and with evidence which Senator Roebuck says are not satisfactory. It seems to me that Their Honours deserve credit for trying to get these investigators to take more care with respect to these matters; but it also seems to me, after reading a case like like this, that we in this house simply are not competent to decide whether or not this particular divorce should be granted.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.

Private Bills-Divorce


ROSA STRAUB GEHLSEN
William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No. 14, for the relief of Rosa Straub Gehlsen.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I quite appreciate the points being made by my hon. friends. We have on former occasions, however, asked them to grant us their indulgence by indicating those bills on which they do not intend to speak. If they are prepared to do that' now, we can put them through in one motion and then call the ones on which they intend to speak. I ask that only in the interests of the normal dispatch of business in the house, and not by way of criticism of the action being taken.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I know some of the bills on which I intend to speak, but I do not know what bills my colleagues intend to speak on. I think we might go on and call them in the present way, one at a time.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.


CECILE BEZEAU BARNABE
William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No.
15,	for the relief of Cecile Bezeau Barnabe.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.


DORA GINA COSTELLO DASH
[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. G. Weir (Portage-Neepawa, for Mr. Hunter) moyed the second reading of Bill No.
16,	for the relief of Dora Gina Costello Dash.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a brief word about this case. First of all, since we so often draw attention to the cases in which paid investigators or professional detectives are used as witnesses, I should be fair and point out that in 'this case no detectives or investigators were employed. The witnesses who appeared, on behalf of the plaintiff seemed to be people who had never appeared before in a case such as this. But after reading this case I am also impressed with the tragedy of the

situation. I note in particular that there are two children, one 8 years of age and one 3 years of age.
Having read this case, it does seem to me it is the type of case where some other recourse might have been had, where counselling of some kind might have been effective. Because of that I feel unhappy about parliament granting this divorce in the very easy manner in which it seems to go through, particularly through this House of Commons.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.


FERNAND DESMARAIS
William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No.
17,	for the relief of Fernand Desmarais.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.


ELSIE ABBOTT MARSDEN
William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No.
18,	for the relief of Elsie Abbott Marsden.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.


FREDA ETHELWINNE HENDERS JACOBSON
William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No.
19,	for the relief of Freda Ethelwinne Henders Jacobson.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.


HAZEL LORETTA NOSEWORTHY JOHNSTON
William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No. 20, for the relief of Hazel Loretta Noseworthy Johnston.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, this is a rather unusual bill. In the

Private Bills'-Divorce
petition it is stated that the petitioner resides in the town of North Sydney, but when the case came before the subcommittee on January 17 it appeared that the petitioner resided in Montreal. The evidence does not make it quite clear how it is that in the one place it is stated that she resides in North Sydney and in the other place in Montreal. My learned friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre informs me that while this couple, when they were married and after they were married, resided in North Sydney, because the husband deserted and returned to Montreal his wife automatically became domiciled in the province of Quebec. This unfortunate woman has a tragic story as told in the Senate, and is put to the expense of coming to Ottawa to present her case.
There is another unusual feature in this case. The co-respondent appeared and gave evidence. It is obvious that this family has been broken and of course the customary questions were asked and answered with respect to whether or not there was any collusion. I think this is the first case of this particular type which I happen to have noticed this year, where the co-respondent has come before the committee, admitted the charges and a divorce has been granted.
When this case comes before the house committee I think there should be some discussion with respect to the information given in the petition as to the residence of this woman and the information given in the minutes of the subcommittee of January 14 setting forth that the woman is domiciled in the province of Quebec. The question should be cleared up whether a woman who has always lived in Nova Scotia and is deserted by her husband who goes to the province of Quebec should be put to the expense of coming to Ottawa to seek a divorce.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.


VERONICA IRIS COLLIER HORVATH
William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No. 21, for the relief of Veronica Iris Collier Horvath.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion agreed to?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.


MARIA SOMANO BOVE
William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No. 22, for the relief of Maria Romano Bove.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion agreed to?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.


NORA MARIAN TILLEY MCBAIN
William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No. 23, for the relief of Nora Marian Tilley McBain.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion agreed to?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.


MARGUERITE TREMBLAY NATHAN
William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No. 24, for the relief of Marguerite Tremblay Nathan.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion agreed to?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.


DOLORES MARION ZOLOV KARPMAN
William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No. 25, for the relief of Dolores Marion Zolov Karpman.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion agreed to?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.


ROSALIE ROSETTI ACASON
William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No. 26, for the relief of Rosalie Rosetti Acason.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this is another bill where the principal witness is the co-respondent. Once again, as with some of the others to which I have referred today, having read the bill it seems to me we simply do not know whether or not this is a divorce that should be granted. The more I read bills of this kind, and there are a lot more like them before us today, the more I feel we
1326	HOUSE OF
Private Bills-Divorce simply are not competent'as a group of members, with all the other business we have, to be dealing with cases of this kind.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to hear you say "order", Mr. Speaker. I think the whole business is out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I fully agree with the hon. member. As a matter of fact, I have been looking up some of the authorities and want to submit some observations to him. The hon. member concluded his remarks a moment ago by saying that he does not think members are competent to deal with these matters. No doubt he was referring to a bill he introduced the other day which will eventually come before the house, namely his proposal to refer this whole business, as he calls it, to the exchequer court. That measure will come up and he will have ample opportunity at that time to put forward the suggestion contained in that bill. Therefore the suggestion should not be anticipated in the discussion of this bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With respect, I did not suggest it. You may be reading my mind, but I did not say it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member almost said it without referring to the bill. I have heard him make remarks before with respect to this whole business and he will perhaps permit me to keep in my mind some of the words he does say in the house from time to time.
I want to refer particularly to the procedure that has been followed since five o'clock. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) have spoken to the second reading of some of the divorce bills that have been before the house today. In each of the cases on which they have spoken they have referred to the evidence taken in the Senate. I think they have both referred to members of the Senate who are members of that committee and who acted on it. I have in mind, in looking over these proceedings, that if we are to refer to the actions taken or the opinions expressed by the members of the other house, perhaps we are alluding to proceedings in the other house. That is something which is not allowed in this house. I would refer hon. members to citation 243:
Allusion to debates in the other house are out of order, and there are few orders more important than this for the conduct of debate and for observing courtesy between houses.
There was nothing derogatory in what was said about the members of the other place. As a matter of fact I think it was complimentary. 

Nevertheless I do not believe that in this house we should summarize the work that is being done by one or two individual senators in whatever work they are called upon to perform in the other house. Today, in view of the fact that the comments have not been derogatory, one might say, "Let it go". But tomorrow they may be derogatory and then I would be obliged to stop hon. members from referring to our colleagues in the Senate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will Your Honour permit a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not rise to argue the point just now but would Your Honour regard what goes on in a committee or in a subcommittee of the other place as coming under the same ban that is stipulated in citation 243 which refers to the other house? The documents from which we have been reading are reports of proceedings in committees and subcommittees. They are not reports of what went on in the other house itself.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member could also have asked whether it relates to debates. The citation to which I have referred, namely citation 243, refers to debates whereas the evidence that has been commented upon constitutes the proceedings in a working committee of the Senate.
Citation 243, although it refers only to "allusion to debates" is only one citation that points out the courtesy which must exist between the two houses. Generally speaking, I think there can be found other citations which are to the effect that in our own house in debate we should refrain from referring to individual members of the other place and what they have done, in whatever capacity, as far as their parliamentary work is concerned.
But there is this further point that I should like to submit to hon. members, namely the very nature of a private bill. When the second reading of a private bill has been given, its principle is to be accepted only conditionally. It is accepted conditionally upon the facts being proven before our own committee to which the bill must be referred. By our own standing orders we provide that, with respect to any private bill, the principle of it is accepted upon condition that it will be referred-we have no choice in the matter-to a standing committee where the facts relating to that bill will be proven. If the preamble is not proven, the bill does not go any further. But if it is proven, it comes back here.
I think the discussion of the evidence taken in the Senate is a premature discussion.

Private Bills-Divorce
Furthermore, to expect that hon. members, in debating the second reading of these bills, will make up their minds only upon the evidence taken in the Senate I think is prejudging what their attitude may be after they have looked at that bill in their own committee.
We know what the practice is and what it has been, but I am now talking about the theory of the whole thing. I am not assuming that our committee, let us say, will not meet -to take an absurd case-to consider these things or, even if they did meet, that they would not pass on them quickly because, let us say, they have confidence in what has taken place on the Senate side. At this moment this bill is to be referred to one of our standing committees. If hon. members wish to do so, they can call all the witnesses -including detectives when there were any- take their own evidence and make up their own minds.
Then in committee of the whole they can review the proceedings that have been reported from our standing committee. But at this moment, in discussing the principle of this bill on second reading, to summarize for the benefit of hon. members who perhaps, like myself, have not read the evidence, while at times it is extremely interesting and entertaining, I think it is something that does not meet the conditions that our rules prescribe.
I am not making a ruling today. I just want to submit these points for the consideration of hon. members. There is no question that, according to citations 769, 770 and 771, on second reading the principle of a private bill is accepted only conditionally. I read now from citation 769:
. . . but the expediency of a private bill, being mainly founded upon allegations of fact, which have not yet been proved, the house, in agreeing to its second reading, affirms the principle of the bill, conditionally, and subject to the proof of such allegations before the committee.
The allegations of fact contained in this bill, as far as our own house is concerned, have not been proven. The allegations of fact in the petition have been proved to the satisfaction of the Senate before their committee, and they passed the bill and sent it to this house. But as far as we are concerned, we look at the second reading of this bill only conditionally, notwithstanding what the evidence might have been in the Senate. As far as we are concerned, the facts in connection with this bill have not been proven as far as our own committee is concerned.
Otherwise what would be the reason for sending these bills to our standing committee? You might as well have them dealt with
immediately-I am speaking of the bills to which hon. members have referred tonight- if they opposed them only on the basis of the Senate evidence but did not seek to do anything further in order to defeat them, such as provoking a division or anything like that. What is the purpose of sending them to our own standing committee? Why should they not go from here directly to the committee of the whole and be passed upon immediately? I consider that we are perhaps not adhering to procedure as strictly as we should in considering these private bills.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I say a word, Mr. Speaker, because I agree with Your Honour that perhaps the procedure we follow might be considered carefully. As a matter of fact, when I was thinking of what I would say if Your Honour gave me the floor for a moment, I was going to start off by agreeing with what you had said about second reading of a private bill being different from second reading of a public bill. In support of my agreement with Your Honour I intended to read the very sentence or two that you have just read from citation 769 of Beauchesne's third edition. Perhaps I might read the same sentence or two again:
A public bill being founded on reasons of state policy, the house, in agreeing to its second reading, accepts and affirms those reasons; but the expediency of a private bill, being mainly founded upon allegations of fact, which have not yet been proved, the house, in agreeing to its second reading, affirms the principle of the bill, conditionally, and subject to the proof of such allegations before the committee.
However, Mr. Speaker, as I think you will readily realize, it was my intention not to stop there, as did Your Honour. I intended to go on and read the next sentence or two, which are as follows:
Where, irrespective of such facts, the principle is objectionable, the house will not consent to the second reading; but otherwise, the expediency of the measure is usually left for the consideration of the committee.
This is the first occasion on which the bill is before the house otherwise than pro forma or in connection with the standing orders; and if the bill be opposed, upon its principle, it is the proper time for attempting its defeat.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I contend that if I, as one of the few members who may happen to have read some of these cases, feel that the principle of a particular bill, the principle of granting a particular divorce as between Mr. and Mrs. A., is objectionable and should not be agreed to, I am within my rights and within the rules of the house in speaking to that bill at second reading. Certainly I would be within my rights in attempting its defeat if I felt that such a bill should not be allowed to pass.	:

Private Bills-Divorce
I hope I was not mistaken if I detected in what Your Honour was saying-Your Honour was reading my mind so perhaps I can read Your Honour's-that Your Honour was almost challenging us to divide the house on some of these bills. Well, in the past we have tried and we have found, to our surprise, cases which we thought should be defeated, and knowing the views of many members in this house on divorce we thought would be defeated, which nevertheless were carried. Whether or not we seek to divide the house I suppose depends upon whether we think, having in mind the circumstances of a particular bill, we can win the majority of the members to our view that a particular bill should be defeated.
Nevertheless, because there are some divorces we think should not be granted, we believe we have the right to draw attention to the ones which in our view are slightly objectionable as we go along so that when we get to ones that are really objectionable we will be in a position to give the house an opportunity to divide on them.
As I say, I agree with Your Honour's contention that these bills are different from public bills. But there is a difference within the difference. As I have pointed out by referring to citation 769, where we think there are objections to a particular divorce, it seems to me that we have the right to discuss it on second reading. Nevertheless, I agree that the whole procedure might be reviewed. We would be glad to discuss it privately with Your Honour or in a committee. Indeed, as Your Honour knows, I would be glad to find some way whereby parliament might get rid of the whole business.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry if the hon. member detected in anything I have said a view that he could not discuss this bill on second reading. Of course if he feels the principle is objectionable, he will discuss it, and he should discuss it. Under the rules he will be quite in order. But in discussing the principle of this bill I consider that he does not necessarily have to refer to the evidence which has been taken on the Senate side. That is my point.
Suppose the bill were introduced in this house. When second reading was being considered in the Senate they would have no evidence whatever. They accept the principle conditional upon their committee proving the allegations of fact. We are in the same position here. I think if you take for granted that our objection to the bill should be based on the evidence taken in the other place, you do not attach very much importance to the ability of our own committee to prove the facts themselves.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I point out that in the case of a private bill coming before this house initially, other than a divorce bill, the same general rules apply. We expect the sponsor of such a bill to make an initial statement as to what is involved in that bill. I would be satisfied with the same practice in respect of these bills. If instead of our being given the evidence as a means of finding out something about them, the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Hunter) or the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir) who is sponsoring some of these bills on his behalf, would speak on second reading and tell us why he thinks we should submit this bill to the committee, as is done in the case of private bills, then I would say that would obviate the necessity of our looking at the evidence furnished to us.
I would be interested in what Your Honour has in mind when you say that a reference to the evidence is not necessarily desirable on second reading. I take it there is no question as to our right to refer to it if we wish. My point is that we are accepting this evidence as something that is given to us in lieu of a statement in support of the bill being made by the mover of second reading.


Tom Goode: I wonder if I might make a comment on this. I would support what you have said, Mr. Speaker. I just point out to you that if the evidence is going to be allowed on second reading, and if we consider every bill that has been offered to the house at this time, it would take every hon. member 26J hours to read the evidence. He must be in the same position as my hon. friend to be able to debate a particular bill, and I do not think any hon. member, on this side of the house at least, has 26J hours to spend reading evidence on divorce bills.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to draw to your attention the fact that during the last parliament when a divorce bill was brought before this house, a member on the government side objected to it being proceeded with because members had not received a copy of the evidence. Mr. Speaker upheld that objection at that time because members had not received a copy of the evidence and were therefore not in a position to proceed.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member have the precise date of that incident?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No, I have not, but I know I am speaking correctly.


Mr. Speaker:: I recall one, and in discussing this point with my predecessor he had doubts as to whether or not hon. members would

have the right to hold up a bill which comes up for second reading only on the ground that the evidence had not been received from the Senate. I think in this case one wants to accommodate all hon. members. I do not think I would, myself, care to have to render a judgment on that point, although I think if I were pressed I would do so. The Clerk informs me that the evidence is always received with the bill, so there is one copy of the evidence available. Copies are not always printed and distributed when the bill comes up for second reading.
In these instances today, all the evidence has been printed and distributed. When a bill is called, it is printed. According to our standing order all bills must be printed before second reading. They have been printed and they meet with our requirements; therefore I can put the question whenever they are called. Theoretically I do not believe hon. members may object on the ground that the evidence has not been printed and distributed. The evidence is not part of the bill.
As I say, I raised the point only as a matter of interest and perhaps as a diversion from the rather monotonous task I was performing of proposing one bill after another. Having done so, hon. members may consider what I have said. It is not a ruling, but I thought I would make these remarks in order to give hon. members an opportunity to think them over. Perhaps on some other occasion I may have to rule, but I want to go further into this myself.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am not clear as to whether or not you consider it is permissible to refer to the evidence in connection with these cases. May I say that last year there were four or five cases before us which this house refused to accept on the evidence as it came from the other place; we reversed the decision. If we had not been able to refer to this evidence I am sure we would not have managed to win a favourable vote in the house. We have no other information on which to reach a judgment as to whether second reading should be given or refused, except on the basis of the material which is supplied to all hon. members reviewing the work of the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to make a ruling on this point; I have doubts. If the hon. member wishes to continue quoting from the evidence I will not stop him on this occasion.


Claude Sartoris Richardson: May I ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre a question? I was about to ask him whether he would 67509-85
Private Bills-Divorce
permit me to do so before Your Honour began your observations. Has he, or any other member of his party, including the hon. member for Mackenzie, any other bills of this kind in which either of these hon. members has a particular interest?


George Hugh Castleden: Why?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will that not be found out as we proceed?


Claude Sartoris Richardson: I am only asking the question.


George Hugh Castleden: You have the answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion agreed to?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.


EDMUND JOSEPH COCHRANE
William Gilbert Weir: the	second	reading	of
Bill No. 27, for the relief of Edmund Joseph Cochrane.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.


EDNA HANNAH KEENE NEWBERG
William Gilbert Weir: the	second	reading	of
Bill No. 28, for the relief of Edna Hannah Keene Newberg.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.


CHARLOTTE JEAN MCANDREW BOYD THOMPSON
William Gilbert Weir: the	second	reading	of
Bill No. 29, for the relief of Charlotte Jean McAndrew Boyd Thompson.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.


WILMA JUNE KEAST NOEL
William Gilbert Weir: the	second	reading	of
Bill No. 30, for the relief of Wilma June Keast Noel.
1330	HOUSE OF
Private Bills-Divorce Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.


PATRICIA O'NEILL PRIMIANI
William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No. 31, for the relief of Patricia O'Neill Primiani.	.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.


EVELYN NELLIE KEEMER MEIN
William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No. 32, for the relief of Evelyn Nellie Keemer Mein.


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


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: At this point I should like to give you a rest for a few moments, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: An act for the relief of Mr. Speaker.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Again I would like to pay a compliment to Their Honours who handled this case. The chairman was Senator Ger-shaw and the other members were Senator Cameron and Senator Hawkins. In discussing this particular case the chairman, Senator Gershaw, intimated that he hoped he had the facilities available to try to find out what went wrong in this instance. Here they had a young couple with all the advantages that one could expect to find. There was no shortage of money; they had a good education. The chairman went to a great deal of trouble to find out what really was wrong and whether there would not be some possibility of reconciling the difficulty. Of course, in his capacity as the chairman of the committee he did not have any further responsibility than to recommend whether or not the divorce should be granted. I should like to commend particularly Senator Gershaw for the very sympathetic manner in which this particular case was handled.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.


PIERRE ROGER VUILLE
William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No. 33, for the relief of Pierre Roger Vuille.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.


MARIE GERTRUDE ANTOINETTE HOTTE OUELLETTE
William Gilbert Weir: the second reading of Bill No. 34, for the relief of Marie Gertrude Antoinette Hotte Ouellette.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.


EUPHROSINA KOWALYK WHALLEY
Edward Turney Applewhaite: the second reading of Bill No. 35, for the relief of Euphrosina Kowalyk Whalley.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.


MATILDA STONER ADAMS
Edward Turney Applewhaite: the second reading of the Bill No. 36, for the relief of Matilda Stoner Adams.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.


GERTRUDE BAILISS GOODLIN
Edward Turney Applewhaite: the second reading of Bill No. 37, for the relief of Gertrude Bailiss Goodlin.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the hon. member for Skeena, who has been named as the mover of the motion for second reading of this bill, give any reasons why we should support it on second reading?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I am particularly pleased that an opportunity has been given to me to express the reason. The hon. member for

Winnipeg North Centre will, 1 think, follow my line of reasoning. If he agrees with me that under certain circumstances, regrettable circumstances, in Canada, it is expedient that people be divorced, then he thinks as I. He and I will both have the greatest respect for those who believe that under no circumstances should couples be divorced.
In this case I, as sponsor of the bill, have reason to believe it can be proved that those circumstances justifying the passing of the bill will be proven or can be proven in our committee. They cannot be proven under the rules, I submit, until such time as the bill reaches the committee which has the power to look into those statements of fact. In other words, sir, the principle of the bill which we are now called upon to approve or disapprove is that if certain facts can be proved, then it is expedient that a divorce be granted. The application of that principle to a particular set of facts cannot be discussed by this house at this time because those facts cannot be made available in final form in this house for the house to take action on them until such time as this house has referred a private bill to a committee.
That is the point on which I was greatly tempted to rise to my feet a few moments ago, because I do feel that that is the basic principle in passing private bills on second reading. I do not know the history, but there has grown up in this parliament the practice of considering this class of private bills differently from others.
It was my privilege at one time to be quite vitally concerned with a contested private bill of another nature which started in the Senate and came to this house. It was most noticeable at that time that no evidence given in the committee of the Senate came to this house. Then there were a number of pipe-line bills a few sessions back which originated in the Senate, and no evidence came to this house upon which it could base approval of the motion for second reading. It was only the basic principle; and whether there was sufficient evidence to make that principle applicable could, I submit, be made known to this house only through the miscellaneous private bills committee or some other appropriate committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the statement the hon. member for Skeena has made. The fact is that a number of us, including the hon. member, Your Honour and others, will no doubt have private discussions about this matter because it is quite important. It does seem to me, if I may add this word, that what the hon. member for Skeena has said suggests that second reading in the case of divorce bills means something quite 67509-85J
Private Bills-Divorce
different from the second reading of other private bills, let alone the second reading of public bills. That being the case, it seems to me that the whole question of our procedure on these bills, if we are going to continue to deal with them here, might be reviewed further.
As a member of Your Honour's committee which met for several sessions to deal with the rules and procedures of this house, if I may say so I am pleased with the job we did. Many of the changes we made have already proven to be very valuable and I think we cleared up many ambiguities with respect to the procedures of the house. I suppose this matter of divorce was a bit difficult for us to deal with effectively, but it seems to me that it is one piece of unfinished business, this question of how we should be handling these divorce bills.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.


GASTON MAILLE
Edward Turney Applewhaite: the second reading of Bill No. 42, for the relief of Gaston Maille.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, on page 13 of the evidence in connection with this case will be found some questions and answers which are a bit vague. Apparently the petitioner went to the lawyer and asked for money, and suggested he be paid $5 a week to avoid divorce proceedings. I am sorry Their Honours did not follow that through, but apparently it was dropped at that point. I suggest that when our committee reaches this bill further consideration be given to the information on page 13 of the evidence.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.


DIVORCE BILLS
Mr. Speaker:: Some hon. members have expressed the opinion that we should get rid of all the remaining bills at once in order to save printing costs. Can they be taken up in one motion and disposed of?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed to on division out of respect for Your Honour's voice.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the hon. member's kindness very much.
1332	HOUSE OF
Private Bills-Divorce


SECOND READINGS-SENATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 38, for the relief of Leokadja Laura Rozycka Haber.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 39, for the relief of Teofila Kurjata Marciniak.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 40, for the relief of Shirley Gelber Kaufman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 41, for the relief of Margaret Pounden Greenstien.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Mary Dufresne Cosco.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 44, for the relief of Julienne Mar-chesseault Jasmin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 45, for the relief of Helen Mary Farrell Hickey.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Hazel Mair Grant Mander.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Joseph Roland Gaston Charette.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Beulah Sybil Chapman Maus.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of John Elwood Way.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 50, for the relief of Thomas Charles Desmarais.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of John Caldwell Scriver.

Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 54, for the relief of Marie Therese Provost Lapointe.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 55, for the relief of Margeryann Williams Farrow Chesney.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 56, for the relief of Kathleen Birdie MacPhail Morgan.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Sylvia Colato Le Pottier.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Antonina Dieni Choumanchuk.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Rena Amelia Duncan Chenier.-Mr. Plunter.
Bill No. 60, for the relief of Stanley Edgar Barnes.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 61, for the relief of Molly Joyce LaPlante Baggott.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 62, for the relief of Jean Dorothy McLean Lewis.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 63, for the relief of John Walter Thoburn.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 64, for the relief of Panorea Dela-porta Alivizatos.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 65, for the relief of William James Stoddard Edington.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 67, for the relief of Audrey Hilda Voysey Beaudoin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 68, for the relief of Frederick Howard Blaikie.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 69, for the relief of Muriel Tetreau St. George.-Mr. Hunter.
[Stage Direction]

Bill No. 70, for the relief of Patricia Colleen Hewitt Nelson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Ruth Mildred Thompson McBain.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 72, for the relief of Joseph Theo-phile Lambert.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 73, for the relief of Lillian Baron Goodman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 74, for the relief of Madeleine Erna McArthur Blais.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 75, for the relief of Queenie Molly Wolfson Phillips.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 76, for the relief of Annie May Elizabeth Godson Brooks.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 77, for the relief of Ada June Mannard Wilmoth.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 78, for the relief of Rose Florczyk Greenwood.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Beryl Grace Leaper Shufelt.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 80, for the relief of Ralph Patrick Dowling.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 81, for the relief of Alice Guernon Peladeau.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 85, for the relief of Elizabeth Baird McDowall Whitlock.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 86, for the relief of Adrien Patrick Dicaire.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 87, for the relief of Jessie Altha MacBride Burnside.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 88, for the relief of Marianne Adorjan Balogh.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 89, for the relief of Helene Marguerite Peck Cooper.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 90, for the relief of Una Margaret Prower Douglas Heubach.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 91, for the relief of Hilary Hope-Hawkins Hardie Henders.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Marie Arthemise Marguerite Denise Laperriere Mercier.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 93, for the relief of Harry Hood.- Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Delima Chalifoux Prevost.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 95, for the relief of Frances Raven Sherman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 96, for the relief of Constance Louisa Kelly McKenna.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 97, for the relief of Jean Mailman Greenleaf.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 98, for the relief of Grace Elizabeth Davidson Alexander.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 99, for the relief of Frederick Arthur Waltho.-Mr. Hunter.

Bill No. 100, for the relief of Jean Decary. .-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 101, for the relief of Sylvia Barbara Murphy Simon.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 102, for the relief of Amy Elizabeth Torrance Fraser Walker.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 103, for the relief of Margery Cooper Mason.-Mr. Hunter.
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 104, for the relief of Caroline Scortaru Ungariano, otherwise known as Caroline Scortaru Ungar.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 105, for the relief of John Joseph Rahilly.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 106, for the relief of William Ross Gould.-Mr. Hunter.
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Questions

[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. Diefenbaker: 1.	Who are the members of the directorate of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation referred to by the minister in the House of Commons on February 7?
2.	How often does the said directorate meet?
3.	What are its duties?
Answer by: Mr. McCann:
On February 1, the hon. member for Eglin-ton asked if there is a directorate in the C.B.C. which concerns itself with whether a program will or will not go on the air. It was thought at the time that the reference was to one of the regular divisions or departments of the C.B.C. The reference and this inquiry is now understood to relate to some presumed special directorate or body that decides whether programs do or do not go on the air.
The C.B.C. advises that there is no such special body which considers and decides whether programs should or should not be
broadcast. The C.B.C. as a corporate entity has full and independent responsibility for all program decisions which are taken through the usual administrative process of chains of responsibility.


BALL POINT WRITING INSTRUMENTS
Miss Ailken: With reference to tender No. 24-20577, ball point writing instruments, (a) how many tenders were received; (b) what firms submitted tenders; (c) what price was quoted in each tender; (d) which tender was accepted?
Answer by: Mr. Pinard:
(a)	Four.
(b)	Scripto of Canada Ltd., 184 Bay St., Toronto, Ont.; Venus Pencil Co. Ltd., 1325 The Queensway, Toronto 14, Ont.; Northern Products Ltd., 1090 Laurier St., Montreal 23, P.Q.; Truform Industries Ltd., 50 Main St. South, Weston, Ont.
(c)	Scripto of Canada Ltd., $37,403.90; Venus Pencil Co. Ltd., $18,241.52 ($18,613.80 less 2 per cent-10 days); Northern Products Ltd., $18,200.16; Truform Industries Ltd., $17,869.25.
(d)	That of Venus Pencil Co. Ltd. (found best suited for purpose by independent laboratory tests).

Monday, February 20, 1956